America Must Die—So That the People Can Live

When you live in a 200-year-old house, you would do well to give it a thorough inspection every few years.  Rap on the walls, pull down some old wallpaper, climb into the attic, and get down into the crawl space.  Check the roofing, check the exterior walls, check the foundation.  You are looking for signs of rot:  decay, mold, insects, rodents, or just plain aging.  With luck, you find one or two small problems, you patch them up, and all is well.  Unfortunately, sometimes all is not well.  Sometimes, you find signs of major and irreparable decay.  In those cases, and as painful as it may be, you must be prepared to tear the house down and start anew.  Anything less would be a lost cause, an act of utter futility.

America today is a 245-year-old house—a grand mansion with many rooms, situated on a wonderfully vast and glorious estate.  From the outside, from a distance, it still looks nice: glitzy, glamorous, wealthy, powerful, exciting.  It still carries much from its well-intentioned (if flawed) beginnings.  But our inspection proves otherwise.  When we rap on the walls, or get up in the ceiling, or crawl down to the foundations, we are shocked to find signs of widespread and irreparable decay.  The main timbers supporting the building are rife with termites; the roof is leaking; the foundation is cracked, the sands beneath are eroding, and all manner of vermin are running wild, both above and below.  In short, it is a horrible mess.  We try to plaster over holes here and there, and slap on some new paint once in a while, but the rot inevitably shows through.  By any reasonable accounting, the building is on the verge of collapse.  It may come down on its own, or we can be proactive and take it down, but down it will come.

Any viable nation is not only an edifice; it is a living entity.  It lives and breathes with the people in it.  Our house is a living house; but sadly, it is terminally ill.  A combination of old age, disease, neglect, and poor hygiene have put it in a terrible state, one that is evidently beyond any hope of recovery or repair.  The house must come down; America must die—in order for a new house, a new nation, to arise.  Such is life.

It is worthwhile, then, to review my brief ‘inspection report’ of the American nation, and to diagnose the ailments that we are currently enduring.  If I am able to get down to root causes, this will naturally lead to some prescribed courses of action that we can take, both near-term and for the longer haul.  No one wants to live in a rotting house.  No one wants to live in a decaying nation.  No one wants their children and grandchildren to grow up in such conditions.  We have better options.

At the highest level, my inspection report finds two major, and related, areas of concern: (1) a false notion of human equality, and (2) misplaced faith in the doctrine of democracy.  Further analysis shows that these two aspects have been ruthlessly and malevolently exploited by a potent Jewish lobby to maximize benefit to themselves.  In what follows, I will attempt to outline the nature of this far-reaching and deep-rooted crisis, and to suggest some ways forward.

The False and Destructive Concept of Equality

In 1927, and four years before he penned Brave New World, famed writer, thinker, and “casual anti-Semite” Aldous Huxley published a compelling little book called Proper Studies.  It opens with an essay titled “The Idea of Equality.”  The very first line reads as follows:

That all men are equal is a proposition to which, at ordinary times, no sane human being has ever given his assent.  (p. 1)

Doctors, editors, bureaucrats—any person, in any walk of life, displays evident and obvious inequalities, says Huxley.  People are different in every way imaginable: skills, abilities, interests, intelligence, appearance, character.  Everyone acknowledges this, and yet at the same time they also want to insist on the essential and intrinsic equality of humans.  Hence does Huxley write of the human mind’s “almost infinite capacity for being inconsistent.”  He then describes the basic axiom at work:

Politicians and political philosophers have often talked about the equality of man as though it were a necessary and unavoidable idea, an idea which human beings must believe in, just as they must, from the very nature of their physical and mental constitution, believe in such notions as weight, heat, and light.  Man is “by nature free, equal, and independent,” says Locke,[1] with the calm assurance of one who knows he cannot be contradicted.  It would be possible to quote literally thousands of similar pronouncements.  (p. 2)

He identifies the original source of this fallacy in Aristotle, whose metaphysical assumption of a human essence (as “the rational animal”; Nicomachean Ethics I.8, 13) implies a sort of equality among the human species.  Against Huxley, we can argue that this does not quite follow; the existence of a common and distinctive quality of all humans need not imply their social, political, or existential equality, any more than the fact that all material objects have mass imply that they all have the same weight.[2]  Huxley also fixes some blame on Descartes, but again, this is perhaps an exaggerated claim.  In Discourse on Method (1637), Descartes writes:

Good sense is the best distributed thing in the world. …  It indicates that the power of judging well and of distinguishing the true from the false—which is what we properly call ‘good sense’ or ‘reason’—is naturally equal in all men. …  [A]s regards reason or sense, since it is the only thing that makes us men and distinguishes us from the beasts, I am inclined to believe that it exists whole and complete in each of us.[3]

Even if we allow that reason is equal in all—a highly dubious assertion, to say the least—it still does not imply political, social, or moral equality.

More to the point, Huxley cites Christian doctrine and the position of the Church.  Even granting a “brotherhood of men” under Christ, “the brotherhood of men does not imply their equality.”  He continues: “Neither does men’s equality before God imply their equality as among themselves.”  Even if God, from his divine and lofty standpoint, views us all as equals, any putative inter-human equality “is entirely irrelevant”.[4]  It is rather like us viewing all ants or mice as identical when in fact they all recognize and acknowledge vast differences among themselves.

All this bodes ill for the “religion of democracy,” says Huxley (and as I will elaborate).  Its “primary assumption” is that “all men are substantially equal.”  If the equality falls, so too falls democracy.  He summarizes concisely:

The historical and psychological researches of the past century have rendered the theory which lies behind the practice of modern democracy entirely untenable.  Reason is not the same in all men; human beings belong to a variety of psychological types separated from one another by irreducible differences.  (p. 12)

Science, anthropology, philosophy, and common sense all come to the same conclusion: human equality is a fallacy, and any political ideology based on that notion is doomed to failure.

Huxley, of course, was hardly alone in his condemnation of a claimed human equality.  Nietzsche viewed the idea with greater contempt and wrote in more scathing terms.  We find, especially in Beyond Good and Evil, a stunning repudiation of the concept.  His elaborations on the “order of rank” among men, the “instinct for rank,” the “noble soul,” and the necessity for human greatness, pervade the work.  A few examples will have to suffice:

Men, not noble enough to see the abysmally different order of rank, the chasm of rank, between man and man—such men have so far held sway over the fate of Europe, with their “equal before God,” until finally a smaller, almost ridiculous type, a herd animal, something eager to please, sickly, and mediocre has been bred, the European of today.  (sec. 62)

The highest and strongest drives, when they break out passionately and drive the individual far above the average and the flats of the herd conscience, wreck the self-confidence of the community, its faith in itself, and it is as if its spine snapped.  Hence just these drives are branded and slandered most.  High and independent spirituality, the will to stand alone, even a powerful reason are experienced as dangers; everything that elevates an individual above the herd and intimidates the neighbor is henceforth called evil; and the fair, modest, submissive, conforming mentality, the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors.  (sec. 201)

Every enhancement of the type ‘man’ has so far been the work of an aristocratic society—a society that believes in the long ladder of an order of rank and differences in value between man and man.  (sec. 257)

The concept of equality is ultimately destructive because it declares, not only that no one is worse than anyone else, but more importantly that no one is better than anyone else—yes, that no one can be better.  True self-betterment and self-enhancement become impossible if we are all equal.  No matter what you do, you will still be only, and always, equal to the very least among men.  This doctrine is not merely false; it is utterly contemptible and destructive of higher aims and goals.  It means the death of humanity.  Where we do not ascend, we decline; this is Nietzsche’s basic outlook.  Sadly, it conforms to the actual world in which we live today.

In the final passage above, Nietzsche points to a central fact and thus to a possible solution.  If every improvement to humanity and to society has occurred in aristocratic societies—that is, rule by the best—then we ought logically to use those as our model.  Societies that are capable of sorting men into lesser and greater types, and to do so effectively, are the drivers of human evolution.  They strive for greatness, and they create greatness.  Even the smallest steps in that direction—such as were taken by Hitler in his National Socialist Germany—would be such an improvement over the present day that any nation even attempting it would likely flourish spectacularly; and in fact, this is precisely what happened in Germany, beginning in 1933.  The rest of the equality-obsessed, Jewish-inspired world was so aghast that they were compelled to drive the remaining industrial nations against Hitler and to destroy him, so fearsome was the prospect of his success.

Still, entrenched myths die hard.  We in the US have our treasured Declaration of Independence, which declares as “self-evident”—with the calm assurance of those who know they cannot be contradicted—that “all men are created equal.”  As we know, this was disingenuous at best.  For one, they indeed meant ‘men,’ given that women could neither vote nor hold office.  And they meant ‘White men,’ given that all the Founders were White Anglo-Saxons, and many were slaveholders or otherwise endorsed slavery.  Hence that famous phrase really meant “all White males are created equal”—though even that is demonstrably untrue, as I have argued.

Original Democracy

Huxley had it exactly right:  support for modern democracy is in fact more of a belief system, or even a faith, than something grounded in history, reason, and philosophy.  Like many other religions, democracy derives from a core of historical truth—here, in ancient Greece—that was then altered beyond recognition by an accretion of layers of myth, lie, and corruption.  Today we have the belief, the faith, by all sides, “left” and “right” alike,[5] that democracy is an unquestioned virtue, that it must be defended at all costs, and that it must be spread to the world, even at the point of a gun.  This is a fundamental political error, founded on an erroneous and detrimental conception of human equality; it must be overcome if we are to survive in the long run.

Democracy wasn’t always a religion.  At one time, at the beginning, it was a rational and effective (though not unproblematic) means of self-government.  Let’s take a minute to examine the original democracy of ancient Greece to see what worked and what did not.

Athenian democracy was a remarkable institution, and remarkably different than what passes for democracy today.  To begin with, the population of the state (or polis) was small—it constituted only some 300,000 people at its peak, which included many slaves and foreigners.  By modern standards, this seems tiny but, for the time, it was extremely large.  Of this number, the only formal citizens were the adult native-born males, numbering perhaps 30,000, or just 10 percent of the population.  These citizens—the demos, the people—were the formal basis of political power, rather than some ruling wealthy elite (also known as oligarchs or plutocrats), or some tyrannical dictator, as could be found in other Greek states.

The democratic system, inaugurated by Cleisthenes around 500 BC, functioned in a very different way than we might expect.  For one, there were no elections; all leadership positions (apart from the military) were chosen by lot, at random, from among the citizens who had put forth their names.  This included even the leader of the Assembly—the collected body of citizens—who was effectively the president of the nation, though without much formal power.  The Greeks had invented a device called a kleroterion into which names were randomly inserted on small tokens; colored dice were then deployed to select names randomly and fairly from among the various tribes or families.  The system had several virtues:  immediate results, no costly or corrupted election campaigns, fairness, transparency, and an equal involvement of all concerned.  The Greeks clearly had to be nice to all their fellow (Athenian male) citizens, any one of whom could someday have a position of prominence.

Secondly, there were no representatives.  Athens was a famously direct democracy.  All interested citizens gathered on a large open hilltop, called the Pnyx, roughly once per month, to listen to the issues of the day.  When the time came for decisions, a very public show of hands determined the outcome.  Even the gravest of matters, such as going to war, were decided this way.  This is all the more striking when we consider that the army was composed of the very men who had themselves just voted for war.  In other words, when you voted for war, you personally went to war.  And many never returned.  We can only imagine a similar situation in America today:  that the Congressmen and women who support the next illegal and unjust foreign war[6] would be compelled to be on the first combat plane into the warzone.  I suspect that we would have very few wars indeed.

In sum, Athenian democracy was small, direct, accountable, and transparent.  The wealthy elite had very little power to steer events in their favor.  The citizenry comprised only native men; foreigners had literally no voice in the state, even though they outnumbered the actual citizens by a factor of two or three.  Greek democracy was thus a racial (White European), ethnic (Athenian), and gendered (men only) system of rule.  And it worked incredibly well; it produced and sustained the brilliant Athenian culture that we know today.

Two Famous Critics

For all that, the system had some harsh and prominent critics—notably, Plato and Aristotle.  Plato had two main complaints against democracy:  First, he asked, why should all the citizens get to vote on key decisions?  Why are they all treated as equals, one vote per man?  This is illogical and counterproductive.  Even in Athens, they had their share of dunces, dimwits, and degenerates.  Why let these men vote?  Why not let only the best, the wisest, vote?  For that matter, why have votes at all?  Why not just determine who are your wisest few, and let them rule?  This was Plato’s vision of an aristocracy, the optimal form of government.  It is, at least in theory, far superior to anything like a democracy.

Plato’s second concern was, ironically, with freedom itself.  In a democracy, since “the people” rule, anything goes.  Whatever the people want, the people get.  And the people—the masses—rarely want the kinds of things that they should want, namely, virtue and discipline.  Rather, they want to have fun: they want to do one thing one day, and something else the next, as it suits their fancy.  They are ‘free,’ after all.  They want to play games, engage in various petty amusements, fill their bellies, get drunk, and so on.  As it was then, so it is now; human nature has scarcely changed in two millennia.

Plato is scalding in his attack.  The “democratic man” is inundated by all manner of trivial and detrimental desires.  True and deep thoughts are driven from his soul, and “false and boastful conceits and phrases mount upwards and take their place” (Republic Bk 8; 560c):

And so the young man returns to the country of the [pleasure-seeking] lotus-eaters, and takes up his dwelling there in the face of all men. … There is a battle and [the false and boastful words] gain the day, and then modesty, which they call ‘silliness’, is ignominiously thrust into exile by them, and temperance, which they nickname ‘unmanliness’, is trampled in the mire and cast forth.  They persuade men that moderation and frugal spending are vulgarity and meanness, and so, by the help of a rabble of evil appetites, they drive them out.

And when they have emptied and swept clean the soul of him who is now in their power and who is being initiated by them in great mysteries, the next thing is to bring back to their house insolence and anarchy and waste and impudence in bright array, having garlands on their heads, and a great company with them, hymning their praises and calling them by sweet names.  Arrogance they term ‘good-breeding’, and anarchy ‘freedom’, and waste ‘magnificence’, and impudence ‘courage’.  And so the young man passes out of his original nature, which was trained in the school of necessity, into the freedom and libertinism of useless and unnecessary pleasures.  (560d-e)

And if wiser thoughts come calling, and if they struggle for predominance in his soul, he becomes confused; “he shakes his head and says that they are all alike, and that one is as good as another.”  He has lost the ability to judge and to discriminate, which degrades his entire life:

His life has neither law nor order; and this distracted existence he terms ‘joy’ and ‘bliss’ and ‘freedom’; and so he goes on…  [H]e is all ‘freedom’ and ‘equality.’

Hence the democratic man.  His precious freedom, given unrestrained license and lack of discipline, devolves into mindless and confused pleasure-seeking.  He believes he has freedom, and he believes in equality—but this is a sham; it is a false equality and the freedom of a shallow and vapid libertine.  Plato sums up the situation on democracy with one of the most striking sentences in the Republic:

These and other kindred characteristics are proper to democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.  (558c)

“Charming” and “disordered” democracy, so “fair and spangled,” is all show and no substance.  It encourages undisciplined, unvirtuous lives of hedonistic pleasure.  And most importantly, it “dispenses a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.”  Such a democracy, he says, can only lead in turn to the lowest form of government, tyranny.

I haven’t the space to elaborate, but in short, Aristotle basically agreed with this analysis.  He identified three primary forms of government, each of which had good and bad versions.  In descending order, the three good systems are monarchy (rule by one), aristocracy (rule by a small and wise few), and a ‘constitution’ (conditional rule by many).  The distorted or bad forms of each of these are tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy.[7]  In this sense, for Aristotle, democracy is literally ‘the worst of the worst.’  It is rule by the poor and needy masses, not the best or noblest few.

Industrial Democracy

What, then, of democracy in the world today?  We have variations on the democratic theme that are so remote from the Athenian original that they hardly deserve the same name.  They have lost all the virtues of the original but retained all the vices.  Democracy today has devolved into a crude perversion that I like to call industrial democracy.  Its primary characteristics are these:

1)  Representative (parliamentarian) system—no direct participation.
2)  Universal suffrage—all adults can vote.
3)  Multiracial—all races can vote.
4)  Unlimited population size.
5)  Financially corrupt—moneyed interests (especially Jewish) hold great sway.

On every point, this is opposed to the Athenian model.  We vote, but typically only for a handful of pre-determined candidates or on a very limited number of referenda.  Our representation is scaled down by a factor of thousands or millions; a state as large as California, with almost 40 million people, gets all of two senators.[8]  And every half-witted, uneducated ignoramus gets his or her vote—people who vastly outnumber the educated and the wise.  (And we wonder why the intellectual level of political campaigns is so low.)  People of every race can vote, and they often do so in their own racial interest, thus guaranteeing a divided and conflicted government.  Perhaps most critically, the original small size of the Athenian citizen body, some 30,000 individuals, now numbers almost 250 million—the number of eligible American adults.

The vast size and scale of representation ensures that billions of corrupting dollars flow through the system, distorting even the most virtuous lawmaker, and guaranteeing a flood of media confusion, propaganda, and “fake news.”  Industrial democracy is rule by money: those with the most money, and the will to spend it, rule.  In America, we know who leads this race: the Jewish lobby, which contributes at least 50% of Democratic campaign funds and at least 25% of Republican funds.  Wealthy American Jews spend literally hundreds of millions on campaigns, ads, donations, and various other activities, all to influence the outcome in their favored direction.[9]  The situation is comparable in the UK, Canada, France, and Australia, all of which have relatively large and wealthy Jewish populations.[10]  The ancient Greeks—most of them, at least—would be appalled to see what their cherished democracy has come to.

As it is, we now have that which Plato predicted: democracy on the brink of degenerating into tyranny of various forms.  We have tyrannies of the rich, tyrannies of the Judeocracy, and tyrannies of Big Tech, all vying for power, and all cooperating as needed to ensure that nothing like transparent and accountable government ever comes to pass.  The main objective of the rich is to stay rich, and to maintain or grow the wealth gap between themselves and the masses; the larger the disparity, the more relative power they hold.  The main objective of the Judeocracy, of the Jewish power-elite, is to weaken and damage the national psyche sufficiently, and to diversify and deplete the nation genetically, so that they can maintain maximum control without completely destroying the wealth-producing capacity of the economy.  Under industrial democracy, the future is grim indeed.

America, sadly, has been completely subsumed by this pernicious and insidious form of government.  The country is ruled by the lowest, most depraved, most incompetent individuals imaginable.  At the same time, it is being flooded by the virtual scum of humanity—in July 2021 alone, over 212,000 arrests (“encounters”, in the government’s euphemistic propaganda) occurred at the southern border.[11]  How many more evaded “encounter” and entered the country illegally, we do not know.  And to these numbers we must add the “legal” immigration of large numbers of non-European, non-White individuals who inevitably change the character of the nation for the worse.  The combined effect is dramatic.  A recent study stated that the US now has an astonishing 44 million people who were foreign-born, of which about 75% are legal and 25% are illegal.[12]  Nearly half of these millions were born in just five countries: Mexico, China, India, Philippines, and El Salvador.  Surely not more than a percent or two of these 44 million are White.  The grand edifice that is America is collapsing as we speak.

Therefore, it is time to accept reality and give up America for lost.  Put away your flags, your pins, and all your red-white-and-blue paraphernalia.  Toss out your MAGA hats; America will never be “great again.”  Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar or a fool.  The country is rotting from above and below.  Vermin are calling the shots from on high, and human detritus washes in over the borders.  This was precisely how Ancient Rome fell.  Such is the terminal stage of many an empire.

Looking Ahead

If this report on the fatal condition of America is close to the mark, it also suggests corrective actions that must be taken to regain a sane and stable civic life, at least for the White Euro-Americans who established and ran the country for most of its existence.  The necessary actions are hardly a secret.  The basic ideas are already floating around the Internet.  Andrew Anglin, for one, was right on the mark in his recent essay on immigration.  His conclusion:

The only way we are going to fix this [immigration] problem is through a two-fold solution:  1) Redrawing the borders of the country, and 2) Physically removing tens of millions of people.  There is no situation where both of those things are not going to be necessary in the future.

He is absolutely right.[13]  Those are two necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for the restoration of rational government among the White population today.

More specifically, my above analysis suggests the following steps: (a) Break up the existing United States into smaller, more cohesive, more homogenous, and more manageable units.  (b) In these new units, encourage all non-Whites, and especially all Jews, to emigrate as soon as possible.  (c) Discard the pernicious concept of human equality and replace it by a celebration of the higher, the nobler, and the best.  (d) Replace industrial democracy with something like an aristocracy.  Let me close by offering a few words of elaboration on each.

More and more people these days seem to be recognizing the desirability and the inevitability of secession of portions of the US, and the establishment of new, independent nation-states.  In fact, as the nation continues to disintegrate, at some point people will have no choice; thus, it is better to plan now than to wait for some chaotic future breakdown.

Some of the current talk on secession has the right intent but is woefully weak and misguided.  One can find articles like “Is America still our country?” and “The separation,” but these are pathetically half-hearted.  Breaking up existing states but staying within America is a wholly insufficient form of secession.  The “6 Californias” idea is very weak; “Greater Idaho” is well-intentioned but falls way short of the mark.  None of these explicitly advocates breaking away from the US and forming new nations.  Only full-blown secession can hope to get to the root of the problem.  The reigning Judeocracy knows this, which is why they do everything in their power to discredit the idea.

Point (b) is mandatory for restoring effective and rational governance.  Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and Jews all have countries of origin; they need to return there with all due haste.  After a short period of voluntary compliance, increasing pressure will need to be applied until they comply.  Yes, Whites could theoretically return to Europe, except that Whites created and built up the present civilization (such as it is) of the USA, and thus have earned a right to stay and to evict the interlopers.[14]  Native Americans were of course here before the White Europeans, and that precedence needs to be respected, such as via truly autonomous homelands.  And since Blacks were forcibly brought here from Africa (with heavy Jewish involvement[15]), I would have no issue with assisting their return to Africa with subsidized travel arrangements, a small one-time cash payment, or with the use of political leverage in Africa to aid their repatriation.  We can ease the transition, but out they must go.

The hardest to deal with will of course be the Jews.  With their political clout, wealth, and bull-headed tenacity, they will be very hard to root out.  The task is made all the more difficult because of the inability of our supposedly “conservative Right” to address the Jewish Question in a meaningful way.  Most all prominent rightwing individuals and organizations flee from the Question like the devil from holy water.  As I have noted elsewhere, Fox News and crew—Carlson, Hannity, et al—never explicitly mention Jews, never out them, and never criticize them in any way; Hannity in fact bends over backward to curry favor.  Alex Jones never criticizes or outs Jews.  Same with Jared Taylor.  American Renaissance won’t deal with the Jewish Question in a serious way.  Breitbart at least discusses them, but always in a neutral or positive light.  The real critics are, sadly, few and far between; to reiterate what I wrote recently, we need to be extremely grateful for The Occidental Observer,, National Vanguard, and people like Anglin, all of whom are willing to speak the hard truth on the Jewish Question.

Point (c) obviously follows from the above discussion.  We must drop all talk of human equality and replace it with a promotion and celebration of human uniqueness and human greatness.  This needs to be made explicit in common discourse, media, and school curricula.  We need to celebrate and praise human genius while emphasizing the fact that most people are not geniuses and will never achieve greatness, but who can nonetheless have meaningful and valuable lives.  When it is understood that humans never were, and never will be, equal, then all become free to achieve their full potential and, for those who succeed in bettering themselves, to reap the rewards of exceptional development.  In a just society, exceptional individuals will earn additional rights, but they will also bear additional duties, compared to the lesser.  “Equal” performance for the various subgroups of people—as distinguished by gender, age, socio-economic status, ethnicity, etc.—will never be expected or mandated.  “Racial equality” will be a nonissue.

On the final point, it is clear that the hopelessly corrupt industrial democracy must go.  We can also be confident that something like an aristocracy would be a vast (if imperfect) improvement, even as there is much leeway in the specific details.  If we allow that “rule by the wiser” is superior to “rule by the masses,” then we have many ways to realize such a system.  At the simplest level, we could retain elections for officeholders but permit only the wiser—smarter, more educated, more accomplished—individuals to vote.  It could be very basic:  require that voters earn a college degree, for example; or score above average on an IQ test; or distinguish themselves in some other relevant way (an exceptional athlete, by contrast, earns no right to a voice on political issues).  The disenfranchised would not be made to feel inferior; rather, they would come to accept such a system as in the best interests of all.

At a more sophisticated level, we might move to adopt something like a Platonic education system, as laid out in the Republic.  There he sketches a 50-year training program involving age-appropriate schooling, skills training, physical fitness, and practical experience that both educates the masses and serves as a filtering process to determine who the truly wisest and most capable leaders are.  A series of pass-fail criteria progressively reduce the pool of eligible candidates, leaving, at the end, a mere handful of individuals who have repeatedly proven themselves under pressure.  In a future aristocracy, a small pool of “the best” could be added annually to a kind of ruling congress who would then be unconditionally empowered to make and enforce all laws and policies.  After a fixed term of governance, each individual would be compelled to retire in turn.  Again, this is just one way of realizing such a system.  Variations might include finding ways to identify and empower the truly exceptional individuals—or perhaps a single individual—and give them correspondingly exceptional powers to rule.

In any case, the system would need to be recognized by the vast majority of people as an effective and desirable solution.  In this sense, it would retain a small flavor of traditional democracy.  “Consent of the governed” can work, as long as the population is not too large and as long as we do not have to contend with competing racial minorities or Jewish financial corruption.  But such consent is a far cry from universal suffrage or rule by the masses, which can never work, and which always degenerates.

Such is my basic outline of a path forward.  Obviously, much more needs to be said.  But it is a start, one that addresses the root causes of our present crisis.[16]

I close with this thought:  To the extent that America ever was great, this is because, at the start, it was roughly modeled on the Athenian original.  The early American government was gendered, racial, and ethnic—White males of a predominantly north European stock.  And it stayed that way for nearly 100 years.[17]  The celebrated American “diversity” at the beginning was a diversity among Whites: English, Scots, Irish, Dutch, Germans, and Scandinavians all would have been represented in those early years.  Yes, America had significant numbers of Blacks and Jews from the 1600s, but they had limited or no political influence.  Religion was of secondary importance.  Yes, it was nominally a “Christian nation” at the start, but few among the Founders were deeply religious—Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and John Jay being the exceptions—and most were skeptical believers or deists, if not functional atheists.

Hence, early America prospered and flourished in spite of, not because of, Christianity; in spite of, not because of, Blacks and Jews; and in spite of, not because of, the principle of equality.  Blacks, Jews, “equality,” and Christianity were millstones around the young nation’s neck.  It is a testament to our initially gendered and racial governance that we accomplished so much in those early years, with such huge burdens to bear.  Two centuries later, those millstones proved to be our ruination.

America is dying a slow and painful death.  Let us euthanize the long-suffering nation, redraw the boundaries, rethink the guiding principles, and begin again.


Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020).  Most recently he has edited a new edition of Rosenberg’s classic work Myth of the 20th Century and a new book of political cartoons, Pan-Judah!.  All these works are available at  For all his writings, see his personal website

[1] Second Treatise on Civil Government (1690), chapter 8, section 95.

[2] And in fact, Aristotle’s later discussion of the “great-souled man” (Nicomachean Ethics IV.3) demonstrates conclusively that he believed in vast difference among men.

[3] The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, volume one, Cambridge University Press (1985), pp. 111-112.

[4] Indeed, explicit human equality exists nowhere in the Bible.  Paul claims in Galatians (3:28) that “there is neither Jew nor Greek” under Jesus and that “we are all one in Christ Jesus.”  But this only says that all are welcome into his nascent universalist church; it does not support the idea that all are equal.  And more importantly, there are very good reasons for believing that Paul held to the most obnoxious form of Jewish supremacism, and thus did not believe in human equality in the least; see my essays “Christianity: The great Jewish hoax” and “Nietzsche and the origins of Christianity.”

[5] Though, as I have recently argued in “The problem with leftism,” both the Left and the Right are “fakes,” which explains why they both adhere to similar nonsense, and why they both supplicate to the Jewish Lobby.

[6] Actually, in America we don’t have wars anymore; we have “authorized uses of military force” or AUMFs.  This is Congress’ cowardly way to kill others on behalf of their lobbyists and patrons without having to vote for an actual war.

[7] Politics III.7.

[8] It does get 53 federal representatives, but even here, each represents the interests of an average of 750,000 very diverse individuals.

[9] See my elaborations in “The problem with leftism” and “Confronting the Judeocracy.”

[10] I emphasize “relative.”  Jewish percentages of these four nations range from 0.4 to 1.0%.  Normally this should be inconsequential, but with wealthy and pernicious Jews, it poses substantial problems.  The lesson here is that any nation seeking to free itself from the Jewish Lobby had best restrict Jewish numbers to something well below 0.1%.

[11] Of course, not all illegal immigrants are scum.  But from everything we know, a very high proportion of them are from the lowest, least intelligent, and most criminal segments of humanity.  And since virtually all of them are non-White, even the best will alter the nature of our traditionally White society.

[12] Though the actual number of illegals could be much higher than the presumed 11 million.  One recent study argued that the true figure could be as high as 29 million.

[13] Now, if we could only get Anglin to drop his allegiance to the Judeo-Christian God and to that long-dead Jewish rabbi, he would be much better off.

[14] Yes, Black African slaves and Chinese coolies “built” portions of the early US.  But they provided only the low-end brute labor, not the organizational or intellectual basis for the nation.  To give them credit for building America would be akin to giving credit to the oxen and draft horses of the early pioneers.

[15] See Louis Farrakhan’s book The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews (3 volumes).

[16] Elsewhere I have argued that Hitler’s National Socialism can also be a model going forward.  His nationalism created an ethnic-based sense of unity and purpose that far exceeded mindless patriotism, and his socialism served as an antidote to unrestrained finance capitalism.  There are many good lessons to be learned there.  Interested readers should start with my recent edition of Mein Kampf, and with my newly-reworked edition of Alfred Rosenberg’s classic, The Myth of the 20th Century.

[17] Black males were granted the right to vote in 1866, and women (of all races) in 1920.

59 replies
  1. anonym
    anonym says:

    Instead of calling for an END to democracy, maybe call for a REFORM of democracy. Democracy seems inherent in the European tradition – not just Athens and the Roman Republic, but also most of the pre Christian northern countries were democracies, with their “ting” (assembly) with elected council-men and division of power.

    As the article describes: the traditional sound form of democracy was a meritocracy where the most suitable got elected. In most countries, including 1800s America, only landowners could vote, which kept most of the dunces out of the process. We also had forced sterilization of them, continued into the 1960s in most white countries. Maybe suggest we restart forced sterilization of criminals, it would take care of some of the problem.

    Same with equality: equality for citizens under the law and the government institutions, was the true European meaning of equality. It more or less simply meant fairness. The problem started when Marxists started adding to the list, demand material equality, equality of outcome, and subvert things.

    It’s the changes, or distortion of democracy, that is the problem. We need a return to the true traditional European forms of democracy and equality, instead of today’s perverted Jewish forms. Start on a state level, or even county level, and cut off power from the Federal Government.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      This is correct, even a North European backwater like Scotland had a kind of democracy to pick their kings before Bruce, and we all know of similar things in places even more remote like Iceland.
      Though this democracy was kept strictly among the ruling elite. This wasn’t a bad thing, as a landed elite has an interest in the welfare of the people, if only for selfish reasons.
      The only problems arised when this elite would sub-contract the management of the peasants out to Jews, as they, being utterly merciless and not seeing the people as humans, would squeeze them better than any native could.
      This retarded Eastern Europes’ development though, as it locked all the talent the peasants produced at the bottom, whereas in a nation like Britain, they were free to rise and flourish.
      But sterilisation? You’d have to be pretty damn sure of your elite before handing them this power.

  2. Angelicus
    Angelicus says:

    Absolutely magnificent!

    About the dissolution of the USA, I think it will happen spontaneously but not quickly and will involve a great deal of bloodshed but it is inevitable and necessary. Millions of unworthy, treacherous whites (liberals, lefties, etc.) deserve to die and perhaps they will be killed by their coloured “brothers” in the ensuing chaos. I said this again and again, without the cooperation and enthusiastic support of millions of idealistic morons or greedy traitors ( all of them 100% white) our enemies could not have achieved anything.

    The white race is heading towards a well-deserved culling.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” The white race is heading towards a well-deserved culling.”

      In 1776 there was no one or group in the world whom was fully capable of psychologicly capturing and then manipulating the beliefs and behaviors of the Christian sheeple majorities . Since 1776 the chosenhite jewmasterss have acquired that capability/power ; while many Christians to this day remain smug in their belief that faith in their deity JC is all they need for protection from inevitable abuses ( includes also unjustified deaths and destructions of property ) that result from the exercise , by talmudic jewmasterss and their Christian stooges , of that power to psychologicly capture and tyrannicly control and manipulate entire populations/(sheeple herds) into potentially severely detrimental social/political/economic constructs that eventually become the equivalent of cattle holding pens .

      Ignorance is not a crime even if it is willfull .
      Poverty is not a crime even if it is self-engendered .

      Perhaps a better expression would be [ ineluctable culling ]
      instead of “well-deserved culling” .

      Time for White Christians to consider a new religion .

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      About the traitors and idiots in our midst, also our enemies couldn’t have achieved a thing without female votes.
      From todays’ angle, giving women the vote seems unhinged, and a complete misunderstanding of female nature. I really cannot get my head around why they were so cavalier with our system. The fact that the vanguard for woman’s suffrage were literal terrorists makes it even more bizarre. They say it was the war. Maybe it was. But if anything could come close to achieving as stupid a thing as Britain fighting WWI, allowing woman to vote, would certainly be it.
      It’s so weird because white Christians have always understood female nature. It’s kind of written into our religion, and no one in a thousand years ever even dreamed of allowing woman any sort of power, it wld be considered bonkers.

      Thought experiment: We’re in a medieval European besieged castle. It’s 50/50 whether they can hold them off and gain victory, or the castle taken and the men, children & anyone over 30 killed. If the woman of the place were offered their lives, they’d get raped as their men got killed of course, but after that they’d be looked after by the enemy, does anyone doubt that the woman would betray their men, families, king & cause for their wretched lives?
      If the offer was put to the women in a vote, no doubt women of that era, being drenched in Christianity, were 10,000x more loyal than today, but does anyone doubt they’d vote overwhelming for their own selfish interests?

    HUGO FUERST says:

    Two more quotes from Aldous Huxley, the first from the book cited by Dr Dalton:

    1. “When the masses of the coloured races are as well trained and highly industriaized as our own, we shall have little or nothing on our side to outweigh their numbers…. The white races will be at the mercy of the coloured races, and the superior whites will be at the mercy of their white inferiors.”

    2. “A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because their love their servitude.”

  4. Tony W
    Tony W says:

    A government such as Germany’s National Socialist , whose actions got millions of its people killed and the nation nearly annihilated, seems like a poor model for us to follow.

    • John
      John says:

      It was Poland who continued to rebuff many reasonable offers Germany put forth. The Danzig issue was between Poland & Germany; German’s claim was legitimate & even UK supported it. Then came the UK’s “war guarantee to Poland”, which was viewed by many in Britain as “reckless”, “turned British policy upside down”, “the maddest single action this country has ever taken”, “[n]owhere in British diplomatic history is it possible to discover a more feckless and fateful act”, “a frightful gamble”, “[i]f the British army general staff approved this, said Lloyd George, they ought to be confined to a lunatic asylum”, “foolish”, there are many more. As for the French, “they thought the British pledge madness”. As for the Italians, the British guarantee to Poland, writes Luigi Villari, was “the most disastrous single diplomatic move”.
      There are lots more, too many to post. Many others echoed the same sentiments.
      Again, it was the Allies led by Britain that caused & are responsible for the unnecessary World War II, not Germany.

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        To blame Britain is too much. I accept everything else, absolutely it was the allies who started, prolonged & conducted the war and subsequent peace as deranged sadistic monsters.
        But the British people were against the war, all classes were, none more so than the poor who always make up the cannon fodder. Though the aristocracy lose their sons too.
        It was the Jewish bribed war party in Britain, the Focus Group around Churchill that wanted it, no one else. And I doubt even they would have the nerve without repeated Jewish assurances that America would eventually be dragged in, by hook or by crook, just as last time.
        This was the Jews & communists around Roosevelt, who needed a diversion from the miserable failure of his New Deal. It was Roosevelt as much as Churchill that egged the Polish on to suicide. Ambassador Bullit in France as well.
        Considering that, I’d say Hitler had it bang on, and every honest enquiry into WWII’s causes confirm this, it was, again, international Jewry that was to blame most.
        Not ‘Jews’. The international Jewish financial cartel. The bane of our existence in starting the Boer war, WWI, WWII, and as they are today as well. It would be strange if it wasn’t these Jews.

  5. Birhan Dargey
    Birhan Dargey says:

    NO the debate is not about Democracy, National foundation, the KEY question is the concept/constitutional/definition of CITIZENSHIP…which allows people to VOTE, elect or be ELECTED.. the bedrock of democracy is one Man/Woman (citizen) one vote…so to give people the RIGHT to vote regardless of their (il) legal status and their CIVIC Cultural assimilation (process?) which was the dominant model behind the melting pot theory, which NOW is being erased, then demolish the current concept of Democracy. The big elephant in the room is the concept of Citizenship and so called DUAL loyalties…regarding the JEWISH question…loyal to whom, whose interests??? USA vrs Israel..??? Its not a exaggeration to say that 90% of the current Bidens regime are JEWS…loyal to whom?? Many correctly/Incorrectly can present a strong argument that the origins of the American Republic/Empire DECAY interna;external has been the ZIOJEWISH domination of the American/USA POLITICAL GOVT (Fiscal/Military/foreign/TAX/Trade policies) apparatus…the subjugation of the American Nation to the ZIO/Jewish/israeli/ oligarchy.

    • Miguel Flanderos
      Miguel Flanderos says:

      NOW in CA illegal people can/will/had VOTED…VOTING in CA for all elections including FEDERAL DOES NOT require IDs, DrLics, SSecurity numbers, Finger prints, Affidavits, proof of residency..NONE of the above..VOTING is a Circus, a mockerey, a farse….even your pet can vote…WHO has been the driving force behind OPEN borders, Motor Laws, freetrade, outsourcing, Neocons wars, Endless wars, abortions, pornography, lgbt woke military, etc. JEWS….

  6. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    Yes, secession is the answer. But I wonder if our folk can wrap their heads about one essential aspect of secession LOCATION.

    Part of Natural Law in regards to secession is geographical location. And so long as our people want to stay in Florida, Tennessee, Missouri, Michigan or wherever, we will not survive.

    Divided we fall, united we stand. I really doubt if our folk will survive, as the majority are in denial of Natural Law. They will not rise up and relocate their families, but would rather do their fighting on a keyboard.

    Geldings are the only ones comfortable on straddling a fence.

    Come to the inland Pacific Northwest. Yes, we have wolves, cougars, and even a few wolverines. But they make a hell of a lot better neighbors than most featherless bipeds.

  7. jediee
    jediee says:

    The idea that roughly 45 million blacks will return to africa for a small cash payment is laughable and imho that is the crux of America’s issues.Utilising the federal financial system along the same way japan finances it’s national debt white and black americans who will be forced to relocate can be well compensated for the expense and labor of moving out of their current residences.This can happen over 50-75 years to help peacefully evolve into a seperate nation state in probably 6-9 southern states where 55% of blacks already live.You want to solve the JQ,watch jewish influence fall precipitately as blacks leave the rest of the U.S. for their own nation.This can be done along with stopping or controlling 3rd world immigration of poor people.The nationalist right has to read up on Modern Money Theory and start understanding that these projects can be accomplished without super high taxes over time.Where there is a will and a vision there is a way and if the J’s want to take on the American state at that point let them try.I like our chances in that scenario.

  8. Leon Haller
    Leon Haller says:

    {Yes, it was nominally a “Christian nation” at the start, but few among the Founders were deeply religious—Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and John Jay being the exceptions—and most were skeptical believers or deists, if not functional atheists.}

    There is a wealth of historiographical literature contradicting this. This type of assertion derives from two traditions, the secularist/atheist wing of liberalism, which has the ulterior motive of disprivileging Christianity in American law and life, and extreme, holier-than-thou Protestant fundamentalism (for whom nearly no one qualifies as a “true Christian” except the fundies themselves). Most of the Founders were in fact Christians, who however, like many contemporary Christians, disagree among themselves about the precise doctrinal implications of Scripture. Tom Paine (not technically a Founder, but very influential) may well have been an atheist; not sure re Franklin. Jefferson was a Christian, albeit a heterodox one. Washington was by all accounts a Christian, as was Adams, despite some counter-evidence. Few were theocrats, it’s true.

  9. Patty Fripp
    Patty Fripp says:

    Great ideas and many of us already know most of it.
    The main thing is removing jewish influence…..and how do you do that when they
    have bribed their way to total control?

  10. as200YT
    as200YT says:

    America Must Die—So That the [Occidental WHITE] People Can Live. <— Note the change…..

    It should, by now, be apparent to any person of the Occidental persuasion that the World Wars of the 20th [jewish] century all but (and in many documented cases did in fact) annihilated the Evropean Man. The tired clichés no longer hold any water for the kosher lemmings, unless so deracinated that they are better of in the sediments of forgotten dirt, and deservingly so for that matter!

    A new era has surfaced, and, as such, must be developed, shaped and ultimately learned from — given the sacrifices of our own forefathers. It can be a magnificent era if seized upon and molded by the unique Evropean ideals, yet uncompromisingly for our own people!

    The struggle ahead is of epic proportions, and those incited against our people should read history — for in history, the truth is known of the precise perpetrators, promoters, and peddlers of the putrid pestilence of a certain origin…and their whole history is centered around "blotting out the memory of Amalek"; these repetitive acts occur in a semi-direct correlation to their expulsion over the millennia and their copes and kvetching of the so-called "pogroms".

  11. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    ” WE hold these Truths to be self-evident , that all Men are created equal ,”…

    That world renown statement was not and nor was it intended to be a scientific statement . It is one of the most historicly famous statements that alludes to political equality among a relatively homogeneous group of men — not women nor children — and it especially meant equality with regard to established law . It is a political statement in the political document known worldwide as “THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE” of 1776 which is the first and major preamble to the U.S. Constitution .

    The chosenhite jewmasterss ( dominant members of the globalist oligarchy which also includes USA oligarchs ) have done with that famous statement what they have been doing since their ancient biblical Tower of Babel allegory of subversion by introducing language confusions into the vernacular of the masses whom are contemporaneously called “sheeple herds”. Specificly , the jewmasterss successfully manipulated the minds of the sheeple majorities into conflating the rhetoricly more or less true political statement “that all Men are created equal” with the self-evidently false hypothetical and generalized scientific statement of the same expression .

    The typical sheeple mind is inveterately scrambled with innumerable conflations and all kinds of other confusions .

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      The meaning is not clear- after almost 250 years folks still ask- what did he mean?

      How about “All men are created unequal, yet having equal rights?”

  12. Sanjay
    Sanjay says:

    Thank you again for granting me the privilege to post here, something my people would never grant you.

    My following comments are based on my current understanding of Differential Psychology, Behavioral Genetics, Evolutionary Psychology, and History. However, since I am not that particularly bright, much of my understanding may be incorrect:

    This article suggests that European-Americans must choose to immediately do various things in order to create an Eurocentric nation. However, if the genetics the Europeans possessed during the Enlightenment was not sufficient to reject the seeds of the Enlightenment thoughts (Atheism, Multiculturalism, Individualism, Feminism, Homosexuality), then with the cumulative effects of the following 250 years of dysgenics and mutational load, the European-Americans are going to be even much more unlikely to carry out the actions advised by Mr. Dalton. If European-Americans had any genetic potential to do these things, then surely they would have done it decades ago at each Cultural Marxist milestone, such as the Civil War, the emancipation of the American Ashkenazim, granting voting rights to females, increasing foreign immigration, desegregation, civil rights/affirmative action, pornography, WWI and WWII, and so forth. Each of these milestones is an act of genocide, and in historical times during periods of strong Group Selection, such milestones would invoke civil war (current protesting, voting, not shopping at anti-European companies, etc. are acts of genetic cowardess).

    Also, the author talks about how Plato/Aristotle noticed the low Industriousness, low intelligence, low Altruism, and Neuroticism of the masses, masses that should not be allowed to vote. And the author argues that the nature of people today is the same, indicating that humans remain genetically the same over centuries/millennia. However, Dr. Woodley of Menie’s theory is that civilizations genetically rise and fall and they cycle between relatively Group Selected to relatively Individually Selected. Plato/Aristotle may have noticed the relative transition of the masses towards an Individually Selected state. Rome then had its group selected state, then transitioned to the opposite, resulting in its collapse. Then once again from 1400s to 1700s Europeans again became increasingly Group Selected, only to then reverse during the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, what we are experiencing now among current European-Americans is an extreme state of Individual Selection, one in which collapse has been postponed due to unprecedented amount of technology keeping all the genetic degenerates alive. Since rigorous Darwinian Selection is being postponed, mutated and dysgenic genes are accumulating more than ever before in European and human history to a point to which no recovery may even be possible. In other words, this time when Western nations collapse, they may just all go extinct. I wrote an “article” (if one can even call it that, as opposed to the ramblings of a mid-wit), where I describe this process among the Ashkenazim, but which can be extrapolated to Europeans, here is the link: (It’s no longer at Reddit since those forums were banned, but the whole ‘article’ is posted at Unz, you just have to click on the “[MORE]” link.
    At best though, we can just hope that once the West collapses, rigorous Darwinian Selection can re-mold a small surviving section of Europeans, re-fortifying them once again with Group Selected traits such as high intelligence, ethnocentrism, industriousness, emotional stability, and religiosity/spirituality/monumentalism/open-to-experience.

    Final thought: Mr. Dalton does not value religion, however, it may be a biological requirement for religion to be innately present for a race to choose to practice Group Selection/ethno-nationalism. Without a feeling of spirituality/immortality, the pure emotionless acceptance of the observable laws of physics would lead to a conclusion that there is no ‘purpose’ to life and we all just die anyway, so why bother to reproduce? Why continue the misery of human existence? With all the pain in the world, why not just commit suicide? This problem does not exist in Group Selected animals such as bees, ants, wolves, birds, and apes, who lack the general intelligence to actually ponder upon such thoughts as the meaning of life (and, perhaps Africans can’t do this either, which is why they don’t need religion to have high fertility). But for Europeans, just consider the extreme environmental tortures they had to endure, such as mass starvation, plagues, volcano eruptions, freezing mass deaths, foreign invaders wiping out extremely large amounts of the population, etc. What European would be motivated to struggle to survive when suicide would be much less painful? It would require religion to give them this motivation – put up with the pain now and do God’s bidding, and be rewarded in the After-Life, among other things. Religion takes that which is evolutionary adaptive, and makes it the Will of God.

    But just for the record, I am actually religiously Agnostic, however I gamble on the existence of God and thus behave as if He is watching me and judging me.

    One last thought: since most of European history has been monarchic, could this not be said to be the most stable form of government in evolutionary terms? Monarchy existed during the most Group Selected phases of European history, however, during the two times democracy emerged, they occurred when Europeans were transitioning back towards the Individual Selection phase and thus being concerned more with individual rights and and individual interests, as opposed to the collective well-being.

    • Gerry
      Gerry says:

      @ Sanjay

      “since most of European history has been monarchic, could this not be said to be the most stable form of government in evolutionary terms?”

      My if I haven’t been musing over this given an essay over at the Saker blog. See here:

      It’s not just in ‘evolutionary terms.’ There is no question whatsoever, that monarchies have always been the strongest form of government and note I said strongest not best. How strange it is though that after getting rid of the European monarchies the European Union wants to do what? Find a leader more to their liking because as it always has been the problem is a question of “authority.” In the past it was kings, queens and the Pope’s but now they want to reject what at one time caused and brought unity for another but alas they can’t find him now can they? They all want a savior, a Messiah to save them but I’m afraid in rejecting the one true king they will get another all right. Read the comment and quotes I provide and then reflect over all that you know of history and the more important questions will start to manifest themselves I’m sure. Leadership O good grief!?!?!?!?! You know what people need to do is read the Lord’s Prayer and as you read it ask yourselves if what Christ said isn’t the single greatest political statement ever made by anyone at anytime in any period of history past, present or future. In those few simple words sums up everything politically with the human race. But that moron Neitze would rather we all follow this prayer instead of Plato’s:

      “O, ye God’s, grant us what is good whether we pray for it or not, but keep evil from us even though we pray for it.”

      Learn all will those words of Satan to Christ, “all the kingdoms of the world has been given to me and I can give it to anyone I please just bow down and worship me.” Welcome to the Mothman of Virginia!

      Good luck Europe? and America? and if not the whole world!

    • Al Ross
      Al Ross says:

      Gambling on the existence of God was covered , as we all know, by Pascal.

      Pascal was wrong because if God is the omniscient deity of legend , then He would know the true , inner thoughts of the gambler and deal with him accordingly.

      I like the Indian goddess with the six arms . Curry dishes plus condiments delivered simultaneously.

      • Sanjay
        Sanjay says:

        (Mod. Note: Sorry “Sanjay”, this is not a comment. If you want it published, send it to the site owner and let him decide.)

        • Sanjay
          Sanjay says:

          It was too poorly written to be published anywhere, except perhaps on toilet paper. Even Unz Review did not allow it in their comments section. I was also intoxicated with alcohol when I wrote it. Perhaps a more competent person can take my main theme and write an intelligent article on it, the main point being that with the ubiquity of genetic psychopathology among the Gentile elites, and the targeted psychopathology of the Ashkenazim, a fear of a possible After-Life may be the only solution left, short of Western collapse and genetic reset. Thank you.

      • Sanjay
        Sanjay says:

        “I like the Indian goddess with the six arms . Curry dishes plus condiments delivered simultaneously.”

        My understanding is that female deities are a characteristic of an r-selected population group. The more advanced a race is, the higher the degree of sexual dimorphism in which each gender is optimized for a specific niche – nurture for the females, and external resource acquisition and defense for the males.

        However, the main ingredient in curry is turmeric, and I mix two teaspoons of ground dried turmeric in water each day and drink it for its health benefits, see

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          ” The more advanced a race is, the higher the degree of sexual dimorphism in which each gender is optimized for a specific niche – nurture for the females, and external resource acquisition and defense for the males. ”

          Superb observation . Unfortunately , the vast majority of the minds of White Christian sheeple have been hopelessly scrambled out of most all sensibilities , by the chosenhite jewmasterss , since the ancient biblical incident of the Tower of Babel

          ( refer to :
          The Jewish Holy Torah / Book of Genesis / 11:1-9 [ the Tower of Babel allegory ] ) .

  13. Oera Linda
    Oera Linda says:

    Very plain and outspoken, Anglin, National Vanguard, secession, provided with some beautiful underpinnings.

    Made use of the opportunity to order your Rosenberg book and the Pan Judah book, two hanged men of the Nuremberg Trials hoax.

  14. bruno
    bruno says:

    Wow! One must give the writer a hard handshake and slap on the back, even if it’s politically incorrect. The article is a keeper. It reminds me of some of the hypothesis I could see in youth while in both Amdom and Mother Europe.

    I must say it’s heartbreaking reading this. I can recall Soviet citizens speaking in similar terms. Most would not see their life dream come true as the Soviet Empire broke up into ethno states. Life like countries and people is situational.

    A lot of this we can surely agree upon even if parts are right, but unrealistic. The only possible solution to save anything is Wilmot Robertson’s Ethnic State solution. If I weren’t raising a grandchild I’d be devoting all my economics to helping people like KMac. If I were younger I’d be an activist.

    It’s wise that ‘Doc’ D utilizes a nom de plume. Doing otherwise, would be an invitation to self-destruction. I learned that as a young child when being in the world’s most famous camp. Back then I was with former inmates. One of them carried my eldest child. Not a single person spoke about gaz. However, back then it was the 1960s.

    It was in the 1970s that the most famous fallacy in Western Civilization took off in full gear. Later in life I had a part-time job lecturing at an institute of higher education. I would full the hall. However, after delicately inferring about magic numbers and myths the invitation was no longer applicable. Such is fear of the Z.

    As for AH I know the author worships him and he had a lot of great ideas. However, he initiated his Czech, Fr., Polish and Russian wars way in advance before actual conflict, due to dreams of lebensraum (Living space). Also, instead of just removing Zs -as he did- from all positions of influence, until further steps could be insured for removal, he openly attacked them. That was like inviting an army into your home. After all, they had undeniable influence in the West. Lastly, most men that held above average cognitive ability would have drank an eradication drink in 1943 or 1944. It was when the war was not winnable… After all, the Allies ruled the sky. Results: The flower of mlns of fine Germans and other progeny of Mother Europe would be needlessly liquidated.

    Further, if the Z problem could have been more sophisticatedly mentioned, this piece could be shared just about everywhere. Regardless, it’s simply unique in many ways and if the author were here I would feel privileged to invite him to the finest lunch as I picked up the tab.

    I hope he lives a hundred years and retains health and cognitive ability.

    • ronehjr
      ronehjr says:

      The JQ has been danced around by much smarter men than yourself, and much more adroitly. This has gotten us nowhere.

  15. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    Thanks for another insightful, and well written piece Thomas.

    Thomas your gift as a writer is to take involved and vast subjects such as these, condense them to the main points and present them as easily readable and ‘user friendly,’ while educating which, is great. I love your book; “Eternal Strangers: Critical Views of Jews and Judaism through the Ages.” It’s one of those books that I keep nearby. It should be required reading for every high school Junior.

    As you did here and in that book, you also provide your thoughts on solutions to some of our country’s very vexing problems. Even though I don’t agree with all of your propositions, some are very good. I encourage you to keep doing that. It gives me ideas and most likely others too.

    One thing that I am working on and think about often is how to bring our message and especially knowledge to the common man, to make it, ‘user friendly.’ With the current deliberate destruction of our country happening right before our eyes, I have found that people are being much more receptive to our message.

    Keep at it Thomas. And you TOO.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Territorial secession alone would not be adequate to sustain an autonomous WN ethnostate . The jewmasterss have been in the business of conquering people then enslaving them and seizing their territory for several thousand years .

      The ultimate purpose of human life is to have FUN

      ; which is understood by the vast majority ,
      of normal people of the world , to mean

      [ happiness/pleasures/satisfactions/enjoyments/thrills ] .

      In other words , humanity struggles to survive in order to have more FUN ( as defined ) at some time in the normally near future .

      Science — not religion — has veritably established the purpose of human life ; where the meaning of it is intrinsic to the purpose/goal or else the meaning is otherwise at best moot and lacks practical significance .

      Be assured that survival is a pre-requisite to have FUN .

      Dr. Dalton indicated in this essay there are conflicting views on the proper utilization of resources for people to have FUN as defined herein . In particular , he disapproves of someone to use their free/leisure time socializing at an alcohol drinking tavern . A new religion that corresponds to

      {{{ The PRIME DIRECTIVE }}}

      would unequivocally assert that what you do for a living is of far greater importance to the standard-of-living of humanity than how you utilize YOUR free/leisure time that is not evidently victimizing others or lowering their standard-of-living . In other words , your personal morality in the real actual world ( in distinction from spiritual religious fantasies about imaginary or hypothetical potential realities ) is normally much less important than your contributions , via employment , to the maintenance or improvement of the standard-of-living of the culture/nation/race most relevant to you .

      Christianity asserts that your personal morality is the most important issue confronting humanity which has not yet achieved any way to thrive-n-survive beyond

      {{ The Solar TOTAL Extinction Event }}

      and thereby avoid the inevitable and guaranteed

      DOOM of the OBLIVION .

      Christianity , both Catholic and Protestant versions , is a sheeple-oriented religion of self-enslavement to the chosenhite jewmasterss . Christianity has and will continue to insidiously subvert the survivability of the White cultural genomes or any other racial genomes . Personal morality can be a significant social issue in specified contexts such as those concerning powerful and highly influential politicians and religious clerics ; otherwise it is clearly subordinate to the matter of racial/group/collective survival .

      Time for Whites to consider a new religion
      which puts [ the ultimate purpose of human life ]
      front and center as the raison d’etre .

  16. tito
    tito says:

    Perhaps the very finest essay so far offered on this essential site. Our Aryan species has little time to rescue itself, a project demanding we disavow our irrational prejudice against genocide.

    • Angelicus
      Angelicus says:

      Brilliant observation. Unfortunately, most of the so-called nationalists in the USA and Europe are infected with stupid and totally misplaced ideas of honour and decency (mostly thanks to that poisonous creed called Christianity) that DO NOT apply when dealing with subhumans bent on destroying your people.

      The idea that these parasites who hate us will leave graciously our lands because we ask/tell them to do so is ludicrous, to say the least. They know they are onto something very good here, why return to the stinking shitholes from where they came from?

      They are not like the moronic whites, ridden with guilt thanks to an idiotic and misplaced sense of “fairness” and “compassion”. They will have to be kicked in the teeth, to put it nicely. As I wrote many years ago “compassion should only apply to our own!”. Long before Marxism began to rot the brains of Aryans/Europeans, Christianity was at work with the same results. From this vile Semitic cult, we got the stupid idea that “we are all equal in the eyes of God” and that we owe EVERYONE help. love and protection, because “we are ALL children of God”.

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        It’s really amazing the hostility some here have towards Christianity. You can be against it, consider it an obstacle or even a Jewish scam without declaring it a vile semitic cult.
        What else will unite us if not our ancient religion? Unless you can dream up a new one, and one that is specifically tailored towards the nature of whites, as old time Xtianity was.
        That ain’t gonna happen. What does the white ethno-nationalist offer to those of a religious or spiritual character? Does white separatism come with a moral framework?
        If you guys were to make one up, it would end up just being practically the same as real Christianity.
        Only one of the ancient twelve tribes of Israel were what we would today call Jews. The ones who killed our Lord and Saviour. There is nothing wrong with Christian roots.

  17. Swan
    Swan says:

    I’ve stated on this platform many times that some kind of separation is necessary. We all understand that the system will use all its resources to prevent it. All I can say is that If you have a means of income that doesn’t tie you to your “culturally enriched”:area, get to anywhere promising for our kind.

  18. J.M.
    J.M. says:

    Profound and straight on – a truly outstanding essay; what a contribution to the West and to the world at large. Thank you Dr. Dalton for your high courage and generosity.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      I see that GENE is part of generosity:

      generous | Etymology, origin and meaning of generous by …
      Search domain etymonline.com › word › generous
      generous (adj.) 1580s, “of noble birth,” from French généreux (14c.), from Latin generosus “of noble birth,” figuratively “magnanimous, generous,” from genus (genitive generis) “race, stock” (from PIE root *gene-“give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups). Secondary senses of “unselfish” (1690s) and “plentiful” (1610s) in English were …

  19. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    “Original Democracy” “religion of democracy,”

    I’m curious about something. Wasn’t the forerunner of democracy Christ’s own words when He said:

    “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Mathew 18:15

    I actually saw this played out for me when I returned to Church at the tender age of 19 years old and I will never forget it. During a Sunday morning Church service not RC, I witnessed the Pastor present to the entire Church {the demos} body number of souls about 200 a conflict that had arsien between him and a couple for what I do not know. What went down though was painful to watch and to make a long story short the couple who had apparently raised some argument against the leadership it was now up to the entire body politic to make the final decision and the couple weren’t to happy about it and though the Pastor tried to mend the conflict he did as the word teaches the last decision was for the entire group to make.

    With Christ the final authority rests with the demos ultimately and I left thinking to myself that day to bad the Pope and Luther didn’t listen and pay attention to such a teaching maybe the story of the history of the Church would be very different. Yes?

    and i would only add to the above fatherhood and motherhood doesn’t that put everyone of us on an equal footing of sorts? Why was Jesus always referring back to the Father? He was always about doing what His and ultimately our Father wanted. It was always about Father.

  20. Gruesome
    Gruesome says:

    Too much talking, too little doing.

    Look at examples that already work for whites. Jan Lamprecht has a 6-hour video on this topic on

    Atheism is a genetic dead end.

    Also, there is no longer a warrior culture among white men and boys.

  21. just sayn
    just sayn says:

    Finally a relevant discussion of the real problems of America. The Central Nationalist cabal must go. So first things first. Lets rid ourselves of the red, white Blue forced union and break this problem into manageable pieces. Secession at whatever lines can be acheived. County, State, or some new lines.

  22. Lucius Vanini
    Lucius Vanini says:

    Some thoughts regarding the notion of equality, the pretensions of “democracy” and the question of whether the USA should be preserved:

    1) The man who penned one of history’s most glorified bits of silliness (“All men are created equal”) was his own refutation–a landed aristocrat, rich, well-connected, good-looking and well-educated: hardly equal to the average colonist, let alone the slaves he owned.

    2) At one time only one person on the planet, Galileo (or there was Kepler too?), believed that the Earth is in motion, whereas everyone else including the Church (almost always wrong anyway) and orthodox science and many hundreds of millions believed it stationary–just look at it: it’s not moving! So one man was right and everyone else wrong, showing that there’s no magic in majority opinion and not the slightest reason to think there’s equality of discernment among humans.

    3) While the Stoics seem to have credited some kind of human equality, it was the Sklavenmoral, the slave-revolt known as Christianity that permanently established the fallacy, with its exaltation of the meek and humble and “poor in spirit” (lol), and its having its god specifying “Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of my brethren, you did it unto me.” Nietzsche’s icon Heraclitus says “One man is worth 10,000 if he be the best”; and such a valuation was pretty much standard in the Pagan societies which flourished when Europeans were ascendant and soundest.
    The societies that made Europe great were Pagan Hellas and Pagan Roma. The unchallenged reign of institutional Christianity represents a nadir in European civilization; and only a revolt against it made Europe great again: i.e., the Renaissance–a rebirth of the Classical perspectives of Greece and Rome, leading to perhaps the richest intellectual life in all history, not to mention a Global European Hegemony anchored on several multicontinental empires.

    4) Anyone getting ahead of anyone else excludes equality; but no one getting ahead of anyone else requires that everyone move no faster than the slowest mover; and that would mean a low quality of life for all concerned, not to mention great injustice to those whose nature is to be swift but are held back.

    5) No vote of Congress can determine whether relativity can be reconciled with quantum theory.

    6) If democracy means rule by “the people,” and if by “the people” we mean all or even nearly all the citizens of a country, democracy has never existed and can almost certainly never exist. Some faction always dominates, even when small in number; and the rest of the country doesn’t get its way.

    7) That’s a SHOCKING crock of stupidity from Descartes. Compare it to this gold nugget from discoverer of DNA James Watson (for which he was ostracized as being anti-black by counterfeit anti-racists): “There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of people geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.” LOL!

    8) I also like G. Bernard Shaw’s “The 100% American is 99% village idiot” and the bon mot attributed to HL Mencken: “No one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”

    9) The only real equality is equivalence. No apple is equal to an orange. The only thing that is, is another orange of equal dimensions, weight, color, sugar content, etc. Because all humans are different there can be no equality among them.
    But while no one can be equal to anyone else, I’m not a believer in intrinsic superiority and inferiority where humans are concerned. While some individuals and groups tend to excel others in certain endeavors, “superiority” implies BEING better–i.e., bearing more intrinsic value, and so can’t in the final analysis be established as fact: there’s always the insuperable question, “better for whom?” “Better” implies a value judgment, and value judgments are subjective, perspectivist, rather than objectively valid.
    I can believe that Heraclitus is wiser than Aquinas, that Whites have more native intelligence than blacks, but not that anyone is better than anyone else. I’m uncompromisingly partisan toward my ethnic/genetic mega-cluster (a phrase I prefer to “race”) not because I think it’s better but because IT’S MINE, AND I LOVE IT, an extension of myself and of my immediate family.

    10) I fear that there are definite signs of the self-dissolution of the present USA, and that that dissolution may well transpire whether we abandon conventional politics or not.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      …” one of history’s most glorified bits of silliness (“All men are created equal”) “…

      “All men are created equal” is a rhetorical statement which is one of the most famous in all of recorded history . Rhetoric is the normal mode of most effective political discourse and it was taught as the language of politics by the ancient and most famous philosopher Aristotle the Greek .

      That famous statement is a political statement in the commensurately famous political document simply titled “THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE”.

      That statement was not and nor was it intended to be a scientific statement in the year 1776 when science was still mostly subordinate to religion which indisputably dominated the understandings of the vast majority .

      That statement is an allusion to a high moral presumption of equality among men ( not women , not children , not slaves ) under the law .

      Endless modern commentary , by nearly everyone , on that famous rhetorical statement “All men are created equal” fails to realize/acknowledge that it is not and never was a scientific statement .

      • Lucius Vanini
        Lucius Vanini says:

        Years ago I wrote somewhere that Jefferson must’ve been alluding merely to English males when he wrote that “all men are created equal.” I thought he must’ve been saying that Englishman, whether in America or the old country, were equal in nature to the king and nobility. (Or maybe he was infected with the christian idiocy of “All people are equal BEFORE GOD”?) But even if he meant only English-male equality, he was a fool if he believed what he wrote. There’s NO equality of any kind, no more of it among Englishmen than among the whole human race.

        But maybe you’re saying that he saw that even this narrow “equality among men” is a figment, and affirmed it only to innervate the colonists to stand up and fight? Well, could be, though I don’t think you could prove it.

        In any case, Jefferson’s dictum has been taken literally, and the literal meaning is bovine manure.

        Equality of nature is impossible because no two persons are equivalent–that is, wholly alike.

        But even the ideas of equality that seem worthy of realization if possible, equality of opportunity and equality before the law, are chimerical. There’s no equal opportunity, nor can there ever be. Ditto equality before the law. There will always be some people better situated, socially speaking, to achieve and “succeed.” And as for the law–well, America perhaps has had the most equitable judicial system in history–and look at it! The rich have always had a superior degree of immunity to punishment, and now so do celebrities, black bigots and neo-Marxist criminals of all races, whereas the unfamous and especially Conservative Euroamericans are selectively and disproportionately punished.

        “Equality” is simply a concept for fools, a fable and figment–no more intellectually respectable than The Brothers Grimm, HC Andersen and judeo-christian doctrines.

        • Angelicus
          Angelicus says:

          Brilliant words Lucius! I would like just to make a point regarding Jefferson and the “Founding Fathers” that so many idiotic/ignorant Americans idolize.

          The matrix that gave birth to them, as well as almost all XVIIIth century thinkers, was the Enlightenment, a poisonous mixture of ideas that were the foundations of the Masonic ideology, a nasty concoction that found its finest expression in the vile French Revolution and its motto: “Liberte-Egalite-Fraternite”.

          Therefore, from the very beginning, the USA was a doomed nation as it was built on sand. The nefarious ideas of the Enlightenment, born out of the brains of well-meaning idiots who saw Man and the world through rose-tinted glasses, could not but bring misery and decadence as they were totally divorced from reality and ignored the vital concepts of Race and Inequality.

          The so-called “Founding Fathers” and their spiritual heirs refused to see the world and Man for what they really are and chose to see them as they wanted to be. Liberalism is a poisonous, destructive ideology at war with Nature. If we add to this the “spiritual syphilis” (the expression belongs to the great Revilo Oliver) known as Christianity you have a recipe for disaster, as the last 300 years have proven conclusively.

  23. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    From an old book in my study an interesting piece of history:

    On August 23,1970, U Thant addressed the Fourteenth World Congress of World Association of World Federalists in Ottawa, Canada, and said,

    A world under law is realistic and obtainable. The ultimate crisis before the UN is the crisis of authority.

    The convention conducted by the lawyers and judges of the world in the interest of world law was a solemn sight indeed. There were 263 judges from every continent, Africans in red robes, sitting by Indians and Pakistanis, and Israelis, and 5 justices from the U.S. Supreme Court. Even a copy of the Magna Carta was on hand. And banners across the platform read “Pax Orbis ex Jure,” meaning

    “World Peace by World Law.”

    There were 119 countries represented. The main decision was to recommend that the UN Charter be amended to provide compulsory jurisdiction for individuals, as well as nations. Joseph Clark called for,

    an executive with substantially greater powers than those now exercised by the Secretary-General of the UN. A judiciary system modeled after the world court. Decisions enforced by a world police force, under the command of a world executive.

    Would man be willing to resign such power to the United Nations, knowing it was under Communistic Domination’?

    For many the answer was yes. One person said,

    If the price of avoiding all-out thermal nuclear wars should prove to be acquiescence in the Communistic domination of the world, it seems probable that such a price would be paid.

    And if the question was asked, “‘Why?” perhaps the answer would best be expressed by Adlai Stevenson, who in a speech to the United Nations Correspondents’ Association said,

    Interpret us . . . as puzzled, yet aspiring men, struggling on the possible brink of Armageddon.

    Why would men who are members of a strong and a free democracy vote in favor of a world organization which would include the explosive characteristics of South America, the turbulence of the Middle East, the tyranny of Russia, and the violence of Asia? One speaker answered the question by saying sadly,

    No, it is not desirable; but we have no alternative. There is no other way out. Cantelon pgs 119–120

    Communism at work under the guise of democracy? Law?!?!?!?!?! As if Law ever worked {Book of Romans} but alas add technology to it and the words of Dostoevsky about controlling ones conscience and bread well I think we have and know the future. Catherine Austin Fitts referred to it as Livestock Management.

    “The breakneck speed of technological advancement and the fever for automation have resulted in these self-contained decision-makers worming their way into all aspects of life; algorithms aren’t just the property of social media news feeds anymore, they’re also used to predict consumer habits, make investments, and even determine courtroom decisions. China, for example, is in the process of rolling out a system of ‘social credit-scoring’ in which data collection and analysis techniques will be used to give each citizen a score. … Though this system is still highly experimental, it is a testament to the widespread datafication of the modern world and the increased primacy of algorithms and machine-learning in shaping our day-to-day experiences”.—Stuart Montgomery

    When not if that day arrives when the worlds governing bodies or one king in particular demand one be chipped in hand or forehead remember well how this was forewarned as the 666 from Revelation 13. And Democracy won’t give you a vote on the matter unfortunately. That guy ‘banker’ behind the curtain its puppet strings are being played by Satan the Mothman of Virginia!

    Yeah, I have a strange feeling what we may all see is a robinhood type of encounter [great reset perhaps} where some unknown king will do the unthinkable rob and then redistribute the wealth of the world and looking like a savior peace will come but it will be by way of total subjugation to him under the penalty of death. You will either be chipped as a form of worship to it for its benevolence or you will be dead.

    God offers true freedom but for a morsel of meat there are those who will buy into this evil for temporary sustenance which means for them Christ died for nothing?

    Truly ‘my people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge.’ but were learning aren’t we at least those of us ‘who have ears to hear!’

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      …” this was forewarned as the 666 from Revelation 13.”

      Christians have convinced themselves and many others around the world that two thousand years old prophecy was meant to be and so they have done nothing significant to prevent it . That is called a self-fulfilling prophecy .

      • Gerry
        Gerry says:

        @ moneytalks

        “was meant to be” I don’t see it that way at all. Foreknowledge takes into account a great deal more. Just take Judas an example. Christ didn’t prevent him from betraying him and it wasn’t because scripture had to be fulfilled though it certainly had to be. Rather imagine the dilemma facing Christ and the choices set before Him. He could have in an instant stopped Judas and He could have even had prevented his own death. He could moreover have ended the Roman Empire with a few simple words as He said to Peter about ‘do you not think I can call to my Father and He would at once put at my disposal entire legions of angels.’ While standing in the Garden Christ could have picked Caesar up by the scruff of his neck and thrown him clear out into the street. Christ could have rained down another Sodom and Gomorrah type of event in an instant and try as He did through prayer in seeking a way out from the suffering of the cross He knew the only way for bringing salvation to mankind was that very act. Everything hinges on knowledge which we don’t have full access to now do we? This is why we are called to just have faith. God is not going to get into a test tube to be examined scientifically by mankind to figure it all out.
        This further takes us into the book of Daniel where we read the true purpose of God:

        “Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. Daniel 12:10


        “How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?”

        7 The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, “It will be for a time, times and half a time. When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.”

        note that last sentence “power of the holy people finally broken”

        Living a righteous life in such an evil world is difficult beyond difficult and its getting more so everyday. There are days when life throws me for a loop at just how truly evil and corrupt everything really is. If one wants a primer of just how bad it really is read this magnificent essay here:

        These are 2 paragraphs I won’t soon forget!!!!

        America is in danger of upheavals. But you’ll see. All of them together will observe the law of silence. They will close ranks. They’ll do everything to stifle any scandal. They will throw Noah’s cloak over these shameful deeds. In order to not lose face in front of the whole world. In order to not risk unleashing riots in the United States. In order to preserve the union and to avoid a new civil war. In order to not ask themselves questions. They don’t want to know. They don’t want to find out. They won’t allow themselves to find out.”

        “Whenever the government of the United States shall break up, it will probably be in consequence of a false direction having been given to public opinion. This is the weak point of our defenses, and the part to which the enemies of the system will direct all their attacks. Opinion can be so perverted as to cause the false to seem true; the enemy, a friend, and the friend, an enemy; the best interests of the nation to appear insignificant, and the trifles of moment; in a word, the right the wrong, the wrong the right. In a country where opinion has sway, to seize upon it, is to seize upon power. As it is a rule of humanity that the upright and well-intentioned are comparatively passive, while the designing, dishonest, and selfish are the most untiring in their efforts, the danger of public opinion’s getting a false direction is four-fold, since few men think for themselves.”

        -James Fenimore Cooper (1789-1851}


  24. brandon T Koeller
    brandon T Koeller says:

    I must disagree with the suggestion if giving the right to vote to only people with college degrees since it’s actually people with degrees ruining the country! If anything we should prohibit people with college degrees from voting! Now one thing that I could see is only allowing land owners to vote since they have a tie to the land itself…

  25. Adûnâi
    Adûnâi says:

    The only right is the right of the strong. So far, all I have seen from the American Aryans is defeat and cuckoldry. Even in 1945, at the peak of their absolute military potency, they failed to genocide the Japanese, all in their power to do so, like lambs to the slaughter.

    The historical vector is pointing downward for the whiteboi. I cannot imagine for the life of me how you’re supposed to claw your way out of 100 mil. swarthy creatures. The USA is already majority non-White (without counting the frail boomers). But I sure hope to live to see the end of Amerikwa, one way or another. Fingers crossed for a Chinese intervention sweeping the quarreling Amerimutt mongrels with a genocidal tide.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” The only right is the right of the strong. ”

      Gorillas are strong even when they are caged up in a zoo .

      Human intellectual and/or spiritual strength will normally defeat physical strength in the long run . What strengths are you referring to ?

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      The Americans did make a pretty good effort at genociding the Japs, you have to give them that. But ‘genocide’ is a modern, Jewish word, and like everything else that is modern and Jewish, is actually dumb. Peoples were getting wiped out for tens of thousands of years without the need for a clinical Jewish word to describe it. Mass murder, eradication of a race/people, these and much more are fine.
      You say America should have wiped out the Japs, then what, left the island a nature reserve, or settled it with Americans? With or without blacks, spics and Jews? This was 1945 remember. Should the Soviets have done similar in the territories they now controlled?
      What would this have done for American public opinion in Western Europe? Made the communists look sane, I’ll bet.
      Should American also have wiped out its native population as well, as soon as that war was won?
      There are consequences to killing even one person that can reverberate down the generations, it’s not good for the head, or the soul, killing people. Never mind it is simply wrong it itself.
      I’m all for original opinions, especially opinions that we are banned from expressing in our former free lands. I just don’t think you’ve thought this through.

      But surely everyone, even honest liberals can see, that if some people do have any homicidal ideas or opinions of their own, it’s far healthier to express these ideas in a public forum so we can argue them out? Yet the Je. . . I mean the ‘establishment’ think it’s better that people bottle these feelings up, and are too scared to express them, lest they get severely punished for the act of speaking or writing words. It’s totally insane.
      If you really & truelly cared for whatever group of people you’ve made your little pets, you would not want those with bad intentions towards them to keep these feeling bottled up and unexpressable. You’d only want this state of affairs if all you were interested in is posing as some sort of saviour to your pet group. They risk the safety of the group they loudly claim to protect, just to make themselves look and feel good.
      This is a perverted sickness.

      Imagine you found out a family in your street had extreme, explosive, murderous hostility towards another family in your street. What would be the more humane action? To enforce a total blackout on the dangerous families’ ability to express themselves, while also ruining their lives, attacking everything the believed in, and generally making them social pariah?
      Or encouraging them to speak their greavencies, loud and clear, and have these listened to and treated with respect?
      Which policy would make the targeted family safer?
      This is Western racial relations in miniature. Of course we do the insane thing. Of course we do the thing most likely to cause harm and conflict. And of course those that inflict this insanity on us know exactly what they are doing, even if the army of the left are brain dead to it. If an uneducated minimum wage peasant like me can figure this out, is it believable that our greatest minds cannot?
      Why is it left to a total nobody like me to point this out? I’ll say this, I’m 6 million x more disgusted with our powerful, millionaire so-called leaders who endorse this dangerous, divide and rule policy that creates innocent victims all over the place, than I am with some average person who has become a cartoon ‘racist’.

Comments are closed.