What Louis Michael Seidman Made Me Think About

Robert S. Griffin

An opinion piece in the December 30th New York Times by Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law, caught my eye.  Seidman, or the Times’ headline writer, entitled it “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution. This quote will convey a sense of its direction: 

As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken.  But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions. . . . Imagine that after careful study a government official—say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress—reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country.  Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, who knew nothing of our present situation, and who acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action.  Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

I don’t know anything about Seidman and don’t presume to understand precisely what motivated him to offer this argument—his ideological leanings, his scholarly influences and directions, his experiences in his university environment, his ethnic identification and loyalties, his personal story, some combination of those things, or something else—and I’m really not interested in getting into that or the specifics of the position he articulates here, Or not much anyway.  Rather, I want to deal with three things his Times piece prompted me to think about within the frame of reference of this web site: a concern for the status and fate of White people of European heritage.  More particularly, I focus on American White non-Jews.  Reading what Seidman proposes reminded me of three tactics people and organizations that do not mean well by American Whites employ to bring them down: denigrate the White American heritage; democratize America; and collectivize America.  My comments on each in turn: 

Denigrate the White American heritage

Those harboring anti-gentilism (if there can be anti-Semitism there can be anti-gentilism) never let the chance slip by to disparage White traditions and personages.  Whether or not Seidman is anti-gentile to any extent, it is certainly the case that when disparaging the Founders he felt pressed to bring race into it: these creators of evil Constitutional provisions were White, he tells us.  Smearing Whites is so ubiquitous I doubt that most readers consciously noticed that reference.  Discrediting what Whites have established and those prominently associated with it clears the way for putting in place ideas, arrangements, and people that serve non-White interests at the expense of White interests.  Cutting off Whites’ positive connection with their past increases the chances that they will acquiesce to their own demise and even contribute to it.  


Democratize America.
The U.S. Constitution is the basis of the political system in this country: a federal constitutional republic.  We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands.   The American republican political arrangement is grounded in prescribed and limited governmental – or collective – prerogatives, and individual liberty and personal responsibility. 

While democracy has become an unquestioned article of faith in our time, this has not always been the case.  Major figures in the first century of this country’s existence were not as sanguineous about democracy’s merits: 

  • James Madison noted that democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths (See Robert Westbrook, “Public Schooling and American Democracy,” in Roger Soder, editor, Democracy, Education, and the Schools [Jossey-Bass, 1996], p. 128).        ·Alexander Hamilton noted that democracy’s “very character is tyranny; its figure deformity.  It releases the mob, which is not only incapable of deliberation but prepared for every enormity (Westbrook, Ibid.)
  • Writer James Fennimore Cooper saw democracies as tending “to press against their proper limits, to convert political equality into economic leveling, to insist that equal opportunity become mediocrity, and to invade every personal right and privacy; they set themselves above the law; they substitute mass opinion for justice” (See Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind, seventh revised edition [Regnery, 1986], p. 200).
  • French observer Alexis de Toqueville in the 1830s perceived democracy as perverting society into “a sea of anonymous beings, social droplets deprived of true purpose” (Kirk, Ibid., p. 212).  He pointed out that democracy promotes antipathy toward eccentricity or any other manifestation of defiant individuality.  “Democracy,” he wrote, “encourages a taste for physical gratification; this taste, if it becomes excessive, soon disposes men to believe that all is matter only; materialism, in its turn, hurries them on with mad impatience for its presumed delights; such is the fatal circle within which democratic nations are driven round” (Kirk, Ibid., p. 155).

            The sell in our time is to associate democracy with freedom, but it is the freedom of the collective, the majority, to do whatever it wants, no holds barred, nothing out of bounds; it disempowers the individual, who does what the group says, and with reference to just about anything.  

Why would those who want to diminish and depose Whites see it to their advantage to democratize America?  For one thing, Whites are rapidly on their way to minority status in America, and having unfettered majority rule in place takes advantage of that demographic reality. 

Also, the adversaries of Whites control and dominate the major avenues of public discourse in this country—the mass media in all its manifestations and the schools and universities: they are the ones that depict and give meaning to reality, both past and present, and prescribe proper ways to think and act in both private and public realms. If you can shape the minds and hearts of the populace, you can trust that the majority of them will do things your way.  So bring on a system that gives the masses free rein to do what they want, because you know what it is going to be.  The Constitution gets in the way of that; so play it down, get rid of it, give up on it, that’s your pitch.  Democracy is your ticket to ride.   

Collectivize America.
Whites historically have been predisposed toward individualism, and American Whites are no exception to that predilection.  That’s bad news to those who would like to put American Whites in their rightful place, standing quietly in the back of the line.  To get at why that might be, let’s imagine typical White people from times past, say from the beginnings of this country up to World War II, who viewed themselves in the first instance as individuals, and who, when they looked out at the world, saw separate and distinct individual human beings one by one.  What was likely to follow from that posture?

  • They would perceive people as being different from one another, not alike, including qualitatively different, and they would notice that this applies to groups as well.
  • They would feel an affinity for, and commitment to, their family, their local community, their church, their ethnicity. And yes, their race. They would be White men and women and proud of it.  Individualism and racial consciousness are complementary phenomena, not contradictory as many suppose.  American Whites were more, not less, racial, as it were, in this country’s more individualistic past than in our time.
  • They would demand to live their lives as they saw fit among others of their kind. 
  • They would resist being told what to think and what to do or having their lives managed by strangers in general and the government in particular.  Fast talkers and finger pointers wouldn’t faze them.
  • They wouldn’t kowtow to anybody, allow themselves to be put down by anybody, or take crap from anybody.  If you mess with them, you’d have a big problem.

When I think of White Americans in the distant past, that’s the image that comes to mind, and I like it.  In contrast, when those that resent, or want to bring down, hurt, or supplant, White people conjure up this image they very much don’t like it and think something must be done about it.  If you fall into that camp, what might you do?

  • Get White people to substitute your favored abstractions for being disposed toward concrete reality and the inferences and actions drawn from it.  Condition Whites to perceive reality through the lens of what you say is going on and ought to go on—through your concepts, your explanations, your preferences. If you are good enough at it, for White people (or enough of them anyway) what used to be a world of qualitative differences will become one of essential commonality and equality.  In a word, they will become egalitarians, with the result that they won’t think so highly of themselves and their ways and feel that they have anything important to preserve and protect.
  • Eradicate individualism among White people: associate it with selfishness, exploitation, ignorance, backwardness, separation from others, and immorality.  Disparage freedom, autonomy, honor, dignity, integrity, self-determination, and personal responsibility as values and operating principles.  That clears the way to . . .
  • Engage in a massive thought reform effort to re-make Whites into collectivists, into group-oriented beings, with you defining the salient and preferred collectivities, including, prominently, class, gender, and the community of humankind or some such term; this rather than family, neighborhood, and people that look and act like them, which makes them too private, parochial, and obstinate for what you’ve got going.  Substitute the ideals of social (collective) justice and manipulated (collective) equality for inalienable individual rights and personal liberty. (I have written a short version and a long version of how this process works in universities: Totalism and Thought Reform in America’s Universities [2011], available on my website, www.robertsgriffin.com). The Declaration of Independence?  The Bill of Rights?  Just more archaic outcomes of the machinations of propertied White men who acted illegally and have been dead for two centuries. 
  • Secularize White people—jerk the foundation of their religion, Christianity, out from under them, debunk it, ridicule it, demonize it, ban it from the public arena.  De-Christianize America.  That’ll leave Whites on shakier ground and make them less organized and less formidable and easier for you to manipulate.
  • Disabuse Whites of their positive and strident racial identity. Teach them that being White is something to feel guilty about and atone for.  Shame on White people (gentile is tacitly understood)—slave owners, Nazis, Indian killers, sexists, homophobes, authoritarians, bigots, oppressors, the cancer of human history, etc., etc. Ram it home, especially to their children.   Whites better not get caught, or catch themselves, feeling good about their race or thinking it is one tick better than any other race—that is ignorant, malevolent, even evil, and deserves punishment. White racial identity, interests, commitment, solidarity, leadership, organization, and collective action?  Absolutely not.  That’s for other races, not White people. Pound that into their heads with the public discourse you dominate.
  • Inculcate the idea that Whites are wrong-headed and shabby, and really missing something wonderful, wonderful, if they don’t want to live their lives nestled among people altogether different from them, including those who would jump for joy if every last White person fell into a ravine.  Diversity is a label you can tack on to this revealed Truth, cherished ideal, and moral imperative you push on Whites (but often avoid in your own life). Diversity has a nice ring to it.  Don’t bring up the idea of cultural integrity and preservation; there is no such thing, at least for White people.  Whites need to have embedded in their brains that they have no business whatsoever clustering up with their own.  Freedom of association?  Yet another regrettable element of America’s White heritage. 
  • Condition Whites to defer to their betters, that is to say, experts and sages like you and the government that implements your wisdom, which includes acquiescing to, and even working for, racial discrimination against them in school admissions, employment, and the awarding of contracts, and to having the money they’ve earned confiscated and given to people they don’t know.  A big part of that is playing up democracy, which opens up everything to collective control (which means your control, because you control the collective).  
  • Soften White people up. Take the edge off of them.  Make them safe and innocuous.  Turn White badasses into pleasant pushovers. A particularly good way to domesticate and emasculate White people is to get them to think they have to be OK with you and to prostrate themselves before you and plead their cases that they aren’t racists, anti-Semites, and haters—the sins of all sins, you’ve established that—even though they know, as you have well taught them, that that is precisely what they are — the bad boys and girls.

Much more to be said, but the basic idea is to transform Whites from eagle-eyed, tough-minded, independent, proud individualists with a strong and prideful sense of who they are and where they came from into nice, adrift, heads-in-the-clouds, self-deprecating, weak-kneed herd animals, with you driving this motley, tail-wagging conglomerate to the slaughterhouse.  What should encourage and inspire you is that persistent and patient efforts in these directions by your kind over the past half-century have been remarkably effective—so just keep it going.   

Robert S. Griffin is a university professor who has written frequently about race from a White perspective.  His writings on a variety of topics can be found at his web site, www.robertsgriffin.com.

  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

65 Comments to "What Louis Michael Seidman Made Me Think About"

  1. January 20, 2013 - 12:34 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:
    Actually Alice, you have a sock puppet.

    This is an explanation of your Congress:

  2. Dr. Faust's Gravatar Dr. Faust
    January 19, 2013 - 8:52 pm | Permalink

    There is a very interesting film from 1940 Germany that depicts Jewish political/legal subversion. It is called “Jew Suss.” Well worth watching; the link is below.


  3. Jim's Gravatar Jim
    January 18, 2013 - 12:12 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Pierre (both for the clarification and the thoughtful responses.)

  4. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    January 17, 2013 - 3:49 am | Permalink

    @Jim: I regret to say that in my earlier comment I misquoted Homer Lea (1876–1912). He referred to “the divine right of majorities,” not democracies, as “that illegitimate offspring of the divine right of kings.”

    Still, it’s close.

  5. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    January 17, 2013 - 12:51 am | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon: So true about the “former”(as I see it) Catholic institutions of higher learning. You cleared it up for those that are still on the Catholics for supposedly being the “root of all evil”‘ in the U.S. Truth be told, the Catholics in this country, are gentle insignificant teddy bears, that run hospitals and charities. The Protestants and Episcopals, who claim to be the ones that created this nation, are now bascially known for their utter unconcernedness and neglect of almost everything important that goes on in this country. Yes, I know I will tick off a ton of people saying this, and I apologize to those that are the exception, but most aren’t. PERIOD.

  6. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    January 16, 2013 - 11:22 pm | Permalink

    @Bobby: He really is impervious to truth and facts, isn’t he? Still, standling idly by while he lies through his teeth just doesn’t feel right. So good for you for speaking up!

    It’s almost funny that Tom would call Georgetown Law a prestigious Catholic law school. He knows as well as I do that Georgetown hasn’t been Catholic almost as long as Yale and Harvard haven’t been Protestant. The Jesuits own the joint—Georgetown’s a cash cow for them—and although their description of the place rambles on and on about “Ignatian” principles and formation, nowhere is there a plain statement of religious affiliation. There’s a simple reason for that incidentally: it’s because the school hasn’t had official Catholic affiliation for many decades; besides, Saint Ignatius of Loyola would have disowned the entire faculty long before the actual break.

    That “Ignatian” rap is meant only to inveigle well-off but naive Catholic parents to send their kids there—where they will promptly lose whatever remnants of the Faith they have, along with several hundred grand of their parents’ savings. Yet it might not be all bad; the kids might get to see Obama speak—if, that is, they consent to remove any symbol of Christianity from their person and the premises, first and foremost the crucifix. I wouldn’t be surprised if Tom applauded Obama for insisting on that and the G’town administration for instantly caving.

  7. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    January 16, 2013 - 9:50 pm | Permalink

    @Biff Preston: Yeah, the “old broad”, is another example of whites in power that are corrosive, corrupt traitors. This woman stated that”WE,” “NEED” at least another twenty five years of anti-white affirmative action, AND THEN IT MIGHT NOT BE ENOUGH. We might need it forever she contended. NOW, do some of the whimpier whites that might be reading this “learned” opinion by a white woman, STILL NOT GET IT?!!!!!!!!!

  8. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 16, 2013 - 7:59 pm | Permalink

    We have a benevolent dictator here in the states. Trust me, it ain’t as good as I sounds.

    Elites may always serve their own interests, but if the are related to and have a shared sense of destiny with the people it makes a big difference.

  9. Biff Preston's Gravatar Biff Preston
    January 16, 2013 - 7:36 pm | Permalink

    Excellent article and analysis Robert. I read Professor Seidman’s article two weeks ago and one of his arguments against the constitution is his belief that the constitution was written by a “different people”. I wonder, with regards to all of the media guilt conditioning and propaganda that non-jewish and non-hispanic whites of European ancestry endure on a regular basis over issues like slavery and the indians, if Professor Seidman believes that modern European whites shouldn’t feel guilt due to the fact that they are a different people than the ones who committed the supposed atrocities. I think I know the answer to that question.

    Professor Seidman did raise an interesting point. If the constitution suddenly became obsolete in the eyes of the American public, the Supreme Court would have to justify its existence and its “police powers” over the other branches of the government. That is of course setting aside the strings that some of the justices have attached to them despite all the rhetoric about being independent and tenured. I think back to Sandra Day O’Conner, that honest old lass, who was or still is a member of the CFR, you know that policy making mega think tank that is collectively in favor of just about everything that I am against, from more diversity and affirmative action to global warming treaties, free trade and carbon taxes not to mention more wars to promote “democracy”. I wasn’t surprised at all at O’Conners support of affirmative action and “diversity” in the big affirmative action cases back in 2000, once I did a little background research on the old broad and saw a number of groups and other affiliations that she was associated with, such as the CFR (council on foreign relations).

  10. January 16, 2013 - 6:29 pm | Permalink

    There is no perfect system. By definition, a republic is run by elites. Elites will only look after their own collective interest.

    As for democracies, direct democracies, such as Switzerland seem to have been fairly successful in stopping the waves of foreigners invading their countries.
    Countries following the British model are quasi democratic, where, often, less than 40% of the electorate can dictate the government. Proportional representation rarely provides an opportunity for extreme shifts in policy. Countries, such as France, that have run-off elections have a 2nd chance to prevent extreme shifts in policy.

    A benevolent dictator is the best hope.

  11. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    January 16, 2013 - 5:20 pm | Permalink

    @Tom: Here’s something interesting Tom. From ABC News, Evangelicals mobilize 100,000 churches to ask Christians across the country to engage in 40 days of praying and reading scriptures related to “immigrants” and “immigration”(translation: ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION) what the groups dub the “I was a stranger” “challenge”. Yeah, Tom 100,000 good “Evangelicals” for illegal immigration. But then, you might not be bothered by this massive lawlessness as some Americans are.

  12. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    January 16, 2013 - 3:31 am | Permalink

    @Jim: Apropos democracy once again, as Alice Teller suggested in her comment to you, it is less democracy than republicanism that was successful (well, more or less) on these shores post-1776. The wider the franchise spread, the lower the quality of governance sank. As Henry Adams ruefully remarked in the Education, to speak of the “progress” from President Washington to President Grant was to reduce the term to nonsense.

    One of the craziest and yet most interesting figures in American political and military thought was a man called Homer Lea. He once referred to “the divine right of democracies” as “the illegitimate offspring of the divine right of kings.” Those are certainly the terms in which democracy is invariably spoken of by our hostile elite—and thus is it any wonder that all democracies end up, just as America’s has, as an electoral fiction, where the putative rulers have effectively no power at all save to cast their vote for the shills chosen by their masters?

    The choice of systems of governance today boils down to a choice between a dry-eyed acceptance of one’s relative powerlessness in a world where money and force are the only true arbiters (now that religion is either moribund or contentedly locked away in chains of gold and silver) and the self-deceiving conviction, one that most of our fellow citizens have, that no matter how oppressive the state becomes, they themselves are its masters rather than its slaves.

  13. European's Gravatar European
    January 16, 2013 - 2:51 am | Permalink


    Bobby, you are right, I do not count on Americans as a whole either, though maybe some individuals, and then only with a grain of salt, for they may have been haevily indoctrinated or fallen ill on a more subtle level too. You do have a dis-ease here in the US, but Germans have one too since their occupation by Americans Soldiers (and their fascination of an image that is a lie) since WWII, and their influence on our culture for decades they’ve left behind. We have become sick too. Now it is a matter who is closer to their death-bed. Europe or the US. Sometimes I read these comments and I do not understand the American Mind. You do have an individual choice ….don’t drink or buy what ails you, use restraint in excesses the US has to offer and is full of. I tell my son, you are free to create your life and free to destroy it, so choose your path wisely.
    Sometimes this blog sounds like my tummy hurts, but it does not want to hear or engage in any conduct or thinking of a remedy. Has the bulk or the masses, including the academics resigned, and leaves the fate of this country to every single individual….dog eat dog.? American Psychology is full of BS too, and what they feed those who come for their help, or assign them to pills or self-help books is so messed up. The US is a basket-case. I know the truth hurts, it hurts me too. Peace Man!

  14. celtthedog's Gravatar celtthedog
    January 15, 2013 - 8:29 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:
    Apologies for a late reply to your thoughtful response. Like you I’m a fan of the late Sam Francis. I should indeed have put ethnic core in the past tense…

  15. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 15, 2013 - 5:26 pm | Permalink

    @Jim: I suspect that the disagreement on democracy is more a matter of word choice than true differences. We have always been a republic as you say representative democracy. True democracy really cannot work well on more than a local level.

    I entirely agree that our path forward can and must be on our own terms. It did not work out well for the Nazi’s.

  16. Jim's Gravatar Jim
    January 15, 2013 - 4:36 pm | Permalink

    @Mary Thomas:
    “Nazism was NOT the end conclusion of white racial pride. Nazism is the mirror image of Judaism, and the idea was to fight fire with fire to stop the Bolsheviks from taking Germany after killing every Christian they could find in Russia.”

    I’ve never suggested otherwise. Reread my post for clarification. I’m saying that the notion that white pride creates Nazis involves very flawed logic.

    “A perfect analysis, Mary. One needs to study the tactics of the enemy, and if they have a tactic that works, copy it and use it against them.”

    Except that it didn’t work that well for the Nazis.

    “Every significant political thinker and philosopher from Plato to Tocqueville (probably most since then, too) viewed democracy with contempt, dismay, and frequently fear. The presumption, the starting point, ought to be that all of these guys being crazy is highly unlikely.”

    Pierre, you’re right. I’m just not sure such insights are equally applicable to every political situation. Yes, democracy has been a disaster in South Africa, but it wasn’t a disaster for the majority population in America from Jackson to Polk.

    Democracy is flawed in many ways, but so are a lot of other things in our lives that we wouldn’t get rid of because the alternatives are too problematic. I’m just wondering how a growing secessionist movement in the US can be nurtured and convinced to continue when (representative) democracy isn’t part of the end result.

  17. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    January 15, 2013 - 1:28 pm | Permalink

    @Hans: It’s certainly one of the problems, Hans; a very big one.

    Partly from exposure to Mel Bradley’s books, partly from reading George Mason and other very smart Antifederalists, I concluded fifteen years or so ago that we Americans would be much better off had the Articles of Confederation never been flushed away by the attendees at the 1787 Philadelphia Convention. Yet it’s also plain as day that were the Constitution today read and acted upon with even the same care (already somewhat watered-down) that obtained during the 1850s, when seemingly almost everyone in the country except Franklin Pierce (the mainstream historians’ single most vilified president before Nixon) was clamoring for war between the North and the South, this country would seem like a paradise and would truly be the envy and idol of all the world’s people—save for the Jews and those equally bloody-minded, of course.

  18. Luke's Gravatar Luke
    January 15, 2013 - 10:13 am | Permalink

    @Mary Thomas: A perfect analysis, Mary. One needs to study the tactics of the enemy, and if they have a tactic that works, copy it and use it against them.

    I have lost track of the number of conversations I’ve had with reasonably jew-wise and awake Whites who just cannot seem to wrap their brains around this simple concept. We are down 45-0 with 5 minutes left in the game, and these nitwits insist on sticking with the same tactics and game-plan that has allowed our hind parts to be stomped in the dirt.

    • January 15, 2013 - 12:58 pm | Permalink

      My email box may never recover,” Seidman told the blog. “I would say a large percentage of them are seriously abusive. Quite a few are anti-Semitic. Some are actual threats.”

      More Culturally Marxist Advocacy
      Constitutional Law
      ABA Journal
      Law Prof Who Urged Abandoning the Constitution Gets Abusive and Threatening Emails

      Posted Jan 3, 2013 7:10 AM CST
      By Debra Cassens

      The op-ed by Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman was provocative and, apparently, anger-inducing.

      Writing in the Sunday New York Times, Seidman said it was time to abandon the U.S. Constitution and its “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.”

      “As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is.” he wrote. Imagine the president or Congress decides on a course of action. “Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: A group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?”

      The op-ed, written in advance of Seidman’s new book, On Constitutional Disobedience, brought more than 700 emails in Seidman’s in box, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog (sub. req.) reports. “My email box may never recover,” Seidman told the blog. “I would say a large percentage of them are seriously abusive. Quite a few are anti-Semitic. Some are actual threats.”

      One email, for example, contained only a subject line reading: “I know where you live … see ya.”

      Seidman, who teaches constitutional law, had argued in his op-ed that some constitutional commands should continue to be followed “out of respect, not obligation,” including separation of powers, freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property. And some matters should remain settled, such as the length of the president’s term or the division of Congress into two houses, he said.

      In this Constitution-free world, the president would have to justify military action with more than a reference to his powers as commander and chief, he asserted. Congress may continue to hold the purse strings, but that power should be based on policy. And “the Supreme Court could stop pretending that its decisions protecting same-sex intimacy or limiting affirmative action were rooted in constitutional text,” Seidman wrote.

      Why not amend rather than abandon the Constitution? Seidman rejected the idea in his interview with the Wall Street Journal Law Blog. The process

  19. Luke's Gravatar Luke
    January 15, 2013 - 10:06 am | Permalink

    @Mary Thomas: I am greatly confused about something Griffin said in this article.

    The source of my confusion involves his discussion of ‘individualism’ and ‘collectivism’. For as far back as I can recall, Hollywood has consistently churned out movies and TV programs which are clearly and without question being targeted at White audiences, White males in particular – and the characters in these movies are openly designed to project and promote the attitude of ‘individualism’.

    White male loners, actors like John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Steve McQueen, Burt Reynolds, Sean Connery, Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc., are always cast in roles where the characters they play are single men, without wives or families in their lives and these characters are always shown to be living lives of exhilarating, and often dangerous, action-packed adventure and filled with thrilling, masculine oriented excitement.

    Clearly, this is how the jews in Hollywood are programming young White men to believe that getting married and having children is a sure-fire path to boredom and drudgery, and thus to be happy, they should avoid marriage and live the more exciting life of a playboy and life-time bachelor. Notice how, in these Hollywood movies – the single guy always has access to plenty of eager and highly attractive females?

    An equivalent and complimentary toxic potion of ‘feminism’ and party-girlogy has been promoted by the jews in Hollywood and directed at White females, in order to program them to see themselves as rootless ‘individuals’ and to also see marriage and child rearing as a sure-fire path to terminal boredom and drudgery. Feminism is also used to program these White females to believe that careers were more important than marriage or having any cute little white babies.

    So, here is where I have some uncertainty with Griffin’s assertion that our mortal enemies are trying to change our people to be collectivists, when all of the evidence clearly shows that they are doing the exact opposite.

    “Eradicate individualism among White people: associate it with selfishness, exploitation, ignorance, backwardness, separation from others, and immorality.”

    Selfish individualism is a huge part of the problem that White European people have today; it is the engine that drives the freight train of White race treason and without it, jews would not have legions of our fellow Whites and our White elites actively selling out their own race by helping the advance the jewish white genocide agenda. Why on Earth would jews want to eradicate selfish individualism among White people – when they’ve gotten so much productive mileage out of this characteristic?

    “Engage in a massive thought reform effort to re-make Whites into collectivists, into group-oriented beings, with you defining the salient and preferred collectivities, including, prominently, class, gender, and the community of humankind or some such term;”

    This passage is a little easier to digest, but only due to the insinuation that the enemy is attempting to define the preferred collectivities and keep them confined within a narrow spectrum that continues to promote their anti-white, white-genocide agenda. An example of this might be enlisting White self-hating liberals to work to advance the ethnic specific interests of every race except their own. Encouraging cross-group altruism, i.e., competitive altruism visi vi movies like the Blind Side, etc.

    So, to conclude – I agree with many of the points in this article, but have some problems with some of Griffin’s assertions. Whites are facing an enemy who thinks, behaves, and does battle from a highly collectivist, in-group racially cohesive orientation. In order to fight and defeat an enemy who uses these tactics – Whites must also adopt racially-specific collectivist tactics and in-group loyalty and solidarity. This ‘Lone Ranger’, rugged individualist poison that Hollywood’s jews have been promoting to our men and women is a recipe for our ultimate defeat and we must stop following a playbook and game plan that our enemy has written for us.

  20. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 15, 2013 - 8:46 am | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon:
    you are certainly correct that the Constitution has been abused and twisted far too often in our history. I certainly agree that the Talmudic approach has been disastrous. Had this been the focus of the article it would have left it open to precisely the Talmudic nonsense which is so often used to muddy the waters. The author of the Times piece, himself, goes back to George Washington to provide examples when it was ignored.

    Despite all of the abuses, the Constitution is still respected by most white Americans. The open call for trashing it as something which is holding us all back is an eye opener which I plan to share widely.

    We at TOO are constantly in danger of falling into the trap of arguments which have no resonance with the vast majority of our own people. Right now, millions of Americans, who would never dream of reading a law article are clear on one thing – we have a right to bear arms and that right is being challenged. Exposing the attitude of those who are instructing our children, not to mention teaching Constitutional Law, has great power.

  21. Hans's Gravatar Hans
    January 15, 2013 - 2:24 am | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon: Mirroring my thoughts exactly, Pierre. The problem is that the Constitution hasn’t been followed.

  22. Mary Thomas's Gravatar Mary Thomas
    January 15, 2013 - 1:07 am | Permalink

    Nazism was NOT the end conclusion of white racial pride. Nazism is the mirror image of Judaism, and the idea was to fight fire with fire to stop the Bolsheviks from taking Germany after killing every Christian they could find in Russia.

  23. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    January 15, 2013 - 12:20 am | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon: All the protestants ruined all the white nations they founded, however. Smack her one on the cheek for me to.

  24. Thomas Katt's Gravatar Thomas Katt
    January 15, 2013 - 12:20 am | Permalink

    @JPLex: There is not a single paper in the US that is honest WRT race and the JQ. Not one.

  25. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    January 15, 2013 - 12:13 am | Permalink

    @TabuLa Raza: You break my heart. Kiss dixie for me.

  26. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    January 14, 2013 - 11:59 pm | Permalink

    for dixie-

    Readying Ourselves for the Near Future Means DUMPING Conservatism
    Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 1/11/2013

    Saving our race requires a radical solution only because, from the beginning, anti-whites demanded that whites be allowed no escape. This needs to be understood clearly.

    With the constant agenda of racial mixing, constant government action and Thought Policing to make sure not one single white can escape the program, the only solution to the White Problem is the disappearance of whites.

    All that the Traditional Values crowd wants is that the white race disappear by weddings. And our unthinking response has been to ALLY with them, to PIGGY BACK with them.

    Suicide by assimilation has been official Catholic policy for centuries. That is the reason that not one Catholic country has ever founded a white country.

    It took four hundred years for someone to point this out.

    As genetic engineering expands the mere wish to save our race will make it possible. But traditional values types are fanatically against ay such alternative. They have made it bluntly clear that they value ceremonies ONLY.

    With the center collapsing, we need to make it clear that we are a new generation. We are simply pro-white, not pro-right.

    No more piggy backing. In this new world, even the Conservative Thought Police are beginning to partially to admit that “This has nothing to do with race” is imbecilic. That is a major step forward.

    “Demography is Destiny” is a major step forward.

    This is developing naturally and steadily, simply because the pretence by which paycheck conservatism has been able to use pro-whites is simply collapsing. At long, long last, racial issues are becoming too clearly racial for this fatal pretense by which the South put aside all its concern for racial survival, and by which South Africans VOTED for their present situation.


  27. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    January 14, 2013 - 11:53 pm | Permalink

    I ain’t talking to you.

  28. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    January 14, 2013 - 11:50 pm | Permalink

    @TabuLa Raza: And your point is …?

  29. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    January 14, 2013 - 11:43 pm | Permalink

    Sobran went to his grave an anarchist.

  30. Sandman's Gravatar Sandman
    January 14, 2013 - 11:05 pm | Permalink

    @George: The MSM always precedes any reference to the book with: “the highy anti-semetic forgery.” Where’s the proof that it’s a forgery? I never saw any. But it’s a great read for people who have that sick feeling in the stomach that they’re being fed a giant pack of lies. Many have said that it pulls everything together for them….You’re right about the deep programming. First people need to clear the hurdle of knowing something is terribly wrong and who’s generally at the scene of each disaster.

  31. bannister's Gravatar bannister
    January 14, 2013 - 11:00 pm | Permalink

    @unadorned: Good ideas, you are right that any successful political movement must include music, fun and physical demonstration. Keep posting.

  32. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    January 14, 2013 - 9:02 pm | Permalink

    I do not share the widespread view that this article is wonderful; I’d call it OK. Professor Griffin ought to have attacked Seidman’s major premise instead of being misled by his typically Tribal sleight of hand. Seidman knows perfectly well that “almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution” is as false a statement as can be. There has been widespread heed paid to the Constitution by no one in government since Wilson’s presidency and by few since Lincoln’s.

    When Joseph Sobran spoke the words “the Constitution poses no threat to our current form of government” (I was present when he spoke them once), they got a laugh, but it was the laughter of bitter recognition. Yet even last night on C-SPAN, one could listen to bureaucrats and pundits and military men (not all of them Jewish, alas) talking, without choking on the hypocrisy of their words, about the constitutionality of perpetual imprisonment without charge or indictment at Guantanamo Bay. And who hasn’t had the experience of turning on the tube only to see Chuck “where’s the microphone” Schumer proposing yet another law to imprison people whom he and his fellow Tribesmen have declared guilty of wanting to be left bloody well alone? How is anything Schumer has ever said or done to be construed as constitutional? How many of his colleagues merit less obloquy? What kind of document can function as the basis of law when scores of lawyers scramble to twist and distort the sense of its every preposition and conjunction?

    Seidman knows that the title Sobran gave to a chapbook he wrote, Anything Called a “Program” Is Unconstitutional, reflects the plain truth of the matter. Why doesn’t Professor Griffin realize it, too?

  33. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    January 14, 2013 - 8:36 pm | Permalink

    @Jim: Every significant political thinker and philosopher from Plato to Tocqueville (probably most since then, too) viewed democracy with contempt, dismay, and frequently fear. The presumption, the starting point, ought to be that all of these guys being crazy is highly unlikely.

  34. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    January 14, 2013 - 8:08 pm | Permalink

    Actually democracy has always been a terrible concept as the Founders recognized in the Constitution and The Federalist Papers. It is unlimited mob rule which always leads to a tyranny.
    That’s why the Founders set up a Constitutional Republic modeled on the original Roman Republic which the Romans set up to avoid the tragedy of Athenian democracy which destroyed Ancient Greece.
    Our problems began permanently with Wilson’s direct election of Senators which destroyed the balance in the federal system. He also started the Fed, the Income Tax,
    numerous regulatory agencies and got us in an unnecessary world war. FDR just enlarged on Wilson’s program so our problem goes back a century.
    Seidman is the end result of democracy.

  35. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 14, 2013 - 7:27 pm | Permalink

    Here is a you tube piece on the situation which has infected all institutions. Good for a giggle.

  36. Jim's Gravatar Jim
    January 14, 2013 - 7:09 pm | Permalink

    Robert Griffin has written a respectable article. I enjoyed it’s thoughtful and refreshing style. I find it somewhat troubling, however, that so many Occidental Observer articles promote the notion that democracy stinks.

    To assert that today’s mass manipulation of a decadent and buffoonish populace is the logical conclusion of democracy is using the same sort of logic that leads liberals to believe that Nazism is the logical conclusion of white racial pride. Any good and noble ideal can be corrupted – Christianity, ethnic loyalty, patriotism or democracy. Democracy – or the movement towards democracy – served the United States very well for many generations up until 50 years ago. As Frank Salter states in TOO’s current featured video, it was elitist notions that ran contrary to democratic ideals that created the problems we face today (Immigration legislation in ’65, for example). Democracy in a racially and culturally homogeneous society has usually proven to be a good thing.

  37. George's Gravatar George
    January 14, 2013 - 6:55 pm | Permalink


    “Are there any quality newspapers that are not stained?”
    -without any uncertainty, none. Unless you are simply looking for accurate auto-accident reports or the weather. Political info is too often doctored, as is history.
    “Second, if they ARE all stained, then why follow them? ”
    – Most of us do not bother to read newspapers any longer for just the reasons that you cited. Most of my friends and acquaintances get their information from the internet. Independent accounts of major events sometimes “leak” onto sites like YouTube (think: Hurricane Katrina and the actual black-on-white crime wave going on their at that time).
    Newspapers are indeed dying, but not solely because of the convenience of electronic media. For now, it is possible to select sources and subject matter from “the menu” rather than have some Jewish newspaper executive decide what you can read for you.

  38. George's Gravatar George
    January 14, 2013 - 6:43 pm | Permalink

    Forgive the typo that preceded “Sandman” in my post above.

  39. Felix's Gravatar Felix
    January 14, 2013 - 6:41 pm | Permalink

    We know who the creatures are who who are always declaring that America is a propositional nation and we know why they are saying it.

    They should remember their history. Blowback has always rightfully come for them. It will, thank heaven, come again.

  40. George's Gravatar George
    January 14, 2013 - 6:38 pm | Permalink

    But I sus@Sandman:

    “This explanation reminds me of the Protocols which is totally rational to me. If a group has heavy influence in publishing, media, education and pop culture, this approach would be devastatingly effective. ”

    – Yes, it has always seemed so to me as well, but in keeping with the theme of this article, I wonder how many of the people who read/post to this site have actually read the Protocols from start to finish or… have not “bothered” to read it because the MSM has told them that it is a “forgery”? In other words, has the social/psychological programming that the average white and even the average WN has received made them incapable of reading this document due to fear of being ostracized?

  41. January 14, 2013 - 5:36 pm | Permalink

    Undisputable. And clear. Commented, quoted, and linked here:

  42. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    January 14, 2013 - 4:07 pm | Permalink

    @Gerd Reinhard: Gerd, don’t count too much on Americans. Afterall, we are the folks that find everyone in the world naive, stupid, misdirected, and plain wrongheaded. So when the French have a policy we don’t like, in some nation we are involved in, what we do then is pour French wine into the sewers and sidewalks. If Germany expresses some independent initiative we don’t agree with, then we revert to calling them Nazi’s, and simply show more holocaust movies on channels like PBS, or even travel channels. If Arab nations that any Americans used to be able to travel to in peace, fifty years ago, and even be welcomed, decide to disagree with us on what we do in their nations, then of course they are terrorists and “hate us for our freedoms”, etc. You see we have this disease of not being able to see clearly, that other people valute freedom as much as we do,etc. PEACE, MAN.

  43. January 14, 2013 - 3:54 pm | Permalink

    robert griffin missed the point. Jewish libertarians are indoctrinating whites with radical individualism, not collectivism.

    collectivism is being encouraged only for blacks, browns, asians, jews who are aggressively expanding their wealth, power, territory and fertility at the expense of whites.

    white collectivism is healthy and group protective. constitution is flawed. the founders left too many holes in constitution. all men are created equal. this is total lie. birthright citizenship. the puritan cuckoldry for jews and israel. disgusting.

    I dont believe griffin understands the jewish strategy.

  44. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 14, 2013 - 1:23 pm | Permalink

    Wonderful piece, the most succinct account of the problems we face I have ever read. Thank you.

    I urge all parents planning to send their children and tuition dollars to college to read and discuss the long form linked above with your children. Forewarned is forearmed.

  45. Gerd Reinhard's Gravatar Gerd Reinhard
    January 14, 2013 - 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Thank You Mr. Griffin
    This is a great explanation how they social fine- tuning works.
    We have a nice saying in Germany Gefahr erkannt-Gefahr gebannt, my simple translation, menace identified- menace eliminated. But this time it is your obligation my friends overseas.I hope you will manage this task.

  46. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    January 14, 2013 - 12:35 pm | Permalink


    America is no more a “proposition nation” than Britain (which also has a bunch of “sacred” political documents including Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights). Jefferson may have written that all men are equal in the Declaration of Independence but his own writings demonstrate that he didn’t believe that to be true of non-whites (the historian the late Mel Bradford was the expert on this). The US has — or perhaps “had” is a more accurate term — an ethnic core, the same as any other functioning nation state.
    The term “proposition nation” was coined by (mostly) Jewish academics in the early twentieth century to subvert the historical reality behind both the foundation and development of the United States.

    It did have had a functioning ethnic core, and I think Constitutionalism belonged to that category of things Kevin MacDonald categorizes as “implied whiteness”. It hasn’t really functioned except in a pathological manner for a long time, serving mainly as a principle to divide the American hard right, when any nationalist ideas had to be passed through the prism of constitutionalist purity. Sometimes the Ron Paulists stood in this vein.

    It’s never really held water anyway,

    The old Constitution, in other words, died because hardly anyone in the United States really wanted it to survive, and those who did were often not very serious about it and eventually became powerless to keep it alive. Today it no longer matters how cleverly we refute the unitary interpretation or articulate the compact theory, because the document to which they pertain is effectively defunct, and its death is obvious not only in the triumph of the civil rights movement but also in the victory of every constitutional fantasy concocted by the Supreme Court.

    Paleo-conservatives today, who are virtually defined by their adherence to the Old Republic that the original and real Constitution established, therefore need to make a decision. The appeals they make to the old Constitution have now become not only politically and juridically irrelevant but also have acquired the stale and arid odor of antiquarianism. The cause of paleo-conservatism and of the Old Republic is no longer well served by regurgitation of archaic constitutional niceties and invocations to constitutionalist idols. The decision paleo-conservatives need to make is whether simply to abandon appeals to constitutionalism at all and make use of alternative modes of argumentation for what appeals to constitutionality have traditionally tried to defend, or whether, acknowledging the death of the old Constitution, they should begin working for a new constitutional structure that seeks to replicate as many of the positive attributes of the old Constitution as possible, including its guarantees of federalism and local autonomy. Which ever course they choose will be no less radical and revolutionary than the course that led to the destruction of the old Constitution

    Samuel Francis: The Constitution, R.I.P.
    (http://web.archive.org/web/20040723153946/www.samfrancis.net/pdf/all2000.pdf )

  47. The Goy Chevalier's Gravatar The Goy Chevalier
    January 14, 2013 - 11:40 am | Permalink

    “All the news that’s fit for Jews.”

  48. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    January 14, 2013 - 11:39 am | Permalink

    Please note, that the anti-White Jewish professor is given a national pulpit by the most prestigious of Roman Catholic Law Schools—Georgetown!

  49. celtthedog's Gravatar celtthedog
    January 14, 2013 - 10:45 am | Permalink

    @Dan: America is no more a “proposition nation” than Britain (which also has a bunch of “sacred” political documents including Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights). Jefferson may have written that all men are equal in the Declaration of Independence but his own writings demonstrate that he didn’t believe that to be true of non-whites (the historian the late Mel Bradford was the expert on this). The US has — or perhaps “had” is a more accurate term — an ethnic core, the same as any other functioning nation state.
    The term “proposition nation” was coined by (mostly) Jewish academics in the early twentieth century to subvert the historical reality behind both the foundation and development of the United States.
    As for Abe Lincoln, his idea of racial freedom meant freeing America of black people. It’s now been established that right up until his death he wanted to deport all black people out of the United States (which puts a very different interpretation on his idea of what constituted “emancipation”).
    There’s a lot you can criticize Lincoln for, but not that he wanted whites dispossessed in their own country.

  50. dixie's Gravatar dixie
    January 14, 2013 - 9:43 am | Permalink

    @ Dan
    America is a proposition nation.”

    WHY WOULD YOU EVEN SAY THAT? The constitution this person is going on about says very clearly in the Preamble: this is FOR US AND OUR POSTERITY.

    Nor are “all whites” individualist—Lmao! The europeans have been drowning in Welfare-Warfare Centralist Oligarchic Serfdom since the dawn of time. Wake up!

    The U.S. was a deal FOR A PEOPLE.

    The “melting pot” MEME dumped on them was to try to integrate European Serfs (who were accustomed to being controlled and who VOTED IN to bring other slaves to the country –open borders acts of Philip Hart, Kennedys, Cellar, etc.—and who VOTED IN (against the will of the Children of the Founders) to change the demographics to serf-slave populations, and to create policies FAVORABLE to increasing the recent-ex-slave populations.

    The constitution was a DOCUMENT FOR A PEOPLE. Not some “proposition”

    But because Europeans were not a part of it, and yet wanted “in on the action,” they had to pretend parts of the constitution DID NOT EXIST.

    Their “way into” the constitution is about transforming it into “Doctrine” or “Dogma” (just like it’s catholic church rules) SO THAT, therefore, they can “claim” to be a part of it.

    Why someone like a Sean Hannity can talk about “Our Founders” when he is completely different from them, different ethnically, different in his trajectory to the country, in his narrative, in his historical ideas, in his enemies and biases, etc, etc.

    They are not really “his” founders. He is not related to them.

    But MILLIONS still live in the u.s. WHO ARE.

    THIS is something the others wish to sweep under the rug… because they want to RUN the Welfare-Warfare statist centralist thing they turned it into (and COLLECT the taxes and live off them, b/c all they ever looked up to was Tax Collectors—how they GET money in Europe.)

    Europe had very little to do with what many Generational Americans (millions have families here from the 1600s— they really do!)— were attempting.

    Millions have been in country since the 1600s—- and DEFINITELY (AS IS CLEAR FROM THEIR LAWS)— were A PEOPLE not a “proposition nation.”

    Hungry, lying Europeans followed the colonists and Re-interpreted the constitution in the way you are pandering. Stop it!

  51. unadorned's Gravatar unadorned
    January 14, 2013 - 9:15 am | Permalink

    I think I commented on TOO once. The reason I’m not a regular is because most of the commenters think like I do.
    There doesn’t seem to be much point in having my views verified. I post on pseudo-conservatives sites. Many White males on these sites know intuitively that they are being harmed by the left. However, they will cling to their indoctrinations when it comes to immigration, race, Jews, etc.
    I have noticed in the past few years many of them are waking up. I hope I’ve done my small part.

    I just read on “NewsMax” that Rubio has completed a comprehensive immigration bill, i.e., a bill to allow his brothers to further invade our country.

    We need to organize. Form some sort of Nationalist Party.
    The Tea-Party has never been attractive to me; all they care about is their pocket-books. It seems that every issue with them is fiscal.

    We need to march on Washington, write songs about White Brotherhood to the tune of “Where have all the Flowers gone,” or something. I recently watched “Alice’s Restaurant” and was struck by the methods of the destructive hippy movement. We need to turn it around—start a movement.

  52. JP's Gravatar JP
    January 14, 2013 - 7:55 am | Permalink

    This is the latest talking point for those who are trying to destroy our country, the founding fathers were slave owners and evil, blah blah. I don’t want to live in the same country with them anymore. We are occupied from the inside.

    Thank you for bringing this anti-American anti-white scum to task. He needs to go find his homeland where they don’t have an “evil” Constitution.

  53. JPLex's Gravatar JPLex
    January 14, 2013 - 2:08 am | Permalink

    Innocent question:

    Are there any quality newspapers that are not stained?

    Second, if they ARE all stained, then why follow them? In that case, please inform your people (at least those that bother to think) about a relaible source.

    Admittedly, difficult to find, nowadays. All British papers, except maybe, New Statesman, totally stained. BBC – gone.

    AlJazeera, clean, reliable. Unbelievable, but there we are.

    Swiss papers, mostly OK. Scandinavian, many OK. Many lost forever. German papers are quality, but under strict surveillance, cannot be relied on matters concerning Jews.

    Russian mostly good, but you never know, as the ways of the Jews are mysterious and go deeper than one ever can imagine.

    But tell me, can I get reliable info from USA? Anywhere?

  54. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    January 14, 2013 - 1:12 am | Permalink

    Seidman qoutes are the same leftist crap I’ve read and heard for fifty years…..Slave owners, propertied white men, two hundred years old and irrelevant,etc.etc. Yet, he knows he has nothing better to replace the Constitution with.
    I read scholarly writings by leftists, some thirty or more years ago, in which they swore that the independent man, can no longer succeed in modern society the way he could in the past. Yet, thirty years,etc. later, along came Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, and thousands of new success stories involving the vision of independent men.

  55. Floda's Gravatar Floda
    January 14, 2013 - 12:49 am | Permalink

    I continue to find it amazing to see how many writers can see what is going on with the absolute clarity as does Mr Griffin here, and yet the vast majority appear clueless.

    The NYT like the rest of the Newspapers in the World will close one day, and not that far off. Here in OZ, the owners of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne ‘AGE’ are underwater to about $3 Billion Aussie Dollars which in these Bernanke days are worth $1.05 USD a piece. The only National Paper we have is Murdoch’s ‘Australian’ which hardly anyone reads.

    I make this point because it is so obvious that after the coming uprising in America and its eventual breakup mainly along racial lines, that Jews cannot under any circumstances be permitted to own any part of the media and the means of mass entertainment in any essentially White society which emerges.

    Hitler said of democracy: “A system where the votes of two imbeciles are more than that of one wise man’

  56. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    January 13, 2013 - 11:58 pm | Permalink

    Jews have been quite willing to attempt to use the Constitution to advance causes they favor, including unpopular ones.

  57. January 13, 2013 - 11:43 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for bringing to our attention the truly horrible stuff the New York Times is publishing these days. This definitely should be brought to the attention of tea party people, though no need to dwell on the race part.

  58. fender's Gravatar fender
    January 13, 2013 - 11:41 pm | Permalink

    Jew: give up your two-centuries-old Constitution.
    American: sure, just as soon as you give up your two-millennia-old Talmud.

  59. Sandman's Gravatar Sandman
    January 13, 2013 - 10:12 pm | Permalink

    This explanation reminds me of the Protocols which is totally rational to me. If a group has heavy influence in publishing, media, education and pop culture, this approach would be devastatingly effective. So I guess the enemy will sell non-Whites on the idea that everything those “racist old White men in powdered wigs did needs to be blotted out.” I think they already have the plurality they need to make that happen. If not, they’ll just bring in more illegals to close the deal.

  60. Mary Thomas's Gravatar Mary Thomas
    January 13, 2013 - 9:00 pm | Permalink

    What great essay. I thought KM wrote it. Stunning truth in every single paragraph. He knows the enemy well and sees their tactics very clearly.

  61. Dan's Gravatar Dan
    January 13, 2013 - 8:57 pm | Permalink

    America is a proposition nation.

    It was bound to come to this. Blacks gamed the system into its oblivion. Jews helped to ugly process to deracination. A clique of shortsighted men around Lincoln (including Lincoln) were also part of this disaster. To some extent the Revolution contained the seeds of this racial destruction within its DNA. All Men Are Created Equal after all.

  62. Tim's Gravatar Tim
    January 13, 2013 - 8:36 pm | Permalink

    Thank you. Took many of the words right out of my mouth.

  63. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    January 13, 2013 - 7:20 pm | Permalink

    Great article, so true it’s frightening. For those with time on their hands,Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

  64. European's Gravatar European
    January 13, 2013 - 7:13 pm | Permalink

    But deep down some of us should know that we don’t have to buy into this indoctrination, or new religion of our haters.
    “Know thyself”, there is no way in hell, as a white person, gentile or otherwise, I am this sort of a creature, but it” IS” this creature, my adversary, who wishes to reduce me by their actions and agendas to be just like them. It realy comes down to know thyself. “The shoe does not fit”. White is beautiful!

Comments are closed.