It’s Hate White History Month!
Last week, we covered the monumental lack of self-awareness of liberals denouncing others as “snowflakes,” even as they force Amazon to remove books, tear down historical monuments, hide black suspects’ race, and demand the immediate firing of anyone who mentions black performance on standardized tests.
This week, we’ll cover the left’s claim that they are teaching “history.”
Terrified that their hate-America curricula have been discovered by parents and politicians, liberals hysterically accuse them of opposing the teaching of “history.”
As MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid put it: “Like, it is a problem for old Ron DeSantis, because I think what he’s saying is that he believes that the white citizens of Florida are too snowflaky, too sensitive, too scared, and not strong enough to handle actual facts about history.”
In fact, the precise objection to critical race theory is that it doesn’t include anything resembling “facts.” Instead, it’s wacko conspiracy theories dreamed up by the stupidest people in academia to justify their “diversity” jobs.
The primer for the CRT nonsense is The New York Times’ idiotic “1619 Project,” which holds that slavery in America is the single most important event in the history of the world! Yes, apparently, America was founded on slavery; the reason Americans fought the Revolutionary War was to protect slavery; the engine of our prosperity is slavery; the cause of black suffering to this day (and those low SAT scores) is slavery.
Upon the Times’ publication of this hastily assembled paper out of the Black Studies Department, dozens of actual historians — across the political spectrum — rebuked the Times for printing ahistorical gibberish. (They didn’t put it that way, of course. The historians’ objections were phrased with extravagant respect, because — well, you know … Nikole Hannah-Jones: SNOWFLAKE!)
Among the first historians to object were 12 Civil War historians, who wrote a joint letter to the Times, politely correcting some of the wildest claims of the “1619 Project.”
Absolutely devoted to historical accuracy and open dialogue, the Times responded by refusing to print their letter. The 1619 Project — with the Times’ imprimatur — was promptly distributed to schools throughout the nation, where it is taught today.
Although most of K-12 education is dedicated to reliving slavery, it would be unfair to say that it’s all that’s taught. There’s also Jim Crow, Selma, Rosa Parks, Little Rock, Emmett Till, redlining, John Lewis, Martin Luther King Jr., Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali and Black Girl Magic.
Also, Christopher Columbus was a terrorist, European settlers committed genocide against “Indigenous Peoples,” everything whites have accomplished they stole from People of Color, and so on.
With the surfeit of “Whites R Evil” lessons, there’s barely even time to get to the gay porn! (From one library book in a Fairfax, Texas, high school: “I can’t wait to have your c*** in my mouth. I am going to give you the blowjob of your life, and then I want you inside me. … I sucked Doug Goble’s d***, the real estate guy, and he sucked mine too.” If that’s OK for teenagers — as every major media outlet assures me it is! — then it’s more than OK for my column.)
When parents objected to the filth in their kids’ schools, MSNBC and CNN began running nightly specials on MODERN-DAY BOOK-BURNING! (Now try to buy from Amazon — with your own money, of your choice, as a free American — Jean Raspail’s “Camp of the Saints,” Ryan Anderson’s “When Harry Became Sally” or any book by Jared Taylor or David Cole.)
I have some “actual facts about history” that ought to be taught. This will be the first in a series.
Slavery has existed everywhere — practiced with most enthusiasm, brutality and longevity (13 centuries) by the Arabs. Barbary pirates kidnapped more than a million white European slaves from captured ships — as well as directly off the streets of European ports. Nearly a century before Columbus set sail, Arab traders had brought back 4 million slaves from West Africa, according to William Phillips, author of the book “Slavery From Roman Times to the Early Transatlantic Trade.”
The descendants of those slaves aren’t getting affirmative action at the Moorish Harvard or given preference for a seat on the Islamic Supreme Court. Among other reasons, the vast majority of their ancestors were castrated and murdered.
On the “intersectionality” front, the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole all had African slaves. The Trail of Tears is littered with black slaves — those who were not shipped ahead of their Indian masters to await them in Oklahoma.
Slavery still exists today in many, many parts of the world — especially Africa. According to the Global Slavery Index, “Modern slavery is most prevalent in Africa, followed by Asia and the Pacific region.”
Lesson Plan:
1. Why did slavery end so much sooner in white Christian countries?
2. Are countries run by Muslims, Buddhists or voodoo doctors more or less likely to recognize human rights than Christian nations?
3. Why would your teachers refuse to tell you about slavery among the “Indigenous” peoples?
4. A Smithsonian magazine article about the Trail of Tears is titled, “How Native American Slaveholders Complicate the Trail of Tears Narrative.” What’s the “narrative”?
5. In your other readings, have you found that the sins of whites and Christians are comically exaggerated, while those of nonwhites and non-Christians are buried in a lead casket and dropped in the middle of the sea?
COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION
1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106; 816-581-7500
[1] Ibid., 341.
[2] Ibid., 349.
[3] Ibid., 349.
[4] Ibid., 66.
[5] James Ramsey, An Essay on the Treatment and Conversion of African Slaves in the British Sugar Colonies, xvii.
[6] Brown, Moral Capital, 366.
[7] In Ibid., 369,
[8] Ramsey, An Essay on the Treatment and Conversion of African Slaves in the British Sugar Colonies, 67.
[9] Ibid., 70.
[10] Ibid., 74–75.
[11] Ibid., 3.
[12] Ibid., 4.
[13] Brown, Moral Capital, 442.
[14] Ibid., 352.
[15] Ibid., 357.
Christian lol….whites serving jews as they planned. Whites aren’t from the desert. Until you sheep see the truth nothing will change. Believing in a God who shares anything with non Whites. You’re the problem and why we will be erased.
Bart Ehrman a bible scholar at UNC has written numerous books exposing the fraudulent nature of the bible. When one learns that yahweh is nothing more than a vicious vindictive jewish tribal god invented by a vicious vindictive bunch of vermin then the power of the jews over them will collapse and christian zionists power will fade as their sheeple walk away leaving empty pews and empty collection baskets as well.
Bart Ehrman has indeed written books in which he attempts to discredit the New Testament, particularly in the area of manuscript transmission reliability. It’s very easy to be persuaded by Ehrman if one has little to no knowledge of textual criticism or the history of manuscript transmission. But Ehrman’s case is not so tightly sealed when one reads the extensive rebuttals of professors Daniel Wallace, Darrell Bock, William Lane Craig, Craig Evans and a host of others.
Many (though not all) of Ehrman’s criticism of the reliability of the New Testament are old and rehashed arguments of 19th century Bible critics. They have been answered in the past by New Testament scholars and have again been answered by scholars in our day.
If one is going to read Bart Ehrman, they ought to at least read the replies of the scholars noted above. They should also attempt to get a basic grounding in textual criticism and the history of the Bible and its transmission though the centuries. If they do, I don’t they’re likely to be as pessimistic as Ehrman when it comes to the truthfulness and reliability of the Bible.
So, Niko, where do you get the idea that Christians think they came from “the desert?” What truth must Christians see to get things to change, especially since the change is incumbent on Christians seeing it? Why do you believe Whites “will be” erased? Why do you believe Christians are the sole cause of that erasure?
“Christian lol….whites serving jews as they planned” – Nonsense. If you imagine that Christianity was invented by Jews as a means to enslaving the Goyim, you are on thin ice intellectually and in terms of any real evidence. Everything about Jesus and His message, His claims, and the teachings found in the New Testament run counter in every way to Talmudic-Rabbinical Judaism. Jesus and Christianity has always been anathema to observant Jews, and it’s not a disguise they put on in order to deceive gullible goys.
The continuous efforts by Jews for the past two thousand years to eradicate all things Christian and to subvert the person and message of Jesus is genuine because they really do hate Him. Jesus opposed the false teachings of the elders. He openly denounced extra-canonical Pharisaical doctrines that placed a burdensome yoke on God’s people. He denounced Jews who made obscene monetary profits off the backs of the poor during Passover. He denied that such subversive Jews were even Jews in the way the Torah described. Calling the Pharisees ‘hypocrites’ and ‘false teachers’ forever separated Jesus and His followers from Rabbinical Judaism. The apostle Paul is hated by the ‘Tribe’ for the same reasons.
Whether you believe the Christian message is true or not, the fact that remains that it was not ‘invented’ to ‘keep gentiles under the control of Jews’ or any other such nonsense. The division between Jews and Christians are real, and the Christian Faith was not ‘invented’ or ‘created’ to keep non-Jews under the collective thumb of Jews.
“Believing in a God who shares anything with non Whites” – If there is a universal Creator, why would it be absurd to believe that He has created all men regardless of race, ethnicity, language, and place of birth? This is not to deny genuine racial differences nor does this have to be seen in terms of multiculturalism. But if God has indeed revealed Himself to men, why limit this revelation to White people alone? Why can’t Blacks and Whites worship the same God, and yet remain separate in our respective countries and distinctive cultures?
Good luck arguing with the anti-Christian white fetishists on here. They are more cultish than the damn Jews.
Thank you, and yes I’ve seen it many times on various White racial identity websites. In almost every case if not all of them, there is a gross misunderstanding of Christianity, and of Christian theology. They wrongly imagine that what they see as Christianity in America is authentic Christianity (which is far from the truth). They naively think that Christian Zionism and the worship of all things Israel is the teaching of the New Testament (it isn’t). They don’t know how relatively new Dispensationalism and Christian Zionism are in terms of church history.
And so Whites who become racially conscious – especially if they become aware of the ‘Jewish Problem’ – wrongly assume that every Christian is a mouth-breathing worshipper of Jews and Israel. They don’t seem to be aware that many Christians utterly reject Dispensationalism and are quite critical of Jews and modern Israel. They also think that the contemporary Charismatic movement in North America with its tongues speaking, so-called ‘miracles’, dancing in the aisles, and emotional hoopla accurately portrays authentic New Testament Christianity as normative for today’s church. And so there is a tremendous ignorance about what the New Testament teaches and how local churches are to conduct themselves.
These same folks tend to overreact to Jewish cultural subversion, and before long, they are off on some tangent believing that Christianity was created by Paul to further enslave gentiles to Jews who will rule over them. They think that because Christianity has a historical connection to the Jewish people and to the land of Israel that somehow Christianity is no different than Rabbinic Judaism. They read all sorts of strange ideas into Christianity and make all sorts of weird connections to it that supposedly show a great conspiracy between Judaism and Christianity.
They urge Whites, instead, to return to their pagan Nordic gods. No thanks. If you believe that Christianity is pure mythology, then the solution is not to offer our people even greater mythology from ancient paganism. That will not help our people in the long run.
Christianity is simply not the enemy they imagine.
Wow, what you wrote is what I would have wrote were I literate, intelligent, well mannered or well brought up.
I was too lazy to explain it your way, it all just struck me as so blazingly & obviously self evident.
That was also enlightening about your experiences with these people, I’m newer to this, they remind me of arguments I used to have with leftist atheists in my teens. I wasn’t a Christian then and I’m not really one now. Back then it was more about taking the underdog’s side, now it’s just the most convincing argument.
I just add in the pseudo-Christian patter because it’s like everything Christian, it’s pretty(therefore good/therefore true), and because it winds these types up.
ROCKaBOATUS–
How hilarious–Christians suggesting that their cult and Judaism have basically nothing in common. Your creed is Messianic (you know of another creed that is, besides Judaism?) and it attaches itself to the Old Testament, a distinctly Jewish compendium. Its god is the god of Israel, its “redeemer” a scion of the House of David and son of the god of Israel; and (not that I credit his historicity) the NT narrative has that figure snapping at a fawning non-Jew, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel” and “It is not meet that bread be taken from the master’s [Israel’s] table and cast to the dogs [goyim].” So your savior had something of the Talmudic bigot in him. The Canaanite woman had to agree she was a dog and would settle for bread crumbs before your bigot eased up on her, no doubt without viewing her as equal to Hebrews.
And the differences which you think acquit the Hebrew proselytizers? Whereas Judaism for the Jews values nationhood, Judaism for the goyim doesn’t, but says that the world is ending soon anyway so why bother with the things thereof. Whereas the former is fiercely into collective egoism, ever us-versus-them, the latter condemns all egoism as sin, the sin of pride. Whereas the former enjoins retaliation against those who assail you, the latter enjoins non-resistance and inviting more abuse by turning the other cheek.
So of course Judaism for the goyim is seen as an ideology calculated to render Europeans docile and vulnerable. And hasn’t that happened? You think it’s a coincidence that the parts of the world where people lie down for strangers to walk on them, apologizing for existing and thinking it “good” and “moral” to give way and to feel the self-alienation of congenital guilt, are those parts of the world where your creed dominated so long, such that secular morality itself became identified with ALTRUISM, unselfishness, putting others’ interests before one’s own?
And you think it’s a coincidence that the pushers of that ideological opiate were all Hebrews, spearheaded by the Apostle Saul, a rabbi, during a time of seething Jewish hostility against European occupiers, the Romans? And where did Saul and Simon Peter end up? In Rome, where they died (64 CE) two years before the Jews’ ferocious Great Revolt against Rome (66-70 CE). You think that these Semites, members of a nation anciently obsessed with vengeance, came to Europe to benefit Europeans?
Uh, say: would you like like to buy a booming gold mine cheap?
There’s too much in your comments to sort at every point, but I will respond to few of them.
“How hilarious–Christians suggesting that their cult and Judaism have basically nothing in common. Your creed is Messianic (you know of another creed that is, besides Judaism?) and it attaches itself to the Old Testament, a distinctly Jewish compendium” – Christianity does indeed have its roots in the OT and among the Jewish people. But the religion of the OT stands in stark contrast in many ways to Judaism as taught and practiced by the rabbis. Jesus condemned much of it, and where it was faithful to Mosaic precepts, He agreed with it. During the early period of the first century, there was a transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, and so naturally there are going to be some similarities and overlap. For instance, the NT carries over all of the ten commandments except the fourth commandment. Laws of purity, kosher rules, and the like are no longer applicable.
Interestingly, most of the OT prophets would be considered ‘anti-Semitic’ in terms of how anti-Semitism is understood today if one were to read their words. Their pronouncements were quite harsh toward their fellow countrymen who departed from God’s Word. John the Baptist, the apostle Paul, and Jesus Himself rightly condemned the Pharisees for their false traditions and teachings that ran counter to the Law of Moses. Thus, Rabbinic Judaism stands directly condemned under the New Covenant as revealed in Christ. So, of course there’s a connection, but not quite the one you imagine.
Being that God’s revelation emerged from the descendants of Abraham (who was not Jewish himself) is not a problem because God can choose whatever group of people to represent Him. God Himself made it abundantly clear that He did not choose a great nation, but a rather obstinate and rebellious people (Jews). But that is His sovereign prerogative.
“the NT narrative has that figure snapping at a fawning non-Jew, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel” and “It is not meet that bread be taken from the master’s [Israel’s] table and cast to the dogs [goyim].” So your savior had something of the Talmudic bigot in him” – Jesus did indeed come for His own, and it is this that He emphasizes in such passages. He knows good-and-well that His death will result in the creation of a new people of God and that many gentiles (as predicted in the OT) would come to faith in Him. Jesus often spoke in hyperbole (exaggeration for the sake of emphasis) in order to drive home a deeper meaning. Its purpose was to get people to think, and for them to probe deeper into what He was saying. When He spoke to the woman in seemingly harsh terms, it was to provoke her to express her faith in Him – and He rightly rewarded her for it too. It also served as a public rebuke to the Jews who witnessed it because here was a gentile woman who expressed more faith than all of them. He did the same with the Roman centurion who approached him. He applauded gentiles who sought Him with a sincere heart, and also rebuked Jews who were disingenuous and faithless.
When Jesus spoke of “turning the other cheek,” He wasn’t talking about protocols of national military defense. He didn’t mean that Christians couldn’t defend themselves, their households, or even their nation and race. He didn’t mean Christians should be complete doormats for everyone who passes by. Rather, he was talking about how we treat each other in common, everyday normal life. He was talking about not personally retaliating against others who do one harm or say evil things. These are general life rules or principles, and again He employs hyperbole in order to drive home the point. His words also stood in contrast to the Rabbis who taught the people to be vengeful, retaliatory for the slightest offense, and to hate the gentiles.
The sickening and syrupy Christianity that you rightly rail against is not the Christianity of the NT. This is a perversion of authentic Christianity, and prior centuries of Christians did not behave with such lunacy. Christians of prior centuries were much more racially conscious, and they rightly recognized that there was to be a balance in all things. Also, today’s Christian Zionism is not representative of all Christians (certainly not that of Reformed or Calvinistic Christians who condemn Dispensationalism and the kind of Israel-worship that runs rampant in the churches).
The Semites that you refer to who came to Europe were not Christians. There were comparably few Jewish believers after their dispersion into Europe, and those who were had little effect on the majority of their brethren. A blindness has come over the Jews with few exceptions as they scattered from one nation to another. This will not always be as Paul makes clear in Romans 9. In the meantime, they remain hostile to all men and work especially hard to subvert Whites and their respective nations (1 Thess. 2:14-16).
Christianity, rightly understood, is NOT the enemy of Whites. And Christianity has NOT been created in order to subject gentiles to Jewish rule. To imagine so, is to be uninformed of the vast differences between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, including that of their long history of conflict and opposition to each other.
” Christianity, rightly understood, is NOT the enemy of Whites.”
That is good to know .
White race proponents need zealous religious allies to provide major support for their existential struggle against Fabian genocide . Are the majority of Christianity going to finally enlist their religious faith in service to White racial preservation ?
ROCKaBOATUS–
Wrong or besides the point, all of your reply.
No one claims that Judaism and Christianity are the same religion, only that the latter grew out of the former, has an intimate connection with it, and that it’s absurd for Christians like you to lambast Semites 24/7, depicting them as incapable of beneficial deeds, WHILE holding that the ancient Semites who propounded Christianity could do no wrong! LOL. Exactly why is that, unless you’re besotted by your mythology?
How can your very god be that Hebrew carpenter who displayed Talmudic bigotry in that exchange with the Canaanite woman? I mean, when you have such a dim view of Jews who might not act that way?! By the way, as I said in my first reply, there’s no reason to think that figure (whose historicity I don’t credit: I only repeat the NT narrative) thought that woman was equal to Hebrews: he didn’t didn’t say, “Actually, you’re not a dog. There’s no difference between Hebrews and goyim.”
Said Nietzsche in THE ANTI-CHRIST: “[the Jews’] after-effect has falsified mankind to such an extent that today the Christian is able to feel anti-Jewish without realizing he is the ultimate consequence of the Jews.” Yep.
And again, look at the ways in which your creed, an offshoot of Judaism, does differ from the older creed in ethical terms–all of them calling for non-resistance and the subordination of self to the interest of other selves. Clearly, your creed was calculated to render non-Jews docile and vulnerable. There’s not only the turning of the other cheek, but the “you shall not resist evil” and “pray for those who despitefully use you” and “love your enemies” and “return good for evil.” Whereas the older version, meant for the Chosen, says “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” the version adapted for goyischeh consumption says, in effect, “The more you love and bless and do good to your abuser, the holier you are and the more deserving of rewards (AFTER death–lol–always the post-dated check).”
YOU SHOW ME a passage in the NT that overrules the “turn the other cheek also.” Where does it say, defeat and slay those who would take your ancestral lands (as black Africans and non-White Muslims are trying to do in Europe, with Jewish help); where does it say “Take up arms, resist; never sacrifice the self-interest of your group to that of other groups”? Judaism for the Jews and Islam are far more useful to societally enduring in this world, which is not the fairy-tale domain you want it to be but a world where natural selection and survival of the fittest are irreducible realities.
We are not made in the image of a god of love, but are part of a Nature, an Animal Kingdom if you will, among whose hallmarks are predation and competition. Anyone who tells you it’s right and holy not to fight back, not to assert and prefer self, is someone with an interest in making you a doormat, in eliminating you as a competitor. The Hebrews who brought such a toxic opiate of an ideology to Rome had in interest in de-fanging their chief foes; and I don’t regret their bloody end in the amphitheater.
What enabled Europeans to be great DESPITE Christianity were two things: hypocrisy, non-adherence to its slavish ethics; and, two, an active revolt against your creed, a Rebirth of the PAGAN perspectives of Classical Hellas and Roma, known as the Renaissance. If you know anything about history, you know that before the Renaissance European Civilization was at its nadir–paltry compared to Islamic Civilization and surely to China. It was the Renaissance that led to an eruption of philosophy and science and art, and to a European Global Hegemony anchored on several multicontinental empires.
“The sickening and syrupy Christianity you rightly rail against” is the Christianity that’s consonant with actual Christian doctrines. YOU represent the “circle is square” counterfeit Christianity, at least in ethical terms. The pope and Merkel and her Christian Democrat Union party, in their promotion of the invasion of Europe by non-Europeans, are the people adhering to the morality of the Sermon on the Mount. The pope, saying Italians aren’t good Christians if they don’t accept black Africans in their land, all of whom are needy, is simply speaking the truth.
So you want a restoration of the Christianity which Hernan Cortes or Charlemagne professed lol. Well, that’s much better than being an actual Christian, but (1) y’ain’t going to get it: the altruism inherent in the creed has become of epidemical proportions; and (2) why be a monster of falsity? A “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition” believer is no follower of your alleged savior. Why not dispense with the whole superstition–one to which you can’t fully adhere without the ruination of your race, though I can’t believe that in reality you have much–if any–in-group preference.?
As the history of Europe shows, to keep giving lip-service to a creed enjoining altruism, keeps the creed around for people who ARE fertile ground for that altruism.
No, fella: Christianity is in every eventuality contrary to White well-being. And if we talk more, I’ll tell you of some of the specific ways which I, not just an I-net warrior lol but an activist, come up against on a continual basis.
ROCKaBOATUS–
LOL–you say “Here are a few lines in response,” and then, in typically mendacious Christian fashion, you belch a river of words substantially longer than your first reply.
Aw the turgidity of those paragraphs, and the lack of anything interesting because they’re so full of humbuggery! And talk about rambling! Only by dint of grim determination did I manage to make it through the jungle of delusional verbiage; yet I’m a careful reader and I see what you tried to say.
BUT I’M STILL WAITING for you to quote passages in the Babble which overrule the unequivocal precepts I adduced. Well? Where does that literary character you regard as God, or any of his disciples around him, say anything to the effect that actually you should NOT turn the cheek, nor bless and pray for those who despitefully use you, nor return good for evil, nor love your enemies, but should do everything that healthy self-loving creatures do to defeat their foes? Where is it said that if there’s more than one person involved, the precepts change? Need more time? I’ll wait, but won’t let the matter rest.
You talk of “non-assimilating and hostile primitives who will outbreed them [Whites].” Well, I’ll ask you a question, and you’ll thus have an opportunity to show which you value more, your race or your religion. Blacks have a higher rate of pregnancy but in the USA they’ve kept their numbers down by using abortion five times as often as Whites do. If it weren’t for abortion, they’d easily be twice as numerous as they are now, at 12.4% of the total pop. Now, their using abortion as birth control is something they freely do, and it requires no effort or risk on our part; and yet White Christians want to stop them, though blacks inflict 1480 or 1800 (depending on the study) violent crimes on Whites PER DAY, and they’re overwhelmingly on the Left politically.
So tell me: are you for the abolition of abortion, or willing to tolerate its continuance? Think now. If Roe vs. Wade is quashed, black numbers could double fairly promptly, and thus their attacks on Whites could double and there’d be many millions more of black votes to elect the Marxists, not to mention black mayors who ruin cities and “DAs” who selectively prosecute according to race (especially criminalizing White self-defense against black violence). Well, where do you stand? I know where I stand lol.
https://theeuropeanfamily.com/f/white-partisanship-roe-vs-wade
As for your playing the lol TRUE believer in contrast to “apostates” like Merkel and the pope, I speak as an objective judge and as one not unfamiliar with your Semite-spawned cult, being of Western European heritage unfortunately tarnished by that cult: and I perceive plainly that they are much closer to actual Christianity than you. (That’s not a compliment to them, of course.) You say they have it wrong; they’ll say YOU have it wrong; and the difference is that they have on their side the doctrines, the NT, whose altruistic message is undeniable..
Look, Rockaboatus, much of what you need to learn is in my second reply to Brother Emicho, so I direct your attention thereto.
As I said before, I’m an activist, not just a keyboard polemicist; but my physical, WN-related activism has nothing to do with persecuting Christians lol. I’m at the Mex Border, where, you might’ve heard, there’s a Third-World invasion of America. I’ll leave you with this parting shot: One of the impediments which your silly but sinister fables have thrown in the way of White well-being, is that jillions of White Conservatives who might otherwise do something for White survival say, “These troubles are signs of the last days. They’re supposed to happen, and it’s good they do, because they mean Jesus is coming again soon!” One meets that where’er one goes….
Pretty neat the way the Apostle Saul covered so many bases, eh?
P.S. Can’t get back here till the 23rd at the earliest. No sign of disrespect if I don’t reply till then. We’ll exchange again if you stick around here.
EMICHO & ROCKaBOATUS–
Here, in part, is that second reply to Emicho which I wrote last week but which didn’t make the page. I directed you to it, RockaBoatus, because I DID write it. Anyhow, I remember pretty well what I said.
1) Your (Emicho’s) identifying Messianism with White Nationalism is too lame to warrant many words of reply. No WNs believe that the Coming of Kevin Mac or Jared T. will sweep away ZOG and save the Race. You, who are a Christian first and a White advocate last (and that’s an optimistic assessment), are the messianist: your superstition inherited from Judaism the nutty notion of a Heaven-sent Righter of All Wrongs. This is strictly factual, not figurative.
2) If my posts make you think of “dorks” in “Tel Aviv” posing online as WNs to make us look stupid, lol, you’ll excuse my smelling Jesuit or some similar disciple of Rabbi Saul whenever I read YOUR posts. Why should anyone without the least racial consciousness, let alone loyalty, talk as though he had a burning interest in White well-being? My guess: he thinks that WNs’ realism re Jews is an opportunity to insinuate among them such ideology as he really does value.
3) Now for the most important part of your reply. WHY, you ask, don’t I explain why Europeans were better off when they were “believers”? I HAVE–several times. I’ll do it again.
They were great DESPITE their Christianity, which in ethical terms was essentially NOMINAL only.
In what did the Goths, Vandals, Crusaders, Conquistadors, European imperialists believe? Certainly not the self-abnegation, non-violence, humility and voluntary poverty explicitly enjoined by your creed. What enabled them to be great was hypocrisy, non-adherence–in other words, their NOT being Christians in ethical fashion. They might’ve praised the Prince of Peace on Sundays, but they lived by the sword the rest of the week. They followed murderous Mars rather than your suffering sacrificial-victim god. They served Mammon rather than the god who told them it’s easier for a camel to pass through a needle’s eye than for the rich to enter heaven.
Those men had too much mettle; they were too psychologically robust to be Christians in an ethical sense. But when Europeans’ mettle softened from inherited wealth and privilege, with the softening expedited by Christian dogma, Europeans could actually adopt and practice Christian altruistic morality, even as they wandered away from Christian theology–indeed from belief in any god. Nietzsche understood this well, and says in TWILIGHT OF THE IDOLS that–
“They have got rid of the Christian God, and now feel obliged to cling all the more firmly to Christian morality….”
Nietzsche observes that if post-Christian Europeans “….really do believe they know, of their own accord, ‘intuitively,’ what is good and evil; if they consequently think they no longer have need of Christianity as a guarantee of morality; that is merely the CONSEQUENCE of the ascendancy of Christian evaluation and an expression of the STRENGTH and DEPTH of this ascendancy….” The emphasis is Nietzsche’s.
When Merkel said that, where the alien-migrants question is concerned, her politics alone was consistent with Christian teachings, she was right; but I don’t think she was aware that European atheists and agnostics shared that same altruism, only divorced from Christian metaphysics.
This consideration is crucial to understanding the propensity toward self-sacrifice that so endangers Europe and Euroamerica. I’ve never avoided answering your question, Emicho. You just haven’t understood the answer. Why, even in my first post in this thread, I alluded to it, saying it isn’t a coincidence that the parts of the world where people apologize for existing and let strangers walk on them, are those in which “your creed dominated so long, such that secular morality itself became identified with altruism, unselfishness, putting others’ interests before one’s own.”
“Your creed is Messianic (you know of another creed that is, besides Judaism?)”
How about white nationalism?
“and it attaches itself to the Old Testament, a distinctly Jewish compendium.”
Only sheep & morons believe Jews hold to the Old Testament.
“Its god is the god of Israel, its “redeemer” a scion of the House of David and son of the god of Israel”
Correct, but none of this has anything to do with the Satanic cult of Jewish Talmundism. Unless you take these Jews at their word, weird behaviour for a white, sorry, White heathen.
“It is not meet that bread be taken from the master’s [Israel’s] table and cast to the dogs [goyim].” So your savior had something of the Talmudic bigot in him.”
Imagine taking a Jewish Supremacist take on this. Words fail. You know they do say Isreal has an entire army group of dorks who do nothing but beaver away in Tel Aviv making white nationalists look like idiots online. Just saying.
“Whereas Judaism for the Jews values nationhood”
Eh? Since when, 1920? Life did exist before the 20th century you know, even if it can’t be proved by TV.
” . . the latter enjoins non-resistance and inviting more abuse by turning the other cheek.”
Again, ignoring a thousand years and more of recorded history. You do this all the time. And ‘turning the other cheek’ isn’t about masochism . . . but . . I’m losing the will to live here. This is why I didn’t want to get into this, we’re ships passing in the night.
“You think it’s a coincidence that the parts of the world where people lie down for strangers to walk on them, apologizing for existing and thinking it “good” and “moral” to give way and to feel the self-alienation of congenital guilt, are those parts of the world where your creed dominated so long . ”
And where the sad state you refer to was only able to be born AFTER the complete destruction of the faith? Why didn’t it happen when the folks were believers, if your hypothesis is correct? Why only once it died? Ain’t this a flaw in your theory? But I’ve asked you that before, I didn’t get an answer then, I don’t expect one now.
And anyway, what’s WN done for us lately? If you were around when Rome collapsed you’d be blaming their Gods. Don’t you know the problem’s not in our stars?
The only critique of Christian civilization that impresses me is that is so lifts white people up, it so takes them light years past everyone else, that the populous becomes so rich, content, humble, gentle & generous they become ridiculously careless. But that theory is torpedoed by the way Christian civilization was only killed by martial prowess on steroids, when every peasant in the land was so alpha after all this Chritianity, so filled with manly honour, they’d walk calmly into machine gun fire rather than back down.
“You think that these Semites, members of a nation anciently obsessed with vengeance, came to Europe to benefit Europeans?”
If they were “obsessed with vengence” then why didn’t they stay on for the great revolt and presumed liberation? I give you, manly combat ain’t the Jewish(not that Palestinian Hebrews circa 70AD are what we call Jews, but you get the point)way, just pointing out your theory has as many holes as the Titanic.
Top tip – Try and keep your reply to the points in contention, none of us needs another pointless rambling demonstration of your hatred of Xtianity. We get it. We pray for you.
Luke 23:34
In Reply to Lucius Vanini: Good grief, your rambling comments are so disjointed that it’s difficult to know how to piece it all together. Here a few lines in response:
I never extolled the ancient Jewish Christians as those “who could do no wrong.” Paul certainly didn’t think so when he penned his letter to the Galatians. He even rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy! No Christian, whether Jew or Gentile, is without fault and all of us are prone to stumble now and then.
You refer to a host of texts in the NT about turning the other cheek, do not resist evil, and loving one’s enemies seemingly without the slightest understanding of their historical context, life-setting, and the author’s intention by such words. Applying such basic hermeneutical rules is repeatedly missed in your screeds against Christianity. In your zeal to vanquish the Christian Faith, these simple nuances of the text go right over your head. I’ve already explained to you how such phrases are to be understood, and how they do not apply to military strategies, national defense, and the like. Obviously, it does little good. You have an ax to grind, and as an Internet warrior and “activist,” you’re determined to prove how wrong I am.
Moreover, the Bible simply does not address every conceivable issue that we as Whites are struggling with now in the 20th and 21st centuries, and this includes some of the finer details about race relations, Jewish cultural subversion, and how to deal with it all. From what I can gather, the NT assumes that each racial group will remain as it has been geographically determined (Acts 17:26), and that while the Gospel is to be proclaimed to all the nations, there is no command or even a hint that all nations should be multicultural and multiracial in nature. Thus, Whites are not expected nor required to give up their lands to invading migrants out of some sappy ‘Christian love’ any more than they are required to allow everyone and anyone to live under their roof. Christians today who do all in their power to encourage and permit illegal invaders from Mexico and Africa to conquer the West are in gross error, and they should be condemned for doing so. How is any of this ‘loving your neighbor’ when one is working to flood his community with hostile and non-assimilating primitives who will outbreed them?
Many Christians, like the liberals of our day, have failed to understand the ‘already-not yet’ teaching of the New Testament. Like modern liberals, they want to create a Utopian society or kingdom prematurely. They fail to perceive that while the kingdom has arrived, it has not yet been fully consummated or reached its fullness. There is a day coming in which those glorious realities will be completely realized, but that day has not yet arrived. And so there is a tension that we live in and that we must try to balance. In other words, the complexities of race relations that we must struggle through now will not always be. A time will come in which such matters will be put away, and that will be when Christ returns. For now, the races must be separated, and White Christians have every right to protect their homes, their communities, their families, and yes even their nations. Contrary to what you claim, there is no contradiction between the texts you cited and which you also grossly misunderstand and Christians who defend their people from Jewish schemes and immigration insanity.
You quoted Nietzsche in THE ANTI-CHRIST: “[the Jews’] after-effect has falsified mankind to such an extent that today the Christian is able to feel anti-Jewish without realizing he is the ultimate consequence of the Jews.” Correct, and this is because Christians who resist Jewish lies and their subversive ways know good-and-well that their Christianity is NOT the result of Jews or Judaism. While there is a historical connection to the Jewish people, Christianity is NOT the product of Jews nor of their Talmudic myths. Christi is the Head of the Church, and He established it. Everything that Christianity is, including that of the person of Christ Himself, stands forever in direct opposition to Judaism. Only the willfully blind think Christianity was created to fool the gentiles so that Jews could control them, including the wrongheaded belief that ‘Paul was the founder of Christianity.’
If you seriously think the Pope, Merkel, Pastor Hagee or any other apostate is representative of authentic Christianity, you are plain wrong. The Sermon on the Mount is not a strategy for national immigration, but instead the qualities of those who are kingdom citizens. It describes the caliber or quality of those who have been brought to new life in Christ. Although Christians are commanded to be ‘harmless as doves,’ we are also required to be ‘shrewd as serpents.’ We are also commanded to ‘hate evil’ and to love that which is good. We are urged to ‘test all things’ and to be wary of false prophets. Thus, any notion that Christians are to be mindless saps who give everything away to third-worlders, including their nation, their wives and daughters, is guilty of distorting the true intention of Christ’s Gospel.
Christians throughout the centuries had no problem maintaining a rich and robust faith in Christ while still protecting their land and people from invaders. There is no discrepancy or hypocrisy for Christians to be aware of racial differences, including an awareness of the long history of Jewish cultural subversion. Hitler referred to himself as a Christian (nominal at best and, basically, a cultural Christian). And while he dealt harshly with Protestant pastors and Catholic priests who tried to destroy his National Socialist political movement, he did not view Christianity as a diabolical threat to the German people.
Your rebuttal is a convoluted mess in large measure because like the gullible Christians whom you criticize, you yourself greatly misunderstand the Christian Faith. You distort the meaning of several passages time after time, and you read strange notions into them. What you deduce from them is so far-fetched that it’s difficult to make any sense of it. Basic rules of biblical interpretation (Hermeneutics) are repeatedly violated. It will only persuade those who understand little of authentic Christianity and even less in how to properly interpret the Scriptures.
-To RockaBoatus-
See what I mean? Not an easy lad to argue with.
Love your neighbour creates a high trust society, for the benefit of everyone. That’s why it’s not ‘love some stranger on the other side of the earth’.
I’d also presume ‘be wary of false prophets’ in this age, is pretty much EXACTLY ‘beware ideology, and it’s practitioners’.
WHO are WHITE Supremacists? Most whites in America are a declining populations..fewer VOTERS, more poor, more illiterate, more sick, more drug addicted, fewer University students, fewer in UPPER Middle class,fewer CEOs, fewer home owners, Are White supremacists responsible for the Open Bordersm FREE traders that destroyed the USA Manufacturing base..and made CHINA (Mexico) GREAT, ? are Whites responsible for the wars in IRAK, Lybia, Syria, Afghanistan..etc.??? Are Whites responsible for the highest CRIME rates ever in traditional BLACK cities, under DEM/BLUE control local govts????Are whites responsible for failed black cities, schools, black on black murders, defund the police, BLM/ANTIFA, cancel WOKE madness??? Chicago/Detroit/Philadelphia/DC all delapidated crime infested cities…WHO runs those cities?? WHITES??..Ever since the 1930s there has been a calculated planned to make blacks slaves of the Racism/Slavery/Civil Rights Commercial PUBLIC dependence complex to instigate a racial war against Whites..
” Until you sheep see the truth nothing will change.”
Nothing will change until nonsheeple Whites stop waiting for the sheeple to see anything or do anything they are not told to see nor told to do by their masters . Sheeple are either born DNA slaves or they are systematicly ( as are most Whites ) rigorously cultivated to be facsimile DNA sheeple . Sheeple have existed since before JC was born .
Another divisive comment from a troll. Also, for your information “Whites” have lived so over the world in various climates including: deserts and other tropical areas i.e Ancient Egyptians; Phoenicians; Babylonians, not too mention the so-called “Aryan” conquest of India! 🤔
What a pity that once great Ethnic European universities around the world have, in less than half a century, turned into cesspools of Marxist anti-European ideology.
The capitulation of European posterity is all but complete.
‘What a pity that once great Ethnic European universities around the world have, in less than half a century, turned into cesspools of Marxist anti-European ideology.’
It is a pity. But it’s an ethnic version of ‘Marxism’: where is the demand for break up of monopolies, control/nationalization of the banks and so on? The closest that this version of Marxism gets to control/ownership is the redistribution of the property of European Americans to the poorest of the Third World immigrants.
Politics has increasingly become ethnic warfare, part of which is the shaming of the founder people out of their heritage. Lies are bad enough, but the power to disseminate these into the schools: that’s the real scandal, but one for which there seems to be increasing resistance.
It’s pleasantly surprising that the likes of Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter are now allowing themselves to be published on a site that explicitly describes itself as advocating “White Identity, Interests, and Culture.” Good! Let others throw caution to the wind as well.
Yes, it is great to have two such accomplished authors contributing here. Hooray for Pat & Ann!!
I see that as a good sign as well. This website should be mainstream. The writers and quality of the articles are ten times better than what I used to read in the mainstream media (New York Times, Time magazine, etc).
Regarding White Nationalism, I’m confused as to how this is immoral and racist. According to Wikipedia “White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white racial and national identity.[2][3][4] Many of its proponents identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation, or a “white ethnostate”.” Does this make any European that wants to maintain the ethnicity of his country (which is White for all European countries) a White Nationalist? Jews openly define their country as a “Jewish state”, a state for Jews and Japanese and Chinese have strong identities and won’t let their peoples be eradicated? Are they racist too?
Regarding Wikipedia’s definition, there have been many “white racial and national identit[ies]” in the world for centuries, every European people or country, and there have been many Asian racial and national identities for centuries too. I have never heard of anyone that wants to abandon their national identity and unite all Whites in the world to become one White race. I have never heard anyone say they want this. So, is the expression “White Nationalism” aimed at Americans and Canadians that resent that their peoples and cultures have been deliberately destroyed thru mass immigration.
The definition of White Nationalist seems imprecise and it’s probably deliberately so. The fact we don’t hear of “Asian nationalists” or God forbid “Jewish nationalists” suggests to me the Jews invented and popularized this idea.
“Regarding White Nationalism, I’m confused as to how this is immoral . .”
The same reason our Jewish overlords have decided all sorts of other normal things are immoral.
Top tip: It doesn’t have to make sense.
I get the impression that you sympathise with and support White Nationalism in one breath (2nd paragraph) and then go on to decry it in the penultimate and final paragraphs.
One must bear in mind that all racial groups are comprised of nationalities. The coming together as a racial group means the coming together of racially-related nationalities to strengthen their ranks.
Golly, gee, Ann, how did you possibly overlook the preeminent trans-Atlantic slave traders of the day — Jews. That’s right. The auction houses were shut down during Jewish holidays. The first synagogue in America was Newport, Rhode Island set up for the slaver traders. The Nation of Islam has a whole PDF on this taboo topic called The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. Ann, I suggest you include it in your curriculum.
Yes, I studied the ‘preeminent trans-Atlantic slave traders of the day — Jews’. They were based in Amsterdam as I recall.
Anne might also wish to evidence your statement by reproducing the photo on the net, depicting such point of sale of slaves, with the notice of being closed on Saturdays.
Oy veih ! The fortune ve lost by not at least hiring a shabbos goy to perform our melakha already !
I think point five would cover the topics you mentioned. Good topics, BTW.
Ann apparently missed the history of Jewish slave traders , which is discussed at length in a three volume series from the Nation of Islam.
Excellent article! Deep down all this come down (as usual) to that obnoxious Jewish heresy known as Christianity which the great Revilo Oliver described as “spiritual syphilis”. Had these moronic Christian do-gooders never existed slavery would have eventually died out or the blacks would have been kept under the White man’s boot, as they should be if they are living on our lands.
This infernal and anti-natural belief that says “we are all equal in the eyes of God” has made terrible harm to us. In its secular form (i.e.: Liberalism or Marxism) has also been a powerful weapon against the White race.
I am not saying that slavery was good. I would have never approved the introduction of thousands of dangerous savages into my country just to keep profits high, that is a very Jewish thought but what can you expect from those greedy and hateful Anglo-American puritans who spiritually were 100% Jewish
Why do you think the old North American “aristocracy” (I mean those hateful robber-barons, the Morgans, the Vanderbilts, the Rockefellers, etc.) welcomed and associated with the new “American” Jewish billionaires (the Lehmann brothers, Kühn & Loeb, Herman Otto Kahn, Goldman & Sachs…)? Because it was “just business”!
“Had these moronic Christian do-gooders never existed slavery would have eventually died out . . ”
That’s right son, because before the evil days of Christianity, we all ran around naked and free, as happy pagans in the forest worshipping the mud & the trees, & no one ever dreamed of enslaving a brother white.
Just like in Greece and Rome, the height of pre-Christian pagan civilization, there weren’t any slaves either!
Wikipedia sais that in the Attic peninsula, there were 400,000 slaves to 21,000 citizens, in the Golden Days of Greece, so yeah, sure looks like the thing was dying out.
Although obviously we can’t be too sure of this, as Wikipedia is a well known pro-Christian propaganda site.
Very good.
In the Jews’ Guide for Goyim ,i.e., the Bible , the Hebrew word for Servant has been misinterpreted as Slave , and sometimes even mistakenly by people like you ,i.e., philologists of Ancient Hebrew.
The Servants of the Christian God’s Chosenites were not Slaves . But anyone who tithes money to a TV Evangelist shyster until the Gulfstream target is reached is your spiritual brother in future Heaven.
I’m a philologist of Ancient Hebrew am I? Well, you do learn something new every day.
Emicho
Angelicus was referring to the Christian era slavery, not the pre-Christian era although I doubt if slavery would have indeed died out had Christian do-gooders and missionaries, etc not entered the historical equation in the first place.
I believe, however, that biblical texts that preach non-confrontation, non-retaliation and human empathy with one’s enemy, have been at times throughout history, a hindrance and curse as not everyone is apt to interpret them all in the ‘correct’ contextuality, if that’s even possible, since a good many religious texts are inclined to be ambiguous, to say the least.
It seems like every month is hate White history month and every month is hate White people month. What is happening to Confederate monuments in Virginia could not have happened in 1968 obviously something has changed.
John D. Alder
Marxism finally succeeded in subverting White history and culture largely due to White Liberal conspiracy and connivance with the said enemy camp along with strategic group enablement/empowerment of non-white attack dogs.
This is not to say that all of this is irreversible. Quite the contrary if Whitey has the will power and dogged determination to take on the enemy by name bearing in mind they now go under several, not just one.
“The Secret History of Blacks and Jews.”
Isn’t it also true that slavery existed in Africa before Whites arrived and the slaves slave masters were other Black Africans? I’m actually not sure but this is what I think is the case. Was this widespread? That could help explain why so many Blacks were taken as slaves and of course it would lessen the guilt of Whitey somewhat. I guess that’s what they see as a problem.
I can’t express my feelings when I read the “gay porn” instruction the students in Texas get. What I was thinking isn’t legal.
“Isn’t it also true that slavery existed in Africa before Whites arrived . . ?”
Yes, and slavery soon kicked off again as soon as whites lost control. But it’s probably just a coincidence.
Regarding the Africa to Americas slave trade,
I have a very few times come across references that the Black Africans themselves enslaved other Black Africans and not only working them, but also selling them to the Europeans who in turn brought them to the Americas.
As I understand it, the Europeans stayed on an island off the coast of Africa and the Africans brought the slaves to them. Europeans were reluctant to actual go on the continent because they were vastly outnumber by Blacks and fear of disease.
Does anyone know anything about this aspect of African slave history.
If it is true, it profoundly changes the moral character of slave history and discourse.
“Does anyone know anything about this aspect of African slave history.”
Sure do…..’20yrs a slaver’ by Captain Canot, a book, free on the internet, will give you all your answers.
Fascinating stuff. Blacks were caught up in the highlands by muslim blacks on horseback accompanied by jungle trained trackers and scouts, then transported to the coast where they were held in concentration camps, called barracoons. Then they were traded for military goods…muskets,.powder, lead balls wadding etc, then comestibles such as rum, whisky and tobacco, then finally Manchester cotton, preferably with pretty designs imprinted, to keep the African women sweet.If their desires were not addressed, they could turn bitchy and even downright nasty..
The white slave trade was a godsend to the muslim slavers. Instead of having to trek all the way up to Timbuctoo to offload their slaves to the Arabs,as was the tradition, now, all they had to do was take the slaves through the forest to the coast, and captain Canot’s trading post…..and the barracoons (concentration camps)….then on to the boats for a short (10-15 days) trip to Cuba.
There,. according to captain Canot the average African felt like he had landed in paradise, as he was propelled by horse–drawn transport( never experienced before) through fields of grain of immense abundance and orchard after orchard, producing every conceivable fruit known to man.
“according to captain Canot the average African felt like he had landed in paradise”
This backs up the recordings of old black slaves made in 1900 or so. They considered ‘liberation’ a catastrophe, and their idea of Heaven was to go back to serving ‘massa’ again once they died.
It’s all online.
It’s hard for white people to get their heads around not wanting to be free, but what evidence is there blacks prefer this condition? Imagine going from under the mercy of mother nature & predating neighbours, to being looked after as a precious commodity by Christians?
Do farmers inflict misery on their cows, or are they fatter and happier than scrawny wild things?
If American blacks wanted to be ‘free’ no-ones stopping them returning to muma-Africa.
I get the feeling reading the abolitionist stuff of the 19th century that it’s a kind of pornography, a way for sadists to get their kicks AND display their virtue.
It’s no wonder it caught on the way it did.
Tom
You will find a historical account of Capt. Canot on this website.
https://www.ostarapublications.com/
Glad to see you are featuring Ann Coulter’s columns.
Well, it’s very exciting and it also says a lot that two mainstream conservatives, Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter, are writing for, or in Ann’s case, allowing her writing to be posted on TOO. Congratulations Kevin and thanks!
Coulter is a regular guest on main stream conservative radio. She is regularly on the Marc Simone show which I listen to at times, it is on at 10am, Est, on WOR radio in NYC. She has ‘crossed the line,’ in regards to the JQ when discussing Soros on the radio, a great thing!
Notice what she says here in her last paragraph which is a fantastic thing she is doing and that other well known conservative pundits are at times doing and something that we should all be doing, and even being more explicit, when we can:
“5. In your other readings, have you found that the sins of whites and Christians are comically exaggerated, while those of nonwhites and non-Christians are buried in a lead casket and dropped in the middle of the sea?“
“Non-Christians.” She doesn’t come right out and say; “Jews.” Should she, of course! Would she be able to get away with saying that…? Probably not… now. But the fact that she is now on TOO, points to a day that is hopefully in the not too distance future, where the Jewish problem can be openly discussed in msm and brought before and include the masses.
“Non-Christians.” She doesn’t come right out and say; “Jews.”
Well noticed. I missed that, only Jews & the Jew-woke would pick that up, I believe they call this a ‘dog-whistle’.
Which is why I’m gutted, I thought I was as big a racist dog as the next man. Must do better!