From Puritan Individualism To Jewish Infiltration – Chapter 6 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

Editor’s note: Chapter 6 is an important part of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition because the Puritans became an elite group in the United States, dominating the academic, media, financial, and industrial establishment. They instigated for the Civil War, and their moral idealism remains with us today as we confront our current moral panic surrounding Black Lives Matter and our wars for democracy in the Middle East. Since around 1950 they were increasingly replaced by a new Jewish elite with very different values and outlook, and this cultural revolution was substantially accomplished by the 1970s, resulting in the America we see today. I thank Dr. Duchesne for his excellent introduction and commentary on this material.
Franklin Roosevelt (front, second from left) with football team, 1899

Chapter 6, “Puritanism: The Rise of Egalitarian Individualism and Moralistic Utopianism,” of Kevin MacDonald’s Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, claims that Puritanism and the intellectual movements descending from this religion were the “most important” forces shaping the culture of the United States “from the eighteenth century down to the mid-twentieth century.” Puritanism, and the WASP culture it engendered, would cease to be hegemonic over American culture as Jews came to infiltrate “critical sectors of American life” from the early 1900s onward.

For some time, Anglo-Saxon Darwinism managed to hold Jewish influence at bay, winning the battle for immigration restriction with the passing of the Immigration Act of 1924. But the Jews were growing behind the scenes.  Two million arrived from Eastern Europe between 1890 and 1924. While they lost the fight against immigration restrictions, their influence would grow unimpeded in the media, the social sciences, the legal profession and in finance. Darwinism, and the theories of race associated with this movement, would soon face defeat in academic circles, in no small measure because of the influence of Franz Boas. By 1965 Americans would come to agree with Jewish elites that their WASP nation was meant to be a “melting pot” of multiple races based on universal principles.

Jewish Infiltration of WASP Community Norms

Was there something in Puritanism and the Anglo-Saxon mind set that made them susceptible to this kind of infiltration? Contrary to common interpretations, MacDonald does not frame this debate solely in terms of  WASP individualism versus Jewish in-group strategic control. He distinctly says that individualism is not incompatible with in-group strategies and collectivist norms. The Puritans had strong in-group markers. Their Anglo-Saxon descendants had a strong sense of ethnic identity, what it meant to be “distinctively American”. In fact, as we will see in our examination of later chapters, MacDonald believes that the “liberal cosmopolitanism” ruling the Western world today resembles “the Puritan tradition of combining individualistic tendencies with strong social controls”.

Western individualism has engendered its own forms of collectivism. The difference is that the collective identities the West promoted have tended to be based on moralistic/ideological principles rather than on kinship relations. Their ethnic attachments were exhibited within in-groups far larger (city-states and nation-states) than the typical clannish tribal groups we find outside the West. The argument is not that Western individualists were bereft of any communitarian ties. The argument revolves around different types and degrees of individualism in relationship with different types and degrees of “ideological” collectivism.

The type of moral communities whites created (relatively freed from kinship ties) left them susceptible to out-group infiltration. While Americans managed to create very powerful nation-state with a strong in-group WASP ethnic identity, their liberal and egalitarian values left them susceptible to out-group infiltration. The Jews successfully radicalized  the Anglo-Saxon “sense of fairness and egalitarianism” against  an America based on a WASP identity.

“Puritanism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy”

MacDonald believes that the English Civil War, which established the influence of Puritan culture in both Britain and the United States, should be “seen as a turning point in the history of the West”:

It marked the beginning of the end of aristocratic individualism with its strong emphasis on hierarchy between social categories and the beginning of the rise of egalitarian individualism with its ideology of social leveling and parliamentary democracy — blended with capitalism and wealth accumulation.

In other words, the egalitarian individualism that originated among northwest European hunters and farmers took the upper hand away from the aristocratic individualism which prevailed in ancient and medieval times. MacDonald notes that Puritanism originated in East Anglia, a region with a strong tradition of freedom, fond of town meetings and arguments, with the “highest average intelligence in Britain,” a larger proportion of literate inhabitants, scholars and scientists.

I would add that East Anglia was a region with a high proportion of yeomen farmers, that is, a “middle class” of farmers, just below the gentry, in possession of their own land, without subordination to feudal lords, as well as free to serve on juries and in municipal police forces, from the 15th through 18th centuries. They were also individualistic in their heavy participation in the woollen cloth industry since the fourteenth century, which nurtured a tradition of self-determination and consensual social contract.

However, the one cultural trait Puritans have stood out for historically, and Protestants generally, is liberty of conscience; every individual should be allowed to live by the faith that seems to true to him; every individual should have “direct, unmediated access to God”. MacDonald observes that the “Puritan revolution was carried to its extreme in the United States,” where they were “freed of the hereditary aristocracy and religion of England, during the Jacksonian era”. Another feature of Puritanism was its tendency to “pursue utopian causes framed as moral issues,” in terms of “appeals to a ‘higher law’ and the belief that the principal purpose of government is moral.”

There was a tendency to paint political alternatives as starkly contrasting moral imperatives, with one side portrayed as evil incarnate — inspired by the devil.

This brings me to a trait MacDonald brings up right from the beginning, and it is that Puritans were also “strongly collectivist”, with clear ingroup-out group distinctions. This is why he writes of Puritanism as a “group evolutionary strategy”. It was not a “genetically closed strategy” (even though Puritans were ethnically homogeneous for a long time) since they were open to outsiders who converted to Puritanism. Puritans came to constitute, nevertheless, a very cohesive group with a

powerful emphasis on cultural conformity…and public regulation of personal behavior via social controls related to sex, lack of religious piety, public drunkenness, etc.

MacDonald calls these controls “anti-individualist” in the same vein as he designates Puritanism as an “individualistic group strategy”. This may seem confusing to those who think that individualism is inherently anti-collectivist, but it is not. The Puritan “individualist group strategy” was “remarkably adaptive in an evolutionary sense,” both in England and the United States. In the United States, Puritans “multiplied at a rapid rate, doubling every generation for two centuries”. They nurtured very strong families, with strict yet warm family practices and bonds. They emphasized literacy in both sons and daughters, supporting public libraries and schools. Within their communities, Puritans were indeed committed to egalitarian fairness “and the good of the group as a whole”, rather than allowing each individual to maximize his interests as a private agent. They had a strong moral commitment to the moral well being of others. Farmers without any educational background, for example, “voluntarily contributed some of their harvest to support university faculty and students”.

Early Puritan in America

At the same time, in the United States, as Puritans prospered and “became more inclined to commercialism and materialism,” the religious controls waned, particularly as the population grew, and the areas originally inhabited by Puritans grew into cities, as they were opened to waves of immigrants who were not committed to a Puritan way of life. But these developments did not bring an end to the moral commitments of Puritans, but resulted in the rise of a “secular version of moral utopianism”.

 Puritan-Descended Transcendentalist Intellectuals

Transcendentalists were a very influential intellectual elite (roughly from 1830 to 1860) in America with Puritan origins. They are called “transcendentalists” because they believed that humans could transcend their animal instincts by using their minds in the creative way it was meant to be used. They believed that humans could overcome their greedy impulses, lust for sex and power, and ethnocentric biases, through socialization in the ideals of “brotherly love” and control over their bodily senses and appetites. MacDonald notes that this utopian optimism coincided with the incredible material progress American was witnessing in the nineteenth century, in science and technology. This progress inculcated the belief — and not just among transcendentalists — that a “golden age of peace, harmony, righteous behavior and material comfort” was attainable.One could get into a long discussion here about how the ability of whites to form groups freed from biologically-based kin-groups is what allowed them, not just transcendentalists, but Western thinkers from ancient times onward, to employ their minds in far more creative ways than all the other cultures combined. This creativity, witnessed in multiple fields — the arts, architecture, music — can hardly be identified as inherently naive just because it presupposes the freeing of the mind from purely Darwinian pressures. It can, and has been, the basis for Western “realism” and the formation of powerful ethnic states, and indeed the creativity behind Darwinism. This transcendence, however, can be very dangerous as we have seen aplenty in the many utopian worlds whites have concocted out of their imagination. The American transcendentalists, as was observed of Ralph Waldo Emerson, one of the main intellectuals of this group, tended to be men with a “cheery, child-like soul, impervious to the evidence of evil” — easy prey to manipulators of the mind.

Although the ideas of transcendentalists would lose their preeminence after the bloody Civil War, and American intellectuals would be influenced by ideas of progress based on realistic assessments of human nature, their illusions about a peaceful “brotherhood” across the world would continue to influence American liberalism thereafter.

Anglo-Saxon Individualism and Ethnic Identification

One could argue, roughly speaking, that the Anglo-Saxon liberalism that came to dominate America from the late 1800s through to the 1960s was a compromise between the universalism of transcendentalism and the materialism of Darwinism. On the moderate side (so to speak) were the Anglo-Saxons who were proud of their ethnic identity and view their individualism as a unique attribute of their ethnic heritage, while believing, at the same time, that immigrants from other European ethnic groups could be assimilated into the dominant WASP culture. They were influenced by the Social Darwinists, but they also believed that non-Anglos could be socialized to act like “good Anglo-Saxons”. They believed that their individualism “sprang from their ethnic heritage” and that if this heritage was to be preserved immigrants had to be raised as good Anglos.
Some Anglos were more radical in their individualism, advocating individual freedom from all remaining Puritan social controls; identified by MacDonald as “early precursors of 1960s’ hippiedom, celebrating self-discovery, emotion over logic, intuition, rebellion free love, Black jazz”, but others were on the right of the Anglo-Saxon spectrum, influenced by Darwinian theories of race. While we can say that the Anglo-Saxons intellectuals who advocated assimilation were voicing the majority view among Americans, MacDonald identifies the long period from 1880 to 1965 as a period of “ethnic defense” in acknowledgement of the considerable influence that Social Darwinian ideas (developed by Arthur de Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Gustave Le Bon, Herbert Spencer, Madison Grant, and Lothrop Stoddard) played in ensuring the Immigration Act of 1924 and keeping the borders close until 1965. For these Darwinians, racial differences were real, and the races were “in competition with each other for supremacy”.
For MacDonald, then, the WASP culture of Americans, had nurtured within itself a strong Darwinian movement capable of instilling a solid sense of ethnic identity among white Americans. But this current would not last. Right from the beginning, as this school held sway, a cadre of Jewish immigrants, freshly off the boats, set out to argue that the American ideals of individualism and universalism were inconsistent with any notion of America as an Anglo-Saxon ethnic state.

Between Jewish Universalism and Jewish Nationalism

Some Jews argued that all races, including Jews, should dissolve themselves within an American melting pot of races. But the more influential Jews, themselves influenced by Darwinian race theories, believed that Jews, in the words of Felix Adler (1851-1933), should only “universalize themselves out of existence when the task [of ethnic dissolution of non-Jews] was complete”. The Jews had their own unique universalist ethics, with a commitment to bring an end to the ethnic and racial identities of Americans (and the rest of the world). Jews should preserve themselves as the harbingers of a new world order. At the same time, Jews should build their own nationalism in order to protect themselves in a world full of antisemitism. Some Jewish intellectuals (Israel Zangwill, for example) would argue that “Jews were a morally superior race” with a morally superior religion—Judaism—with a “moral vision” to become the shinning light for a future America bereft of its historic Anglo-Saxon identity.
I was very surprised to learn from MacDonald (when first I read some four years ago his article, “Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965“) that Jews were the first to articulate the idea of multiculturalism. I thought that the theory of multiculturalism was quintessentially Canadian. While I still think that Canadians, such as Will Kymlicka and Charles Taylor, would go on to develop a full explanation of how multiculturalism, not assimilation, was consistent with Western liberalism, it continues to surprise me (reading this chapter) that back in the early 1900s Jews were already making the case that America was meant to be a “polycentric” nation characterized by cultural pluralism. To compel immigrants to assimilate to a dominant Anglo-Saxon culture, Jewish intellectual were arguing long ago, would constitute a violation of their “human dignity”. Assimilation entailed the denigration of the culture of immigrants. The nation of America must be de-linked from its Anglo-Saxon ethnic core. Anglo-Saxon culture should be seen as just one culture among many others.
Jews arriving in America

Worse than this, actually, for Jews the Anglo-Saxon majority culture in America was never meant to be a particular culture in its own right, but a culture inherently open to multiple cultures with their own particular identities. This view was only a few steps away from the Canadian idea that immigrant minorities deserve special group rights to protect themselves from the majority European culture with its inherent tendency to be racist and discriminatory.

MacDonald emphasizes how Franz Boas and his followers would assume control over the American Anthropology Association, as well as every major department of anthropology, by 1926, displacing the Darwinians. Jewish intellectuals effectively exploited the moral universalism of American liberals, a task becoming all the more easy after the Second World War, which discredited ethnic nationalism as inherently belligerent and genocidal. This intellectual displacement of the Darwinians (and the American intellectuals who emphasized their Anglo-Saxon cultural heritage) came together with the “unseen power” of Jewish international finance, increasing control of the media and outright ownership of major newspapers. Henry Ford famously wrote about this influence, observing in the 1920s that Americans had been made to feel that public discussion of the Jewish Question was improper.
It does not seem quite accurate to say that collectivist Jews exploited the inherent inability of American individualism to generate any form of ethnic identity. It seems more accurate to say that they hijacked Anglo-Saxon moral communities. The same Jewish intellectuals who would “expose the power structures of white America” would come to create a rigid ideological community with norms prohibiting debate on race differences, biological differences between the sexes, criticism of mass immigration, and white identity.  A strange social order would appear, characterized by the decline of the family, paternal authority, and genuine individualism. The Anglo-Saxons were genuine individuals in their appreciation of the capacity of the rational ego to decide what is the good life in communication with others. But this rational self, capable of choosing its own religious beliefs, was substituted by what Christopher Lasch would call in the 1970s a narcissistic individualism entrapped to a world of consumerism, helpless, dependent and passive, but assured by the politically correct community that he is living a meaningful life as long as he accepts diversity without rational criticism, views whites as inherently racist, praises non-whites for their authentic culture and longs for a multicultural world across the West.
21 replies
  1. Yves Vannes
    Yves Vannes says:

    All European forms of social organization more or less work out in societies that don’t have to contend with competitive outside groups. Not perfectly but when things decay corrections can and do take place and some level of functional normalcy returns.

    The Jewish group evolutionary strategy is incompatible but their pretend high-mindedness has given too many of our people an excuse to turn a blind eye to their non stop seedy means of encroachment. They peddle vice and we talk of freedom and personal responsibility. They intentionally bloat corporate structures, litigation free-for-all mills, insurance shakedowns, regulatory mazes to curb and punish avowed rights…and much more. In response we create more and more sub-headings to statues instead of building more scaffolds.

    They get away with so much of this because we have been snookered into high mindedness when confronted with conflict, even obviously harmful and decadent conflicts. Puritanism, because it puts less emphasis on tradition  than on how conscience manifests itself in the moment,  seems to be an easier mark for Jews than more traditional forms of Western moral organization.

    Look at how Jews actually operate: Seedy lowlifes normalize their behavior into the Western mainstream.  Gangsters become Financiers who still operate like gangsters, porn peddlers become filmmakers and mainstream degeneracy, ethnic race hustlers ride roughshod throughout the halls of academia and institutionalize their race hustling against the West, drug pushers sackler themselves into a hydra headed conglomerates that control, create and cure addictions so they can dip their beaks in shekels at every single stage,  scam artists create a shyster-government hustle that fleeces the productive economy and keeps the populace ever on the brink of financial uncertainty.

    But once they legitimize and mainstream their activities we forget the sleazy scummy manner in which they did so and treat them as admirable though at times troublesome allies…instead of as the pirates and parasites they deserve to be treated as. Blackbeard was less of a scumbag.

    How about we put aside what has become Protestant materialism married to Christian forgiveness and start treating Jew for how they actually behaved instead of how they and we like to pretend it was all done with high minded intentions and not driven by planned and practiced maliciousness.

  2. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    This comment is about the way Franz Boas’s guided the change in the scientific/archaeological consensus at the start of the 1900s from one that was investigating human artefacts relating to other races that predated the ‘Red Indians’, into the current consensus which is that the Red Indians were there first, that whites are recent invaders, so whites are the villains of history and stole the land. In fact it is illegal today in the US to genetically test ancient human bones found, and the law says they MUST be handed over to ‘Native Americans’ for disposal according to their religion. This must set off alarm bells about what they do not want to be discovered – that they are not ‘Native American’ after all.

    Below is an extract from an old research paper that includes the s-word (‘superior’), which is the main trigger word to the left, and it arouses their hostility due to their genes that make them antagonistic towards the better. Such genes are very harmful to the white race as a whole, but in the prehistoric past such genes could confer natural selection advantages in certain circumstances to a minority – the ancient ‘lefties’ would ‘hate’ the better farmers, and view them as the enemy, and this justified taking all their stuff with a clear conscience. Hence the left have no principles or conscience in the same form that the rest of us do, their morals are a different type and all based on a hostility towards the better, although they never use this way of putting it as they have to join in with the majority and influence them, so must speak in a way that the majority thinks. So they have to pretend they posses the same type of morals, and this is why they use words like ‘fairness’ and ‘compassion’ whenin fact they have none of these – not for blacks or whites, as they have no problem for example with all the black on black crime they have caused to come about via BLM.

    Part of the strategy of the left ((and allies)) is to hide away or destroy ancient artifacts that contradict the narrative that no superior race predated the Native Americans. See Richard Dewhurst’s academic book about white ‘giants’ (7ft tall) for numerous examples of the academics destroying/hiding the evidence throughout the decades of the 20th century, and also this century). R Dewhurst was interviewed on Red Ice Radio ( For example, there are large burial mounds and other artifacts in America that in the 1800s were considered to be the work of other races that emigrated to America who were not the current ‘Native Americans’.

    I watched a freeview TV programme about excavation of Monks Mound, Illinois, and they mentioned that ‘we are not allowed to show photos of the bones’. This is a practical example of how the left suppress any science or history they do not like. (They do this with Climate change, so why not with archaeology too?). IIn my view the reason we cannot see the bones is because they might not be ‘Native American’ bones at all. (There are several examples in Richard Dewhurst’s book of this suppression in action, including recent ones) I looked up this site with the mounds in Wikipedia, and Franz Boas’ name came up and revealed the following:

    A researcher called Thomas was commissioned to establish whether ancient mounds were from ancient civilisations that were more advanced than than the ‘Native Americans’, or were they the work of the ‘Native Americans’? In a report from the 1970s the author suggest that Thomas was more influenced by Boas than he admitted, and we must bear this in mind when we learn that Thomas’s report concluded that the mounds were made by the Indians (who are now called ‘Native Americans’) and not by more advanced civilisations from other parts of the globe.

    Here is an extract to show how the whites in the US viewed the early history of America before Boas’s influence and before the Smithsonian Institute took over the official narrative, and the museums:”… some of the ancient nations who may have found their way hither, we perceive a strong possibility, that not only Asiatic nations, very soon after the flood, but that also, all along the different eras of time, different races of men, as Polynesians, Malays, Australasians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, lsraelities, Tartars, Scandinavians, Danes, Norwegians, Welch, and Scotch, have colonized different parts of the continent (Priest 1833: iv). ”

    This was the pre-Boas consensus, prior to being ‘debunked’ by the Thomas report (influenced by Boas). a pre-Boas consensus that was ‘rigorously debunked’ according to Wikipedia “…this contributed to the MYTH (my emphasis of the Wikipedia word that reflects the current consensus of anti-white academia) of the Mound Builders as a people distinct from Native Americans, which was ‘rigorously debunked’ (my quotes added) by Cyrus Thomas in 1894.”) One of the ways the previous consensus was ‘debunked’ was to decide that some artifacts such as tablets with writing on must be forgeries, and this conclusion certainly support’s Boas’s view of American early history. Do we trust the scientists to be impartial on this? Are they impartial on any matter where science overlaps with politics – such as global warming?

    “4. The Grave Creek, Gass, and other engraved tablets which were examples of Mound Builder writings were in fact frauds (Thomas 1894:641 ). ”

    There are other examples of supposed ‘debunking’ by Thomas for the Smithsonian Institute – with Thomas working under Boas. Note the use of the word ‘superior’ in the older, pre-Boas text, a word that would trigger the instant dismissal from an academic position in a university if used today. Can we really trust such people who react in this way, who are thus triggered, can we trust them to be open-minded when it comes to their interpretation of the Gass tablets? (I am no expert on the tablets, but neither I do not trust Boas’s team to be honest in the matter)

    From the 1970s report in the link above:

    “The preceeding paragraphs have attempted to show the development of the theory which explained the presence of thousands of
    earthworks in the Eastern United States by referring them to a vanished civilization much superior to the Indians who occupied
    the land during the period of white settlement. The proponents of this theory offered abundant, but often conflicting evidence to
    support this theory. The claims presented below were taken from a number of sources. The list does not reflect the position of any
    single writer but rather, reflects the range of evidence used by partisans of the vanished race theory to support their theory.
    l. The mounds were of great antiquity and therefore could not be the work of Indians.
    2. The works show engineering and uniformity beyond the competence of Indians.
    3. The mounds served religious purposes as did the “high places” of the Old Testament.
    4. The inscriptions on the Grave Creek, Gass, and other stone tablets proved that the Mound-Builders had writing, a skill not possessed by Indians.
    5. No mounds were known to have been built by historic tribes.
    6. The presence of the “elephant effigy mound” in Wisconsin, the Davenport elephant pipes, and Gass tablets found in Iowa indicated great antiquity and perhaps use of elephants in construction of the mounds.
    7. The presence of copper, bronze, brass and iron implements indicated that the mounds belonged to a vanished race because Indians had no knowledge of metallurgy. KEEL] CYRUS THOMAS
    8. The technical level and aesthetic refinement of the Mound Builder artifacts far surpassed the competence and sensitivity of Indians.
    9. The uniformity of mound forms over such a wide distribution was evidence of a central government; a phenomenon unknown among the Indians.
    I 0. Such works must have been based on a highly developed agricultural base. Such economy was not known for Indians in the Mid-west during historic times. Consequently, Indians could not have been responsible for such grand developments.

  3. TJ
    TJ says:

    How to turn a hippie into a conservative? Shave, haircut, new clothes.

    However, our basic problem can be expressed in one word- monopoly. Of two kinds:
    1. Monetary- fake money, to be precise
    2. Information- not only media, but schools, K through post-doctoral

    We could not be in this pickle without them.

  4. Lucius Vanini
    Lucius Vanini says:

    I’d caution against lumping Emerson with that fool Thoreau. Whether historical or apocryphal, the story of Emerson asking Thoreau what he was doing in jail, with Thoreau replying “What are you doing outside it?”, well represents the philosophic distance between the two.

    Emerson had that essentially Pagan love of existence–of life and the world as it is–seeing reason and rhyme in the ancient cosmic order which had produced humankind and a world nothing short of miraculous. As his admirer Nietzsche says in TWILIGHT OF THE IDOLS, Emerson’s “spirit is always finding reasons for being contented and even grateful….” Witness indeed his essay re the Law of Compensation. That better explains the (above ) “impervious to the evidence of evil.” than does the imputation of mere, exploitable naivete.

    Thoreau, on the other hand, typifies the morality-mongers who at that time were exalting christian altruism, viewing it as morality itself, though they had abandoned the christian metaphysics and eschatology which were the sole justifications for christian altruism. (Cf. that same work by Nietzsche, specifically aphorism 5 in the section “Meditations of an Untimely Man.”) For Thoreau there was something very and fundamentally wrong with existence–its basic terms and conditions had to be corrected! He is the ideological heir of the New Testament, according to which this existence is a fallen, corrupt order, a divine experiment gone wrong, ruined by Adam’s disobedience, original sin, Satan’s machinations, and destined to be swept away soon by a redeemer….He and his ilk, and their potent successors today, have done so much to place us in our present horrific predicament.

    It’s not too much to say, I think, that once Western man adopted christianity he was destined to reach a possibly fatal crisis as we suffer now. That creed full of psychopathology (beware of Hebrews bearing gifts!) was a ticking time bomb. As long as its nominal adherents were too psychologically healthy to be actual christians–as were, e.g., the fierce Teutonic conquerors of the rotted Roman Empire–they could sing hymns to the Prince of Peace every day but would still be innocent of the lethal altruism explicit in the creed. Crusaders and Conquistadors couldn’t even understand that altruism, nor the idea that it’s virtuous to be a doormat, let alone practice it!

    But once Western man’s mettle declined, decadence made altruism reasonable; ditto turning the other cheek; blessing and praying for and loving one’s abusers; contempt for “worldly vanities” like race and possession of ancestral lands; the condemnation of pride and self-love; the myth of equality (implicit in “Blessed are the meek,” “Whoever does this unto the least of my brethren, does it unto me”), etc., etc. Thus rendered all the more soft and malleable, Western man can now be talked out of existing….and feel virtuous for it!

  5. Tom
    Tom says:

    And then of course there’s the pure greed of businessmen who lobbied for the entry of destitute immigrants so they could make a nice savings, and hence profit, on cheap imported labor. Naturally, these businessmen all believed in universal principles as well, laughing all the way to the bank. This of course happens to his day.
    Then there’s the possibility that the Anglo-Saxon economic hierarchy in America loved profits more than than any fake moral imperatives that their churchmen were spewing. Money has a way of causing men to endear themselves to “progressive” social movements as long as the cash register rings. Easy money gave the businessmen a new religion and a reason to spread it.

  6. John
    John says:

    At first, Jews may have gotten their way through guilt and persuasian.

    They are smart and can be quite convincing and charming.

    But now, they get their way poliically and culturally, through intimidation, perhaps even more than through money.

    That is, people are now afraid to speak up about Jewish power.

    We Christian Whites have become, for the most part, snivelling cowards, afraid to speak out.

    How is that? Are we THAT intimidated?

    • Jody Vorhees
      Jody Vorhees says:

      The short answer, John, as you well know, is “Yes.”

      Christianity is a cancer that guarantees our extinction. It immobilizes us and even prevents us from asserting ownership of our own real estate. The most genuine response to our rapid dispossession and displacement is: Rage. And it nullifies that and evaporates it everywhere. The churches may be emptying out (an encouraging sign), but secular humanism — a legacy of and substitute for Christianity — does only slight less damage.

      • Charles
        Charles says:

        If Christianity is a cancer why have Jews spent so much time and effort to de-Christianise the West. I’d recommend reading books The Curse of Canaan and The Lost History of Christianity. Christianity has been splintered into 100s of factions that have been infiltrated and neutered. It’s best to go back to the original teachings, The Greek Eastern Orthodox Church.

        • Jody Vorhees
          Jody Vorhees says:

          They see Christianity as a cultural, unifying legacy for us. And like every other aspect of our heritage, they attack it and attempt to destabilize it. Secular humanism is not much of an improvement, though they are more comfortable with its presence.

    • j. eric smith
      j. eric smith says:

      John, I have struggled with this myself and it may well be the central question in this NWO takeover we are now in the midst of. I think, searching my own soul, that is a curious contradictory combination of fear if the jew and good will towards others. On the one hand they are perhaps the most murderous and hateful group to ever walk the face of the earth. And they always hide their deeds and never perform them openly and take credit for it.That is a terrifying combination. The fear is palpable. Then there is also an odd unwillingness to be mean spirited that so many of us have. The holohoax also still lingers in our enslaved and carefully trained minds as well. I struggle to break free but am unable to do so. A prison of sorts methinks.

  7. Anthony Kimball
    Anthony Kimball says:

    There really is no more time to go over these kinds of subjects. Anybody who has been in this fight for any appreciable length of time is already more than well-versed in these issues. White man, you now have exactly two options…you can either stand and resist or submit and perish. The time for study and reflection is over….stop talking and start doing.

    • Thomas Daley
      Thomas Daley says:

      I agree with you Mr.kimball and your assessment of our current situation as white christians and our apparent genocide and enslavement at the hands of the Jews power and control over us!
      I do appreciate the intellectual micro banter and sophisticated historical knowledge of the ‘Too’articles it’s authors and the the contributors such as yourself but I as an uneducated voice with little to add to my education but a wide variety of subject reading would like to suggest the following for comment:

      Would it not be more productive to Fashion a response to jewish dominance and attacks on white Christian culture from the viewpoint of them being evil acolytes of Satan and demonizing them as they have been demonizing White Anglo Saxon Christian culture for generations,if not, century’s? I realize that intellectuals have a predilection for atheism (peer pressure I imagine?) but as you indicate in you response “ The time for intellectual banter is over and it’s time to shit or get off of the pot” demonizing your adversary has as past experience shows is very effective and I believe demonizing Jews as evil would be the most Effective and has the possible effect of becoming evangelical in nature. It could even become a nationalistic collective movement amongst the ultra religious sect! Instead of talk we would be fighting fire with Fire appropriate,dont you think? We must do something besides wallowing in the ‘pig sty’ of defeatism, we are at war let’s act like it and use all the weapons at our disposal to save our country and our race!

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      The people did not have to fight or make any sacrifices, or even speak out, all they had to do was put an ‘X’ in a different box at election time. But they could not even do that. And when a white advocate does stick his head out, and the authorities come down on him and abuse the legal system with their dual standards, then in response to this the people do nothing except think about the value of their house or whether their football team won or lost.. They actually think things will just carry on as they are now for the rest of their lives … how wrong they are.

      Meanwhile, BLM riot all over the Western world if one bl criminal dies from his drug cocktail whilst resisting arrest.

      The only hope is that w ppl will go into a different mode when real hardship arrives, like the Germans did before WWII. And let us hope that if there are any more wars the w ppl do not do what they did in the last War, and fight each other rather than the real enemy within – lefties (and allies).

  8. Robert Meister
    Robert Meister says:

    Regarding the indians that pcterdactyl mentioned they did gene tests on them and found ut they are a mixture of asians (probably the type found in northern Russia) and whites, Europeans.

    So they were probably originally two distinct groups but who knows.

    Also they kinda tried to take whites out you know scalps and all that. It was a conflict over land and the winning of this conflict fr whites was and is very important. The USA has been very important for the planet and whites with alot of fantastic inventions science art litterature and so on…

    Should you appologise for that? Or should the Brittish appologise for imperialism. Sure imperialism ain’t nice but if something it helped the natives t reproduce at a higher level due to increased livig standards and the inventions and things the white SHINING people brought.

    Whenever there are white people around poc’s they reproduce at a higher rate. Whenever poc’s are around whites they tend to stop reprodcing.

    I think the reason is race differences causing great great dangers for whites children being around these hostile races. Arabs will try to have sex with small white children at as children in kindergarden allready, just think about what they will do at age 10 or 11 when they can have an erection. Niggers are the same or worse. It’s genetically driven extreme aggression that kills off whites.

    The only solution is repatriation of africans and arabs from Europe.

    Segregation can work. The USA had high childbirth with the babyboomer generation thing. The economy was great and they were segregated. Hence they could be persuaded by liberalism cause they hardly got to deal with the sub africans.

    There are now african leader who invite africans from all over the world to move back. Shure the economy ain’t great because they have no whites pushing it forward or too few. But I’m shure they can do fine. But maybe african americans feel they are their wn people now with their own history and culture. There is the afro person in Texas with the militia who want’s a country (he suggested Texas, does that mean he will if successfull throw out the latinos?). He’s also thinking about their own country in Africa. But which country in Africa would give up territory? Is there any territory available anywhere? I mean the jews got Israel but it’s been a conflict since but now apparently they will probably seize the whole country including nw arab territory but it hasn’t been an easy thing has it.

    I think sub afros in the USA should get their own territory, but certainly not in texas. The idea of the thin blue line has been presented, but where would that go and would it mean alot of white farmers loosing land and so on.

    There are now whole cities in the USA abandoned because industry moved to cheap labor countries or got taken out. They could be rebuilt bu whites. A lot of things are easier to do now with the internet. But you would need manufacturing and industry jobs hence you need to attract the few whites who can get that kinda thing goin and you could buy land around it for farming. Yeah but then the sub africans (n-word) and latinos would come running. Yeah but if the residents are white supremacists noone would give em jobs starve em out or something. You could have nonprofit private schools owned by the community where the focus is ONLY white history and truths abut race differences are tougt and the greatest art, litterature, music and science and inventions is presented in schools.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      @Robert Meister “The only solution is repatriation of africans and arabs from Europe.”

      – Also, this can be done without even much conflict, provided we are prepared to pay the bribes for them to go, but that would be cheap at the price considering the benefits. Eg $X per week for life. They would readily follow the money to go back to their homelands that they speak so fondly of, and are only here now for the money, as they do not like us.

      All it takes is for the will to be there to want to do this, and when this stage is reached, we will have to do the additional task of confronting then taking back control from our own white enemy within (plus allies)) Unless we do this nothing can be done.

      Also, these other races will readily submit as soon as you show authority, as the bl ppl submit now to the corrupt Chinese in Africa, where the Chinese use bribery of the bl leaders to take their natural resources and control them. And look how Britain controlled all those millions of Indians with a few thousand. They only are dominating us now because we are asking them to.

      I agree that the owner of a land territory is the race that takes it and guards it. When has it not been so? This is how it has always been for all races. This involves the conqueror being ‘racist’ for his own race, and there is nothing wrong with this – in fact all races are proud of their own racism apart from white ppl.

  9. Jody Vorhees
    Jody Vorhees says:

    Christianity, consumerism, Fifth Columnists, socialism, apathy and stupidity — these are the ingredients for the extinction of Western Civilization. I no longer believe that anything short of radicalism and force will save us.

    Look at the faces in the article’s photo. Those young men knew the world was their oyster. Their ancestors had built it. My mother was born several decades after this photo was taken. I recall travelling in Europe with her, and having a farmer say: “I love Americans. They are a people drawn from the best stock that humanity has to offer.” My mother responded, “Nonsense. They were the refuse sent to America from Europe’s prisons.”

    I recall even then, as a child, cringing in disgust in response to such a comment.

    What happened to us? How did we get so thoroughly lost?

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      A lifetime of thought control, via governmental regulations.
      Example- The Communications Act of 1934: CBS given to (((Paley))), NBC given to (((Sarnoff))), and ABC given to (((Goldenson))).
      And the government “schools.” Ad infinitum.

  10. Seraphim
    Seraphim says:

    We can’t go lightly over the fact that the ‘maladaptive altruism’ of the ‘Puritans’ manifested at its height in the support for Jewish Immigration from Russia and ‘Eastern Europe’ where they were allegedly systematically ‘discriminated’ and ‘pogromized’ for their ‘religion’ by brutal ‘antisemitic’ regimes. They had little objections to offering “an asylum within the boundaries of this land” to “the bulk of those fleeing from Russian intolerance and persecution”* and exercising pressures upon the Russian Government to let them go (and get them back after they obtained an American passport, to do business and militate for ‘democracy’!).
    *cca. 3 million between 1881-1924!

  11. TJ
    TJ says:

    “America has turned into comedy central” – [partial comment from Zero Hedge]

    The (((folks))) who run all the major control points also gave the world MAD magazine

    Sweden’s Covid Expert Says ‘World Went Mad’ With Lockdowns

  12. Robert Meister
    Robert Meister says:

    @pterodactyl Hopefully. But like alot of arabs own restaurants and make good money in the west, especially Europe.

    Do you hink they will just like take a sum and leave.

    And to just think it’s about money is simplistic.

    It’s most likely also genetics hey want our superior genetics. The ottoman empire when ey invaded and occupied eastern yourope, whites had to give their oldest daughter at a young age to the arabs harems. The arabs are happy for racemixed cuples so are sub afros aka ni***s.

    Whereas whites usually disslike it with their gut feeling.

    I hope we can just rent cruise ships and send em back with afro pop and the like playing on the ship african cuisine or whatever.

    But they will kill for our land.

    And they are extremely primtive, you have no idea.

    And imperialism, like we had the guns hey thought we were god’s and they like sold their land for glass pearls. It was dfferent times. I think you are a bit naive. Like in Sweden 40 % of kids under 18 are poc’s and 50 % in Stockholm that age dont speak Swedish at home and this is a country that was probably 99 % whiteish in 1970 and probably about 85% to 90% pure whites.

    Just saying there might be a racewar in some European countries. But each country is different though.

    And ni****s in Europe what a disgusting idea to begin with same with arabs. Like what appauling races…

  13. Jody Vorhees
    Jody Vorhees says:

    Some have argued that in order to prevent America’s demise, it will be necessary to engage in four activities, referred to by some parties as the “Four Rs.”

    1. Resegregation. It is reasoned that without segregation, nothing will be saved. Exhibit A: The remarkable levels of race mixing that are ongoing at present.
    2. Repatriation. Without it, we will in time be outnumbered, ending any chances for political self-determination..
    3. Reinstatement of the Race Laws: Especially those regarding miscegenation.
    4. Reeducation: A widespread campaign to recreate the racial, cultural and historical identities that have been stripped away from us.

    But how would we achieve any of this without temporarily suspending the Constitution and declaring martial law? And if things indeed deteriorated to a point where we could achieve those conditions, would there not be an acute danger of our society disintegrating completely?

Comments are closed.