Student Life and the Alt-Right: Reply to Prof. Griffin
As a relatively new movement—some 10 years old now—the alt-right, like any such movement, must be open to continual refinement and articulation. Thus it is both to be expected, and welcome, that we get a range of opinions from diverse perspectives. People have different experiences and different knowledge bases, and they naturally approach such a topic from different angles. This is especially true here, given that we are dealing with a serious and potent social theory, one that furthermore comes into direct conflict with the prevailing power structures in the West. In such a case, we need to hear the pros and cons of our various ideas, especially from thoughtful and knowledgeable colleagues.
Thus I was pleased to read Dr. Robert Griffin’s critical reply (here) to my recent piece, “The ABC’s of the Alt-Right” (here). He shares a common background with me, and has a similar interest in campus life in particular—as do many contributors here, not the least, Prof. MacDonald. I can’t match Dr. Griffin’s 47 years of teaching, but I have been teaching at universities on and off (mostly on) since the early 1980s, which gives me well over 30 years’ experience. I have taught at three different American universities, and one foreign, in that time. Perhaps more to the point, throughout much of that period I have been actively involved with student groups and student activists, often serving as an official or unofficial faculty advisor; this experience helped to inform my previous essay. Though he does not say so explicitly, I get the impression that Dr. Griffin has perhaps less direct experience in working with student groups. Be that as it may, I will take a look at his many helpful remarks, to see if I can offer a response or rebuttal. After all, we share many of the same goals, and so it is certainly worthwhile to examine our different thoughts on how to arrive at them.
To begin with, Dr. Griffin jumps directly to my final section, “How to Organize.” I take this to mean that he is in broad agreement with the first two sections. My initial “Preamble” laid out some history and context of the dissident right, and identified the three pillars of alt-right philosophy: 1) biology is destiny, 2) Whites and White culture deserve defense, and 3) Jews pose an overriding threat to White interests. My short middle section offered a “brief manifesto” of White nationalism, summarizing its nine key points, and emphasizing the scientific, non-violent, and ‘non-hatred’ nature of such a view. The three pillars seem to be widely recognized, whereas the nine points of White nationalism are my interpretation of this worldview. Given that he offers no comment at all on these issues, I have to assume that Griffin accepts the general outline that I presented. This is unsurprising; as an alt-right forum advocating for White interests, any TOO contributor should naturally endorse such an outlook, broadly speaking.
The disagreements come in my final section, where I offer thoughts on how to promote and advance an alt-right view on college campuses. It goes without saying that there is no one “right way” to do this, and the wide variability in campus cultures, student bodies, local social attitudes, and individual student beliefs necessarily requires much flexibility in how to implement such a program. My original essay was, indeed, a “guide” in every sense of the word: guidelines and recommendations, thought-starters and practical advice. It was never intended to lay down the law on student alt-right activism.
In that section, I gave 31 bullet-point items of brief discussion. Griffin offers critical commentary on 13 of these; hence I presume that he has little or no objection to the remaining 18 (it’s always good to note points of agreement). Thus we will focus on the points of contention.
(1) Students have more power than they think. Griffin emphasizes the difference between individual and collective power. Yes, of course, any one student has only a microscopic impact on university finances, as does any one taxpayer with respect to his state or federal government. My main point was that students are, in large part, funders of the university; they (or yes, their parents) are the paying customers; and as such, they have all the rights of any paying customer. They have the right to be treated fairly and with respect. They have the right to complain. They have the right to point out abuses or incompetence on the part of their “employees.” And they have no particular obligation to their fellow paying customers, provided that they follow the broad rules of behavior that apply equally to all. That said, I see no real point of disagreement here. Yes, it’s more complicated than taking your money elsewhere, but the principle is the same. You pay (a lot!), and you have rights. Don’t let your “employees” tell you otherwise.
(2) Stay within the rules of the university, and they can’t punish you. Here, we begin to get into more substantive disagreements. Dr. Griffin seems inordinately sensitive to negative opinions of others. Or at least, he is imputing such sensitivity to many (most?) students. I guess it goes without saying that if you are a sensitive flower, don’t become an alt-right activist. Anyone bothered by “verbal disconfirmation,” “looks of disdain,” or not being called on in class is probably too immature to engage in contentious politics. Same with anyone affected by “put-downs, smirks, snubs, exclusion” or social media bashing. The movement needs young people with a thick skin and a strong backbone.
And I don’t know how things work at Vermont, but in my experience, a professor cannot simply dish out “bad grades” to students he doesn’t like. Sure, some things are subjective, but much is not. A biased professor is likely to get called out and have to explain himself. I have had many students whom I found distasteful, but I always gave them fair grades and never considered using grades as a weapon. Any such individual professor who might do that can usually be safely avoided.
Or is Griffin implying that masses of faculty—all Jewish professors, say, or all liberals—would recognize and collectively retaliate against a specific student? That’s highly unlikely, in my experience. But if the whole college is indeed out to get you, then you really are making a mark!
(3) Create an explicitly alt-right student group or club. Though I wouldn’t call it “centrist,” I agree that a pro-White movement is not intrinsically left or right on the political spectrum. As I noted, many liberals hold some conservative views, and many conservatives (even alt-righters) have some traditionally liberal opinions. If it’s true that many academics avoid self-labeling these days as liberal or left, that doesn’t mean that they are centrists; rather, they are crypto-leftists, which is worse. Griffin seems to want students to be crypto-rightists. In fact, he says as much later on, with his recommendation to be like the French underground in WW2, and his call for “secret meetings,” “pseudonyms,” “codes,” and so on. Certainly this is always an option, but it probably is not the preferred approach. Alt-right (or dissident right) students should be free—are free—to self-identify as such. And without penalty. That should not require defense in an alt-right forum like TOO, but apparently it does.
(4) Don’t make it a guy’s club. Dr. Griffin suggests that my brief manifesto would alienate young women. Sorry about that, but that’s the reality of the situation. I’m not generally in the business of reworking my philosophical views to please a particular gender or age-group. I try to tell the truth, straight-up, and I would hope that every thinking person, of all ages and both genders, would accept it as such. MLK’s ideas and values are not much help for us; nor are the Jewish-inspired techniques of emotional manipulation and pity-mongering. But here again, Griffin’s sensitivity training comes to the fore; his endorsement of “tugging at our heartstrings,” “making us feel sad,” and “getting us to emphasize” (sic erat scriptum—I presume he means ‘empathize’) are to no avail for the alt-right. But I agree with his other points here: yes, be patient about getting out your message; yes, focus on that which is unfair and hurtful to Whites.
(5) Stay agnostic on religion. Now we’re getting down to brass tacks. Based on a quick survey of his writing, I’m guessing that Griffin is a committed Christian. Unsurprisingly, he objects to my sidelining, and mild disparagement, of his religion. One might speculate that this, in fact, is at the root of his entire critique of my essay. This is unfortunate—but serves to prove my point.
I’ll say more about Christianity in a moment, but first I want to address two points he raises here. He suggests that the anti-Christian crowd is also the anti-White crowd, thereby implying that we Whites can’t trust—and certainly shouldn’t side with—any anti-Christians. The truth is this: Part of the anti-Christian crowd are Jews, of both orthodox and secular persuasion. There’s a lot to unpack here, but in short, the orthodox Jews oppose Christians on a theological basis, and the secular Jews on the basis of scientific materialism and rationalism. Both mock Christianity, but both are able to find some use in it as well, especially in its Zionist form. The other main group of anti-Christians are the secular, rationalist, and naturalistic Whites. These people, I would suggest, are among the toughest and most resolute White nationalists. Griffin’s ploy to link ‘anti-Christian’ and ‘anti-White’ fails to hold.
His second point is that alt-right students should use Christianity to their advantage. But he offers no concrete suggestions at all (Hey students, “see what you can come up with”). What, indeed, could one even plausibly “come up with,” in an alt-right sense, from a Christian point of view?
Given that it’s Christmas time, let’s take a minute to examine this matter a bit more closely. Consider this question: What in God’s name (so to speak) is even remotely pro-White about the Bible? I’ll tell you: nothing. The Old Testament was written by Jews, about Jews, and for Jews. It is resolutely anti-goyim. It is nothing more than a war manual for the defense of the Jewish race, along with some moronic theological cover. The New Testament was also written by and about Jews: Jesus, Mary, Joseph, 12 Apostles, Paul, ‘Mark,’ ‘Luke,’ ‘Matthew,’ ‘John’—all ethnic Jews. The chronology of events, furthermore, strongly suggests that Paul invented his demi-god Jesus, primarily, it seems, as a stunt to undermine Roman paganism and to draw in the gullible masses, to persuade them to worship the Jewish God and his “son.” With its emphasis on the presumed afterlife, Paul’s constructed theology was profoundly anti-life, anti-world, and anti-corporeality. He never believed in it—that artful liar—nor did any of his fellow Hebrews. Present-day Jews are laughing up their sleeve over the foolish Christians and their “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek”; and of course, they are right there, first in line, ready to exploit that love.
There is no sense, then, in which the Bible is pro-White. In fact, the New Testament, rightly understood as an anti-Roman manifesto, is profoundly anti-White. At best, we might say that the Bible is pro-humanity. But even here, it is cloaked with an insidious Jewish leveling of all peoples, all “equal before God”—all except the Jews, who are first among equals.
The bottom line: Can anyone who worships a long-dead ethnic Jew as his god and personal savior really be alt-right? Really? Time to re-read pillar number three.
(6) Name names, be specific in your critiques. Again, I don’t know the faculty culture at Vermont, but to suggest that aggrieved Jewish professors might have you “worked over” because of your alt-right views is rather shocking! (If so, stay away from Vermont.) And are they really going to haunt you after graduation? How in the world will they know which jobs you are applying for, unless they work for the Mossad? This comes across as little more than scare tactics—ones that the Jewish Lobby would certainly view with favor.
(7) Insults are a badge of honor. See my reply to (2) above. Again, if you are a delicate soul, one who is deeply wounded by name-calling, then by all means, don’t become an alt-right activist.
(8) Learn something about the real Nazis. Griffin overstates my point. I never said, “Cozy up to Hitler.” I said, learn something about him, his situation, and his movement. There is much of value to learn from history.
(9) Be visible. For starters, I am puzzled by my alleged “last sentence” of this item (“And be prepared to take shots for it”). Where did that come from? I didn’t write it, and it’s not in my essay now. In any case, yes, I agree, intentional visibility is optional. Word will get around soon enough, no matter what you do. Griffin, though, recommends the opposite—be invisible. Perhaps this is good advice. I leave it to each student, and each group, to chose the most appropriate strategy. I would prefer to see a confident group working fully above-board, but that may not always be prudent.
(10) An effective group may get shut down. Same reply as #9.
(11) Don’t get stuck on ideological labels. Griffin seems to generally agree with me here, and so no need to reply. Labels are vague and discretionary.
(12) Don’t be ‘woke.’ Griffin apparently views Black culture, and in fact all racial minorities, favorably. Of course, every ethnicity has a right to its own culture and values—but not here, not in this country. I certainly want Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims and so on to be happy, but in their nations of origin. Neither they nor we can be truly happy in a multiracial, multicultural mish-mash of a nation. Research data, evolutionary theory, and common sense all support this view.
(13) Speak the truth. …unless it starts to hurt, says Griffin, and then knuckle under. Just stay quiet, keep your head down, hold it in, “get along – go along,” grin and bear it, “cover your ass.” Or maybe, “Turn the other cheek,” as a Jew once said. Sorry, but I can’t do that. Millions do it, on a daily basis, but some of us have to lead. My original piece was not intended for the masses; it was meant for those few who are the future leaders of their generation. A medium-sized college campus may only have five or 10 such individuals. We need to reach them, and help them become strong, confident leaders.
In sum, Griffin offers as much commentary and elaboration as real criticism of my essay. In contrast to my piece, his scattered suggestions seem to boil down to (a) stay low key, (b) welcome and even use Christianity, and (c) don’t ruffle too many feathers, either with Jews or other minorities. So be it. Perhaps some will follow his advice, and others will take the more assertive approach that I recommend. God knows (so to speak), we need all the help we can get.
Thomas Dalton, PhD, is the author of Debating the Holocaust (2015), Hitler on the Jews (2019), Goebbels on the Jews (2019), and numerous other books on Jews, Germany, and the Holocaust. See his website www.thomasdaltonphd.com
 For sake of brevity, I am summarizing the 13 points from my original wording.
 It’s clear that simply being a Christian does not exclude one from being anti-Jewish—Martin Luther being a prime example. See my newly edited version of his important book, On the Jews and Their Lies (Creative Fire Press, 2020). Obviously there is more to be said on the relationship between Christianity and the alt-right. If the TOO editor is willing, I would be more than happy to elaborate.
It is possible to interpret Dr. Griffin’s remark about Christianity as pertaining to its utility rather than its truth. As an example, witness Nick Fuentes and the groypers’ use of it. I agree, however, that Christianity is extraneous to an alt-right point of view.
Universities can (in terms of power, not necessarily constitutionality) indeed punish students for their speech. Witness the recent expulsion of students in Oklahoma for posting “It’s OK To Be White” posters.
But somebody’s got to do something. . . . “If we do nothing,” as Jared Taylor says, we face oblivion. I think the best advice is, “Fight smart.”
I enjoyed and learned much from both articles.
The split between Christian and anti-Christian alt-right seems unnecessary and myopic. The left is increasingly indifferent to the ‘class struggle’ and increasingly passionate to bust every moral teaching and social norm of traditional, Christian American society. It is largely driven by hatred of Christianity and Christians. I can sympathize with rationalist skepticism of religion but it’s beside the point. Alt Righters mostly oppose feminism, gay lib, and modern hedonistic decadence. The ones who don’t are mostly ‘geeks.’ That puts the alt right in alignment with the Christians against the enemies of the Christians.
Moreover, there are far more Christians than atheist white nats, and the Christians have more social acceptability. One can imagine a neo-reactionary Christian politician but not an explicitly white nationalist politician. An explicit Christian (or Muslim) can almost get away with talking back to Jews. Imagine that. The rationalist, IQ obsessed white nationalist road only leads to ostracism and political eunuchry. To defeat the left we need a coalition strategy.
Again, Dr. Dalton has a hard time staying “agnostic on religion” — his own rule to follow…
Good rebuttals, but, again, I think Dr. Griffin’s primary emphasis is on operating carefully within existing realities. The analogies to the French Underground in World War Two are entirely appropriate. The truth is, with adequate discretion we can still be active and effective without ending up penalized or decapitated by the opposition, and the threat of those things, for anyone paying attention, is entirely real.
When you need to, hunker down. When you can take measured risks, take them. I was active in the immigration restrictionist movement for decades. I felt I had a moral duty to do what I could to get the floodgates closed to preserve what was left of my country and culture. At some point in my career, I believe the big shots in my place of employment became aware of my hobby. When that happened, all promotions immediately and quietly stopped. They were not interested in wrestling with me about the promotions, they just made sure no additional career advancement occurred. There was no substantive proof of this penalization, so there was no legal recourse. Someone had made a gentlemen’s agreement, somewhere.
This is the real world, the world we live in; no one comes after you with a machete, but they find other ways to deal with you. False courage is foolhardy; millions in graves can testify to that truism. Yes, fight. Fight in the open to the extent you’re able to do so. And fight in the cellars if your welfare makes it necessary.
Regarding the ethnicity of the authors of the Gospels, it is unknown, as is their identity. The message Jesus promulgated, or has been assumed to. is indeed against the biological family. He promises undeliverable rewards to those who abandon their families in Mark 10, and informs those who don’t hate their families in preference to him of their unworthiness in Luke 14:26.
Given that it is Christmas time, let’s take a minute to examine this matter a bit more closely…
Dr. Dalton’s Christmas message could have been written by a devout Cosmotheist, or by Dr. William Pierce, founder of Cosmotheism, himself. What he writes doesn’t strike me as alt-right at all, considering how alt-righters stay away for the most part from criticizing Christianity.
Dr. Griffin wrote the only authorized biography of Dr. Pierce and did a creditable job: https://cosmotheistchurch.org/product/the-fame-of-a-dead-mans-deeds-an-up-close-portrait-of-white-nationalist-william-pierce-by-robert-s-griffin/ After first reading his own biography Pierce said he had to flinch at some parts and blush at others. It’s a good read, no adulatory hagiography. Dalton guesses that Griffin is a committed Christian. I don’t know, but when it comes to the chapter in _Fame_ on Cosmotheism, here: https://nationalvanguard.org/2013/07/discovering-cosmotheism/ that chapter might well have been better demystified by Dr. Dalton than by Dr. Griffin.
Rather than get caught up in traditional celebration of Christmas this season, alt-righters should seriously give heed and ample consideration to Dr. Dalton’s guidance, then explore some of the sources explaining the race-centered Cosmotheist belief system below the above-cited article by Dr. Griffin.
“The bottom line: Can anyone who worships a long-dead ethnic Jew as his god and personal savior really be alt-right? Really?”
How “ethnically” Jewish in fact was Jesus? Only half at most, as Hitler (once) thought, following Haeckel? How much would he have had in common with Bronstein, Einstein, Weinstein, Epstein or Silverstein? The NT says he was descended from Judah, but the original David was fair-haired and partly of Hittite origin, i.e. Indo-European in language if not physiognomy.
Of course, Christians think that their god isn’t dead, but is alive in heaven, listening to their every prayer and carol, and waiting for them to join them in eternal bliss, whatever that will be. Our chief problem with Christians today is that they are either liberal internationalists wallowing in “race, gender, class” guilt, or cosmopolitan multiculturalists who think other faiths are as good as the one that held Europe, its greatest architecture and music, in its grip for centuries and sustained the piety of farmstead and charity of hospitals, or pseudo-Zionists who ignore the myth that their religion “caused the Holocaust” and support Likud against Palestinians in the expectation of a bloody apocalypse.
There are numerous different theories about Jesus and the earliest Christians, some better founded than others. Starting as a sect among first-century Judaisms, it soon encountered Jewish hostility (John, Acts, I Thessalonians 2.15). As for poor old Paul, the apostle of faith not works for Luther, he was Shauel the original Jewish Bolshevik for Alfred Rosenberg, and Solon the original Gentile Nazi for Hyam Maccoby; hardly anyone likes him much today anyway, especially the Gays. If my memory is correct, H. S, Chamberlain thought that Paul had a Jewish father and a Gentile mother, the other way round to Jesus.
Read Walter Grundmann on Jesus the Galilean for a National Socialist view.
“As a relatively new movement—some 10 years old now—the alt-right, like any such movement, must be open to continual refinement and articulation.”
What’s that new about it, what changed so much 10 years ago, that it can be considered a new movement distinct from what existed before 2009? “The Dispossessed Majority” was published in 1972 and “Instauration” began in 1975, so we have definite dates for those two watershed events, and other periodicals, writers and even organizations that addressed the “three pillars of alt-right philosophy” were active well before then, so the “movement” has deep roots. I’ve been involved as a subscriber and writer in the “movement” since the beginning of “Instauration” and I haven’t noticed any significant change in subject matter, ideas or positions. The essays on TOO would have fit right into “Instauration” 40 years ago, and vice versa, without appearing the least out of place, different or strange. There has been continual refinement and articulation, and additions to our knowledge and information, and certainly the quantity of quality writers has greatly increased, but the basic ideas have remained constant. Wilmot Robertson was wise in not pinning any label on his ideas and advocacy, other than something like “pro-Majority” or “pro-White.” He saved his labels for our antagonists. But there have been many who have pinned labels on the “movement” and these labels have shifted over time as new ones, and new activists and writers, have come along, and our primary platform has shifted from printed periodicals to the internet, but the message, like the underlying issue it addresses, has remained basically the same.
I think the main difference is in the method of activism most commonly utilized: the use of social media to connect with the like-minded, and to communicate ideas and spread memes to others. In other words, a difference in methodology rather than ideology, although many also detect a large enough qualitative difference here to distinguish the younger movement (“WN 2.0”), with its more lighthearted touch and greater mainstream appeal, from the earlier “1.0” and its stridency, militancy and apocalyptic imagery (“Rahowa,” “Day of the Rope”). (There has also been plenty of that lately, of course, with outfits like Daily Stormer. Its offerings are easier to treat as ironic and comedic than a real life NSM rally, even though its creators are probably just as serious.) 2009 is symbolically a good year to date it to, with the inauguration of Obama and the peak of the Great Recession (especially in terms of well known metrics like the stock market and unemployment rate).
Mr. McCulloch is correct, not that much has changed from the 1970s to today in the so-called “movement” other than the advent of the Internet and other technological advances. In the 1960s the movement was more Christian Patriot and anti-communist, but that changed in the 1970s. Ben “RaHoWa” Klassen wrote _Nature’s Eternal Religion_ in 1972, and founded his anti-Christian Creativity religion for Whites. William “Day of the Rope” Pierce wrote _The Turner Diaries_ in 1975, while independent of Klassen, founded Cosmotheism, the other new religion for Whites, with the intent to supplant the suicidal, superstitious Semitic creed that had a stranglehold on Whites. Our great classical scholar Revilo P. Oliver, though more an atheist, influenced the cause, ruthlessly criticizing Christianity during the 70s and changing the movement from Christian Patriot to biological, based on the primacy of race. All three of these giants had been members of the pusillanimous John Birch Society in the 60s. Why? Because there wasn’t much else around that attracted them back then. Bob Mathews had also been a Bircher from a young age for that matter. They all quit JBS in disgust because of its avoidance of the race issue and JQ. Pierce discovered Rockwell in 1965 and worked closely with him, learning what to do and not to do, until GLR was assassinated. Oliver, who had been an original founder of JBS, helped found the National Youth Alliance in 1969 which Pierce took over in 1970 and which evolved in 1974 into the National Alliance.
I have personal knowledge of a lot of this history. No brag, just fact. The only salaried employment I have had since 1976 were as Klassen’s XO (Hasta Primus) in 1988-89 and as Pierce’s XO (NA Membership Coordinator) in 1992-93. In between those tours I worked with Wilmot Robertson, writing, doing artwork and a couple of Instauration covers. From 1994 up until Dr, Pierce died in 2002 I served as Regional Coordinator for the National Alliance, and continued to promote Pierce’s Cosmotheist world view independently until becoming NA Chairman in 2014. Our Cause will not be a Christian one except over my dead body! Our Cause must be grounded in reality, not on “Jewish spooks in the sky,” as Klassen liked to say. ;o)
I see comparisons made here of historical figures Klassen and Pierce with half-baked Christian, alt-right social media lilliputs Andrew Anglin, Matt Heimbach and this 21-year-old Nick Fuentes fellow, etc., and can’t believe what I see. The glib Catholic Fuentes is not White. He admits this at 54 minutes into this video: https://www.youtube.com/watchtime_continue=3258&v=GqYVnhgrtz8&feature=emb_logo
I do not use social media myself. Most of them are not in our hands. I encourage our Alliance members who do Faceberg, Tweeter, etc., to use their social media to promote National Alliance Websites, albeit discreetly so as not to get bounced. Many of our new members discovered Dr. Pierce’s teachings through a link to nationalvanguard.org they found on some social media site. Once hooked they see the Alliance as the alternative to the entry-level alternative-right and to Christian Patriot groups. A certain number of Thomas Dalton’s alt-right followers will be attracted to the rational adult Alliance alternative once they discover us. We will be featuring part of this excellent article of his at NV.org (linking back to TOO, of course) whenever we circumvent (((the usual suspects))) that have our sites shut down currently.
“… My main point was that students are, in large part, funders of the university; they (or yes, their parents) are the paying customers; and as such, they have all the rights of any paying customer. ”
In Canada, (((private Corporations))) provide much of the professorial budget for research.
In the 1980’s it was nearly 40% across the board.
Not sure what the figure is today, but given the opioid controversy and the money these producers make, not to mention the military industrial complex budget size and the increase of (((philanthropic))) orgs, I can hardly imagine (((their))) influence decreasing.
“…The movement needs young people with a thick skin and a strong backbone.”
…And a sharp and informed wit.
So the question becomes how to develop these qualities?
In Iceland, children are born into a rather cold and hostile climate. Parents do not try to shield their children from these elements, on the contrary, parents thrust their children into them at an age where children have no memetic imprint of any other climate.
Children are left in baby carriages to sleep outside in near frigid temperatures.
They are allowed to swim [supervised of course] in near-freezing sea water, within easy reach of “…hot pots…”, resulting in hours of rough and tumble in near ice-temperature water with the occasional dip in a warm bath before jumping right back into the frigid sea.
By the time these babies reach toddler age, they have become acclimatized to running about outside in winter wearing little more than a T-shirt and a light sweater.
By adulthood, these polar-youth have turned into regular polar bears.
My 83 year old, medication-free, neighbour has veins the thickness of stethoscope tubing and regularly spends hours walking around the inner city in blizzard conditions wearing little more than a light wool sweater and a tweed jacket and doctors are telling him he has the heart of a 27 year old.
The point is, in Sparta, children grew up acclimatized to battle conditions and were undefeatable in adulthood.
My uncle used to tell me;
“…Beloved be that which hardens thee…”.
As a (((countervailing))) point, around the 1990’s the Jew Stream Media started substituting retiring mouth pieces with young replacements who had voices that sounded more like those of women than men.
Gone were the resonating base voices of past manhood and welcome to a new breed of mezzo-soprano young male moderators that helped spawn a new breed of effeminate, BLT+GQ-sympathetic retards.
“…with his recommendation to be like the French underground in WW2, and his call for “secret meetings,” “pseudonyms,” “codes,” and so on. Certainly this is always an option, but it probably is not the preferred approach.”
Jews are taught to camouflage, infiltrate and sabotage the “..goyem..”,
before they are born
(Welcome to…; “…womb-based learning…” folks).
It is part of the Talmudic Doctrine that they are not only hard wired for (as in “…breeding…”), but immersed in as babies.
They fine tune these tactics in surroundings (I.e. synagogues, Hebrew schools, Jew Community Centres, and whenever Jews meet [I.e. weddings, holidays, funerals, family gatherings, etc…]) apart from Gentiles, so they can pursue them, with unabashed vigour and the full depth and breadth that their souls desire.
Meanwhile, Gentiles on the other hand are either legally constrained from forming Aryan-only associations by a Jew hi-jacked Establishment,
or they are socially brainwashed to accept anyone (Inclusivity) as members.
By aspiring to levels of manhood, that Jews by virtue of their usurious lying nature, are unable to attain, a Jew will stand out like a sore thumb amongst a group of mature Aryan men. Easy to spot and even easier to sh!t kick.
Moreover, Jews by their very nature are cowardly. They prefer to steal the resources of the Goyem and then employ traitors to do their dirty work for them.
So before hospitalizing a Shabbat Goy for treason, be sure you get him to rat out his Jew sponsor before the doctors wire his jaw shut for rehabilitation.
Point #5 :
RE: Christianity and the Alt-Right.
I would say that it is this very area where I have the most “..Expertise..”,
if I may use such an abused word.
After about 20 years of largely human powered circum-navigable propulsion…,
after reaching a Monk-like state of Spiritual Enlightenment…,
and throughout which paying particular attention to the Majority’s Religions of the places I wandered through,
it was only at the age of 36 that I returned to Canada and re-examined what the Bible actually said.
Then during my early 40’s I stumbled across White Nationalist Christians on-line.
I would consider myself a “Revisionist Christian” with Orthodox leanings but with a firm footing in the wisdom of the pre-historic Aryan Vedantics yet exposed to a broad spectrum of pure, applied and social sciences, as well as smatterings of different languages and art.
From this perspective, I can plainly say that “…Religious Choices…” are usually directly proportional to the personal sacrifices one has made in the pursuit of attaining first hand experiences of a religious nature.
For me to stand here and slug away at one religion or another is about as productive as slugging away at one White sub-Race or another when it is in fact clearly the Jews who need to be focused upon.
Moreover, how can I expect a “…mere…” (please forgive the condescending tone) Spiritually Unenlightened Being to begin to comprehend the value of Spiritual Enlightenment when their entire world view in these regards is still stuck in the quagmire of antiquated struggles between various second hand hear-say philosophies?
One thing I know, however, that does resonate with EVERY human on the planet…, except Jews of course, is TRUTH.
So my advice is forget the things you have no direct experience with and instead focus on the provable TRUTHS.
“If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner.”
― Malcolm Muggeridge
“Jesus himself, even in his obscurity, dreaded the gathering of crowds, and where possible avoided them. Everything in Christianity that matters is from individual to individual; collectivities belong to the Devil, and so easily respond to his persuasion. The Devil is a demagogue and sloganeer; Jesus was, and is, concerned with individual souls, with the Living Word. What he gives us is truth carried on the wings of love, not slogans carried on the thrust of power.”
― Malcolm Muggeridge
“We look back on history, and what do we see? Empires rising and falling; revolutions and counter-revolutions succeeding one another; wealth accumulating and wealth dispersed; one nation dominant and then another. As Shakespeare’s King Lear puts it, “the rise and fall of great ones that ebb and flow with the moon.” In one lifetime I’ve seen my fellow countrymen ruling over a quarter of the world, and the great majority of them convinced – in the words of what is still a favorite song – that God has made them mighty and will make them mightier yet. I’ve heard a crazed Austrian announce the establishment of a German Reich that was to last for a thousand years; an Italian clown report that the calendar will begin again with his assumption of power; a murderous Georgian brigand in the Kremlin acclaimed by the intellectual elite as wiser than Solomon, more enlightened than Ashoka, more humane than Marcus Aurelius. I’ve seen America wealthier than all the rest of the world put together; and with the superiority of weaponry that would have enabled Americans, had they so wished, to outdo an Alexander or a Julius Caesar in the range and scale of conquest. All in one little lifetime – gone with the wind: England now part of an island off the coast of Europe, threatened with further dismemberment; Hitler and Mussolini seen as buffoons; Stalin a sinister name in the regime he helped to found and dominated totally for three decades; Americans haunted by fears of running out of the precious fluid that keeps their motorways roaring and the smog settling, by memories of a disastrous military campaign in Vietnam, and the windmills of Watergate. Can this really be what life is about – this worldwide soap opera going on from century to century, from era to era, as old discarded sets and props litter the earth? Surely not. Was it to provide a location for so repetitive and ribald a production as this that the universe was created and man, or homo sapiens as he likes to call himself – heaven knows why – came into existence? I can’t believe it. If this were all, then the cynics, the hedonists, and the suicides are right: the most we can hope for from life is amusement, gratification of our senses, and death. But it is not all.”
― Malcolm Muggeridge
“Any religious expression of truth, however bizzare or uncouth, is more sufficing than any secular one, however elegant and intellectually brilliant. Animistic savages prostrating themselves before a painted stone have always seemed to me to be nearer the truth than any Einstein or Bertrand Russell. As it might be pigs in a crowded sty, jostling and shoving to bury their snouts in the trough; until one of them momentarily lifts his snout upwards in the air, in so doing expressing the hope of all enlightenment to come; breaking off from his guzzling to point with his lifted snout to where the angels and archangels gather round God’s throne.”
― Malcolm Muggeridge, Chronicles of Wasted Time
“I once had occasion to conduct an interview with a Soviet writer (Anatoli Kusnyetsov). (…) He made a remark which is one of the most extraordinary remarks anyone has ever made to me and has echoed in my mind more often than I can say. He said to me this: that if in this world you are confronted with absolute power, power unmitigated, unrestrained, extending to every area of human life – if you are confronted with power in those terms, you are driven to realise that the only possible response to it is not some alternative power arrangement, more humane, more enlightened. The only possible response to absolute power is the absolute love which our Lord brought into the world. (…) I can see, though we in the West have not experienced this absolute power, that there would be something futile and ridiculous even in the attempt to meet such tyranny with some alternative propaganda or ideology. As between Caesar at his most absolute and God at his most remote, there is only Christ. And that was what this man said.”
― Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom
Thank you for sharing this.
I can’t remember where I read this, but Tom Wolfe, when asked once if there was anyone he “wrote for” (in his mind), named Malcolm Muggeridge. Since Wolfe is my favorite author (his Bonfire splendidly captures all the portents of the looming racial disaster), I decided to check out this Muggeridge fellow. At the time, I was reconsidering my atheistic/agnostic views and was very open to Christianity being the answer (or at least some kind of an answer) to my gnawing existential disquiet. Up until then I had been very upbeat about human progress – since a kid I’d felt everything was just getting better and better, although I’d never had the slightest affinity for “progressivism” in politics – but I was beginning to think perhaps this progress wasn’t quite all it was cracked up to be, and it pained me to think our society might have to double back into its Christian past to find the missed turn. But older and wiser heads than mine seemed to think so too, so I set out to learn what they thought. Well, to keep it short, I was disappointed with Muggeridge.
A poignant cri de coeur, but why leap from that to the notion that salvation is to be found in the figure of a (possibly fictional) first century Jewish carpenter named Yeshua ben Yosef? There’s obviously no logical connection, and later-in-life converts like Muggeridge never evince having made any effort to rationally arbitrate between the numerous religious choices on offer; they simply decide they need a God and immediately settle upon Christianity. Of course, in secular terms, that’s perfectly understandable. Christianity is familiar, it’s known, it’s ours; it’s history, it’s tradition, it’s identity. All good reasons, but none of them properly Christian. In his “Third Testament,” Muggeridge profiles Augustine, Blake, Pascal, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer. Despite their manifold differences, what they all have in common is the tendency to mold Christianity into a vessel for their own religious values, rather than making a case for Christianity in its own terms. (That’s less obvious in Augustine’s case, since he came early in Christianity’s history, so his own views became part of the Church’s.) Some people doubtless find this sort of thing appealing, but I decided I had no use for it; I could turn my mind to and find comfort in a “supreme being” while safely dispensing with biblical gobbledygook.
Christianity is hogwash? Simple, just ban Christianity!
I thought climate change was the work of God?
“During the summer of 1853 Oberlin was struck with a severe drought. The hay fields were dried up so there was no feed for the cattle. The cattle soon must die and the harvest fail unless rain comes. Crops had withered, wells dried up, and the parched earth became powdery.
On Sunday morning the church was filled. Not a cloud was in sight and no one expected a drop of water to fall from the skies that day. The situation was desperate. Finney arose from his chair walked to the pulpit and lifted his voice in prayer.
“O Lord! Send us rain. We pray for rain. Our harvests perish. There is not a drop for the thirsting birds. The ground is parched. The choking cattle lift their voices toward a brassy heaven and lowing, cry ‘Lord give us water… We do not presume to dictate to Thee what is best for us, yet Thou dost invite us to come to Thee as children to a father and tell Thee all our wants. We want rain! Even the squirrels in the woods are suffering for want of it. Unless Thou givest us rain our cattle must die… O Lord, send us rain! and send it now! For Jesus sake!’ Amen.”
“In the preacher’s voice,” reports the California minister, “was the plaintiveness of a creature’s cry. I do not know whether any pencil caught more of this wonderful prayer, but all who heard it had to tell of its bold importunity. It had the pathos and power of an Isaiah.”
Then the pastor-revivalist poured out his soul in a searching sermon, “hewing close to the line,” from the text, “I have somewhat against thee because thou hast left thy first love.”
“Not many minutes did the sermon go on before a cloud about the size of a man’s hand came athwart the summer sky,” says the California preacher. “It grew fast. The wind rattled the shutters of the old church. Darkness came on the air, joy aroused our anxious hearts as great raindrops pattered on the sun-scorched shingles of the monumental old church. Finney’s lithe figure, tall as a Sioux warrior, ruddy as a David, trembled. His clarion voice choked. God had heard his cry. The sermon was never finished, for torrents of water poured from the prayer-unlocked heavens. The preacher bowed over the pulpit and said, Let us thank the Lord for the rain.”
He gave out the hymn, When all they mercies, O my God my rising soul surveys, Transported with the view, I’m lost in wonder, love and praise.
The congregation could not sing for weeping. Then Finney lifted heavenward a prayer of thanksgiving and praise. “I can remember not a word of the closing prayer, but the reverent and relaxed figure, the pathetic voice, the pallid and awe-struck countenance, are vivid as if it was yesterday; the plank sidewalks of the dear old town splashed our garments as we walked home from a short service, of which life’s memory must be lasting.” This is the testimony of the student who sat in the gallery and saw and heard Finney that morning.”
Further isn’t it something that the bible teaches God is a military commander with his own weapons?
You can read about that here with the Iraq War:
Lastly I once heard an academic of high standing say things like God is an absentee landlord over his creation and that faith is blind.
According to books like Job God in fact can be observed to exist. St. Paul in fact said it best:
My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power. ! Cor. 2:5
How unfortunate today its devolved into debates?
actually here’s the best one!
“The strange and mysterious and highly amusing thing is that probably you would have very great difficulty in finding a single Marxist in the U.S.S.R. You would only find Marxists among left-wing Jesuits in the faculties of universities in the West, which is one of God’s little jokes.”
― Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom
So….we are going to ethnically cleanse all non-white people from the continental US by denying the Holocaust and promoting un-provable, highly-unlikely theories about how Christianity was a ((())) psy-op? For real?
It is good when we actually debate strategy; we are able to weed out such foolishness.
Some people apparently have a very hard time distinguishing what sounds good on paper from what is politically viable in the real world. So in their minds, if being white is important and whites are under threat, then sure, go ahead and cleanse non-whites from every last inch of U.S. territory – why settle for anything less? If it seems at all plausible that the holocaust narrative is grossly exaggerated, go all in and make it the centerpiece of your political efforts and pay no heed to the results it garners. Christianity is hogwash? Simple, just ban Christianity!
It would be unfair to Dalton to accuse him of taking such recklessly hardline positions, and yet I can’t help feeling that his advice tends to hastily overlook some of the nitty-gritty factors in pro-white advocacy. For instance, the bold attitude of bah, ignore the administrators, you’re the paying customer, what can they do, seems to fly in the face of the experiences of racially conscious whites who’ve gotten into hot water over their view over the years. Surely if organizing on campus were that simple, we’d have seen something of a lasting nature appear by now.
Okay, Mr. PhD, I’ll bite. You quite emphatically wrote, “What in God’s name (so to speak) is even remotely pro-White about the Bible? I’ll tell you: nothing. The Old Testament was written by Jews, about Jews, and for Jews.”
In our Jew-on-the-brain age in which we live your comments are to be expected but as you are so emphatic and so learned do come up with a couple of examples that either prove or at least indicate that Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah and even Jesus Himself were Jews. Or better yet write an article on it.
Otherwise a good read with good points.
The only pro-white group that is having any influence on campus nowadays is Nick Fuentes’s “Groypers”. Fuentes dropped out of Boston University after being targeted for making an appearance at the infamous Charlottesville rally. But his following consists of a lot of college students. They have gone after what they call “Conservative Inc.” for supporting mass non-white immigration and wars for Israel. The Groypers have broadly hinted that 9/11 was done by Jews, and Fuentes has mocked the official Holocaust narrative. Fuentes, it’s worth noting, is Catholic and proud of it. His thinking is heavily influenced by Catholic social doctrine and the Catholic idea of “subsidiarity” — that all decisions affecting the lives of people should be made as locally as possible.
Catholic social doctrine, which informed medieval life, might well be summed up in the saying: “Salus populi lex suprema esto”. The well-being of the people is the highest law of government (apart from worshiping God).
This was the doctrine embraced by Adolf Hitler in the National Socialist state. While communism and capitalism concentrate power and riches in a small elite group and have no loyalty to the nation and the welfare of the people as a whole, Catholic social doctrine and subsidiarity tend toward the opposite result. So in England before the closing of the commons by Enclosure Movement, the Church and the state created conditions under which the poor were taken care of and peasants could make a living as farmers.
It shouldn’t surprise us, then, that the twentieth century movements that the Jews have demonized — fascism and National Socialism — had a heavily Catholic pedigree: National Socialism gained its first adherents in Catholic Bavaria, while the fascism of Franco and Mussolini arose in Catholic Spain and Catholic Italy respectively.
Protestantism, on the other hand, was a movement that became all too comfortable with capitalism and the reduction of man to an economic cypher. For somebody like Fuentes, therefore, the categories of political Left and political Right are essentially meaningless. Neither one supports white people. Neither one favors America First. The Right talks about how “muh Constitution” will be embraced by the non-white hordes entering our nation, but that isn’t happening. And the Left simply wants to get rid of white people, the sooner the better.
The question of Christianity is a vexed one. The pro-white, anti-Jewish Christian Identity movement denies that the ancient Israelites were Jews, that Jesus was a Jew, or that the Jews were ever God’s Chosen People. It maintains that European Christians are the descendants of the 10 lost tribes of Israel (who were expelled by the Assyrians and migrated to Europe more than 700 years before the birth of Christ).
Most Christians reject Christian Identity. But a goodly portion of them believe in supersessionism (the Jews were Chosen but lost the mandate through their disobedience to God; now Christians are the Chosen — the true Israel).
To listen to the leaders of mainstream denominations tell it — Roman Catholic, Anglican, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran — Jews are the Chosen People and the “elder brothers” of Christians. But oddly enough, the official doctrines of these denominations (at least when it comes to Roman Catholics and Anglicans) do not support that view. For example, there is nothing in Vatican II that is official Catholic doctrine.
At the other extreme are the evangelical Christian Zionists. They follow the Scofield Bible, which was commissioned by a New York Jew named Samuel Untermeyer (who was influential in the Woodrow Wilson Administration) in order to Judaize American evangelicals. The Scofield Bible succeeded in doing just that: Thus we have the absurdity of American Christians supporting an officially Jewish nation — Israel — that oppresses Palestinian Christians.
Another consideration is this: Like it or not, Europe was Christian for over 1,000 years. And Christians were fierce defenders of Europe, fighting off Islam and carrying out the Crusades. Jesus may have said “turn the other cheek,” but Christians did exactly the opposite in many cases. Christianity was the one thing white people had in common for centuries. We cannot dismiss that lightly. Many of the highest achievements of white civilization — Gothic Cathedrals, for example — bear the stamp of our Christian heritage.
There is also the fact that the majority of white Americans — our constituency — consider themselves to be Christian. We’re not going to win them over by being anti-Christian. If the subject comes up at all, we should be pushing them in the direction of Christian Identity. Otherwise, we should take a neutral position on religion and simply not make it an issue in our movement. After all, we have plenty of reasons for defending whites and criticizing Jews — on grounds of simple fairness and justice — without resorting to religious arguments.
The main trouble with Christianity is that anyone can be a Christian. But that doesn’t mean he’s going to be pro-white or pro-Western Civilization. California is an anti-white nightmare of left-wing political correctness thanks to massive immigration from Mexico. But Mexicans are mostly Catholic. And a very large number of Asian migrants are Christian. That doesn’t stop them from wanting to take your guns away and supporting laws against “hate speech.”
Again, I would say, be neutral on Christianity. Neither for nor against.
I would like to take a crack at this.
To begin, I agree there’s nothing whatsoever inherently pro-white about Christianity. If so many whites weren’t still Christian, you could leave it that. But the fact is large numbers of whites are Christian, and not just nominally. They’re probably also the likeliest to reject ‘wokeness.’ So you have to hunt where the ducks are.
In my experience (mostly online, but not solely), what religious people seem to want above all is to be able to continue to believe that, spiritually, there is something rather than nothing. As long as you leave them that something, you can argue them into radically reducing the scope of their religious commitment to the point where it no longer interferes with the social values or political cause you’re trying to recruit them to. That is, as long as you’re not trying to get someone to agree “there’s no such thing as God,” it’s possible to get agreement that the bible is mostly nonsense while still leaving the person identifying as a “Christian.” Of course, this isn’t easy, but it’s much easier than trying to convince a person to abandon religious faith altogether.
Secondly, this affords you the opportunity to emphasize that Christianity is much more than just the Bible. If the Bible had been lost for centuries and only unearthed, say, in 1750 in China and a religion went on to develop out of it, the chances that that religion would resemble Christianity as we’ve known it are vanishingly small. The reason is that the cultural context in 1750 China differs so greatly from that of the first century eastern Mediterranean. The argument should be that the way the Christian religion developed historically means it is an emphatically European sociocultural phenomenon.
What is the point of all this? Well, if a white is going to be a Christian anyway, I think it’s preferable that he view his religion as an outgrowth of his European identity, which allows him to take pride in being in European, and to perhaps view non-white Christians as not being Christian in quite the same way as himself (leading to greater ethnocentrism). If nothing else, it’s obviously preferable to being a cuck-level Christian who is convinced that Christianity demands multiracialism and racial self-sacrifice.
As always, the big problem with Christianity is existing Christian doctrine and Christian prelates, who are essentially immovable obstacles to anything pro-white. Appealing to them directly is an exercise in futility. It is only the success of the pro-white movement (or, more likely, as Christianity de-whitens, pro-racial movements in other races too) that would cause them to soften their stance.
It’s a pleasure to read Thoams Dalton’s piece. Just a few observations.
 Established Christianity as careerism seems to be never discussed, in site of its importance. I take it paganism had sites dotted about a country – wells, groves of trees, high peaks, comfortable sites, and genii loci generally. An established religion on the Jewish model covers an entire country with parishes and expects money for each of them, tithes, rents, stipends. From Archishops to people paid to sweep floors, finances are involved. This in exchange for some activities: weekly sermons (precursors of broadcast propaganda), involvements in births/ marriages/ deaths, social things. This activity theoretically rests on the Bible, though at the peak of Catholicism there were no mother tongue Bibles, so it can hardly be said to be necessary. It’s a perfect example of a Jewish parasitic structure, in fact, co-operating with other authorities, taking in lots, handing out small amounts to underlings.
. . . I find it rather amazing that many Americans seem to like this. (In the UK, Cathedrals and churches are rather empty). I’d suggest that anyone encouraging donors to switch from churches to support of whites should be part of the fightback of whites; it would need consideration of things like tax exemptions to finding lists of worthy candidates.
 Thomas Dalton’s point that Professors face social pressure if they are obviously biassed doesn’t cover situations in which there are complete disagreements on foundations. As an example, it’s obvious that Jews networked during WW1 and WW2, presumably to suit themselves. TD appears to be happy with the convention that Germany, France, USA, Britain etc acted independently. I’d personally say that any student discussing the World Wars would be incompetent if he/she said nothing on Jew finances. The attitude of Jews of course is adamantly the reverse.
 Griffin compares the actions needed to the resistance in France. Perhaps this was his little joke. It’s arguable that there was no resistance in France.
Sigh- Apologies to Thomas for the typo.
One more. . .”in sPite of its importance. . .”
I think we are in a dire situation and drastic measures must be taken. I was an immigration activist and I suspect that I suffered professionally as a result. I don’t think I would do anything differently. In fact, I think I should have taken more risks.
The more of us that go public, the greater chance we have of success. They can’t play whack a mole with millions of pro-whites.
The comments are often as decent as the articles. We are lucky to have TOO.
First of all, Prof. Griffin deserves a lot of credit. His take on Dr. Pierce was brave. In fact, many of his articles have been the labour of a courageous fellow. I have differed on some of his thoughts pertaining to the ancient battles of Eurocide II, but that’s okay. We’re both on the same side via our people (EuroMan).
As for speaking out, the good professor has worked in a majority state (VT). His work ethic would have been much different had he resided in a community containing major unofficial Second World City States. I do not refer to them is Third World because they said on the pipeline a first world goodies. This implies that they are constantly bailed out. This, this despite the drain and turmoil they inflict upon their surrounding environment.
Now we go to indoctrination. I have friends in academia and if they were to even give a hint of pro-EuroMan behavior they’d be out of a job. Everyone, except in very rare situations, self-censors themselves. We are somewhat in an environment as Europeans in the 1920s. The nemesis of mankind was stopped in Germany, arrested in Warsaw and thrived in France.
As everyone on this site comprehends the dilemma emanates from not merely from Zs heavy influence in La CessPool Grande. One has relatives in the school system. Little kids were /are taught about the Holycause in in the third grade (it was a Lutheran school). Next they are in another school -due to altering school demographics- and ride on a bus to a Holycause museum. In middle and high schools they have book reports on the holycause. The key here is that they are still children. They return home and the TelaVivza provides them with reinforcement. They know nothing of the world’s Sheldon Adelsons, Z bribe kultura and hear a wee bit about anti-majorityite George Soros.
Just about every single item pertaining to the “best of all people” has to be diplomatic. The reason: They are a psychological entity. their DNA -although certain studies have now falsified findings- is not that of the indigenous population of Palestine or that of Ukraine. There’s a reason they stick like glue to the elite of the nations where they reside. They are an impaired transnational entity. A global solution has not been found for dealing with the Z dilemma. That’s why people like TD use them. In the meantime Kids take bus rides to the home of their mentality and read books about their unique suffering.
Most university sheep skins no longer hold water. Within a generation or two, academic facilities will be utilized for other purposes. TelAviv, in all probability, will disappear due to the obvious, such as brith stats and neighborhood.
Will the carcinoma within mankind’s body remain? No one knows. However, sick Zyd minds will continue to stifle harmless free speech via the Tube and the farce of political representation.
I hope Prof. Griffin lives a hundred years. I am thankful he was employed in VT. No doubt he influenced some students. For that we can be grateful.
I’ve racked my brain to the point of fantasying meteor events to dispose of the Jewish nexus. If just New York and Hollywood disappeared from the map tonight, think how white men would talk tomorrow and of the independence and historical virtue such an event would reawaken. By our example, the masses of clueless twits would follow suit and even the remaining Jews would improve. But, alas, you know the likelihood of my meteor event. However, previous commentators have alluded to “acceleration” as a viable strategy—that is, acceding to our adversaries’ wish list to no limit–particularly economically: Universal health care, draconian tax rates on the rich, free college tuition, wage subsidies, you name it—all of which might work in a healthy Aryan society but are doomed to implode and bankrupt the overfed, dysgenic multicultural/multiracial pigsty America has become. In other words, cataclysm is our best hope. Tough going for a while—but out of the ruins the revival of brave, free and necessary white men. Enduring this strategy will require fitness no doubt, but that is a challenge especially appealing to young people. Physical fitness but also practice in self-sufficiency preferably gained by living and working in rural areas and communities of shared interest (highly advisable as infrastructure and public safety break or burn down in black/Judaized urban areas). At any rate, a President Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders need not be all bad and could well serve our long-term racial interests even better than Trump.
Mr dalton, i dont have much time here, but you must certainly be aware that andrew anglin and nick fuentes and dr david duke, all promote Christianity and all 3 are far more well known and successful alt right “leaders” than any that im aware of that dont.
Dr macdonald doesnt promote it but i dont recall him disparaging it.
The last one who did and was somewhat successful was dr william pierce, and i commented to him about it as well as to his replacement eric gliebe.
That organization is not basically nonexistent.
White youth want a religion and a God, we have been Christian people since Constantine. The jews were never Christian people.
Ill also point out that dr francis collins, head of the human genome project, became a Christian because of science. As you attack the professor who challenged you with perhaps being influenced by his university environment, i would accuse you of the same.
Perhaps its a bit too uncool to be a Christian.
That aside, all rational arguments demonstrate the probability of a God, not to mention the math probabilities noted by dr collins after the genome project.
I tend to phrase it this way, who would believe there was no “secret hand” behind a 70 year old retiring roulette croupier who started his career at 17 and had never spun anything but black in 53 years ??
These are the types of INSANE probabilities we are expected to believe absent a God.
We may as well believe that come new years day 2020 all niggers will advance to the level of whites because the year changed and accidents happen…