Flight is White: Aviation is a Creation of the Pale Stale Nation

Will I ever stop hating on the Catholic Church and become a believer? Maybe. But if I do, it won’t just be Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, and Father Leonard Feeney who will have helped me kneel before the Queen of Heaven. It will also be Professor Richard Dawkins. Belloc, Chesterton, and Feeney have set me a positive example of Christian wisdom, insight, and intelligence. Dawkins has done the opposite. He’s set me a negative example of anti-Christian foolishness, blindness, and stupidity. With the able assistance of Christopher Hitchens, he’s taught me to regard atheism as uncouth, adolescent, and autistic.

Top White thinkers

Yes, I think Vox Day is right to connect atheism and autism. Like autism, atheism is a kind of color-blindness: an inability to perceive, understand and appreciate an essential — and extraordinarily beautiful — aspect of reality. Autistic people don’t perceive social relationships; atheists don’t perceive the most important “social relationship” of all, that between God and His Creation. Or so theists like Day would argue. I’m not with those theists yet, but Richard Dawkins is one of those who have helped me away from atheism and towards theism. I look back with shame on the days when I was a fully fledged fan of his. Now I’m only a partly fledged fan. I still admire his scientific knowledge and the quality of his prose. Unlike the polysyllabicizing gasbag Hitchens, Dawkins is a clear and careful writer who is more interested in describing biology than in demonstrating his own cleverness.

Richard Dawkins’ recent book Flights of Fancy (2021)

Not that Dawkins could demonstrate much cleverness if he tried. He’s made solid contributions to evolutionary biology, but he isn’t particularly clever. He himself has said that he doesn’t score well on IQ tests and I think Greg Cochran has called him a “pinhead.” That would be hyperbole, but Dawkins is certainly not “the world’s top thinker,” as a poll in Prospect Magazine once proclaimed him to be. Dawkins himself wouldn’t accept the title: one of his positive qualities is his ability to recognize and honor intellectual excellence in others. He is a staunch admirer of John Maynard Smith (1920–2004) and William D. Hamilton (1936–2000), for example. Those two really were top thinkers, able to bring the immense power of mathematics to bear on problems in evolutionary biology, but they aren’t familiar to millions in the way that Dawkins himself is. Dawkins has done his best to correct that imbalance. He wrote an introduction to an updated edition of Smith’s magisterial The Theory of Evolution (1958) and has often referred to Smith and Hamilton in his books. He did that again in his recent Flights of Fancy (2021), a slight but seductive book about “defying gravity by design and evolution.” It has beautiful illustrations by the Slovakian artist Jana Lenzová and is an excellent short guide to the facts and fancies of flight, all the way from falcons and flying fish to parachutes and patagiums.

Jettisoning material

In chapter 11 of the book, Dawkins pays graceful tribute to Hamilton and describes Hamilton’s “mathematical theory” showing how “an animal (or plant) that takes steps to send at least some of its offspring a long way away will spread more of its genes, in the long run, than a rival that drops all of its offspring right next door to the parent.” (p. 206) This is true, Hamilton showed, “even if ‘right next door’ is (at present) the best place in the world and ‘a long way away’ is on average worse.” That idea is only one of what Dawkins rightly calls Hamilton’s “brilliant contributions to Darwinian theory,” but it sheds light on the central theme of the book: flight in all its forms. Flights of Fancy is about the conquest of the air, whether accomplished by birds, bats, bees or Blanchard’s balloons. Jean-Pierre Blanchard (1753–1806) was a pioneering French inventor who made the “first balloon crossing of the English Channel” in 1785. En route, he and his American companion “were obliged to jettison everything in their beautiful boat-shaped car, including even their own clothes.” (p. 179)

Birds, Bats, Bees, Balloons

Otherwise the balloon would have hit the water and never reached its destination. You could say that, metaphorically speaking, Richard Dawkins has followed the same strategy as Jean-Pierre Blanchard. He had to jettison certain material from Flights of Fancy or it too would have failed to reach its destination. The material that’s missing from the book is about race, because one thing is very clear from the history of mankind’s conquest of the air. Flight is White and aviation is a creation of the stale pale nation. In other words, it was European Whites who invented or perfected all the amazing ways in which human beings can imitate birds and take to the air. The airplane, the helicopter, the rocket, the balloon, the glider, the jet-pack and more — all of these are the product of White ingenuity and effort. And also of White audacity. Many White men have died or been horribly injured in the quest to conquer the air, just as many White men have died or been horribly injured in the quest to conquer mountains like Everest and the Eiger.

The Whiteness of Flight

In essence, flight and mountaineering are the same quest — a Faustian quest to ascend, overcome and go beyond the boundaries imposed on mankind by nature. There was hubris in the early attempts on the air and Nemesis often punished that hubris. But now flight is one of the safest forms of transport and human beings can cross the Atlantic with less risk than they cross a city-street. We owe all of that to White men like Jean-Pierre Blanchard and the Wright Brothers. But suppose Richard Dawkins had written about the Whiteness of human flight in his book and had drawn on the work of Kevin MacDonald to explain why and how it was Whites who pioneered and perfected aviation. If Dawkins had done that, his book would never have taken wing itself. It wouldn’t have been published by a mainstream company or been praised by mainstream reviewers.

Instead, it would have been condemned as vile, racist and “White-supremacist.” In the modern West, two leftist dogmas are absolute and unassailable. The first dogma states that “There is Only One Race — the Human Race.” The second dogma states that Whites are innately villainous and non-Whites are innately virtuous. The two dogmas contradict each other, of course, but that’s the doublethink of leftism. As Orwell described in Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), leftists have the ability “to hold simultaneously two opinions which [cancel] out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them.” By proclaiming the equality of all human groups, leftists feed the self-regard that powers their lust for power and punishment. The power will be for themselves and the punishment will be for their enemies. They want to wreck the West and rule the ruins.

Noxious and nonsensical

The enemies of leftism therefore include all those who recognize racial reality, like everyone who writes for the Occidental Observer and most of those who write for the Unz Review. We race-realists know that the dogma of human equality is both noxious and nonsensical. Human races are not all equal and Whites have achieved exceptional things. Aviation is one soaring example: it’s a true creation of the pale stale nation. But leftism hates the truth and Dawkins couldn’t have talked about the Whiteness of flight in his book. If he’d done that, he would have contradicted the leftist dogma of White villainy and non-White virtue. According to leftism, all apparent White achievements and inventions were in fact stolen or “appropriated” from geniuses of color. That’s why the article on the “History of aviation” at leftist Wikipedia makes sure to refer right away to Chinese kites as “the earliest example of man-made flight.” Some of those kites could lift a grown man into the air. In other words, non-Whites were there first, as always. But the article can’t deny that White men were the pioneers of flight in its truest and fullest forms. From the Montgolfier Brothers to the Moon-landings and beyond, Flight has been White.

And so has the understanding of flight in all its forms, as Dawkins’ book describes. White scientists have elucidated the physics of flight and explained how flight has evolved again and again among animals and plants. It’s a fascinating story excellently told in Flights of Fancy by the words of Richard Dawkins and the pictures of Jana Lenzová. That’s why I enjoyed the book so much. And I couldn’t help contrasting Flights of Fancy with another book that has recently made a strong impression on me. The other book is very different in content and style. And it makes explicit what is only implicit in Flights of Fancy: the importance of race and racial difference in all parts of human existence.

Blackety-Blackety Yack

What is the other book called? It’s called Black British Lives Matter: A Clarion Call for Equality (2021) and is an entry in the ever-fascinating and ever-essential field of what John Derbyshire would call Blackety Blackety Black Black Black Blackety-Blackness Studies. Derbyshire captures the full intellectual richness and profundity of the book in that formulation. In other words, the book has no intellectual richness or profundity whatsoever. It’s a collection of essays by nineteen self-obsessed and self-righteous Blacks living in Britain. The essays have titles like “Black British Architecture Matters” and “Black British Mothers Matter.” If the book as a whole had been given an honest subtitle rather than a dishonest one, that subtitle would have been “A Clarion Call for Black Narcissism and Anti-White Grievance.” And I’ll be honest myself: I’m not Hercules and I couldn’t have tackled Hercules’ Fifth Labor of cleaning the Augean Stables, which were heaped high with decades of bullshit. In a similar way, I can’t tackle the bullshit heaped high in Black British Lives Matter. There’s too much of it and I didn’t have the time or the masochistic inclination to even read the book, let alone attempt to dissect all its distortions and dim-wittedness.

Black Bullshit Masters: nineteen melanin-enriched dim-wits issue a Clarion Call for Black Narcissism and Anti-White Grievance

But you won’t be surprised to learn that the book rests firmly on the second great dogma of leftism, namely, that Whites are innately villainous and non-Whites are innately virtuous. Blacks especially are innately virtuous and social outcomes that disfavor Blacks must always be attributed to White wickedness, never to Black imperfection or immorality. For example, one essay in the book adduces this irrefutable proof of White wickedness: that “Black women [in Britain] die in pregnancy or childbirth at four times the rate of White women.” After all, what else could explain such a glaring “inequality” but White wickedness? To leftists, nothing else. To thought-criminals like me, other explanations are obvious: for example, the different biology and reproductive strategies of Black women, as evolved in the distinct environments of sub-Saharan Africa, and their higher, self-inflicted rates of venereal disease and ill-health.

“B” is for Black

Black British Lives Matter is full of similar proclamations of Black suffering and White villainy. It’s a self-righteous and self-obsessed book. That’s part of why it’s also an ugly book. Another part of its ugliness is the poor quality of its prose and its reasoning. That’s why I found it such a contrast with Flights of Fancy, which is a beautiful book, well-written, well-reasoned, and well-illustrated, and most certainly not self-obsessed. As I noted above, Whites like Richard Dawkins are interested in birds, bats, bees, balloons and lots of other things starting with “B.” Blacks, by contrast, are interested in only one thing starting with “B,” namely, Blacks. In other words, Whites are exotropic, directed towards what’s outside themselves. Blacks are endotropic, directed towards themselves and their own concerns. That’s why Whites have been inventors, innovators and explorers of the Universe. And why Blacks have been none of those things.

You can see that stark difference between Whites and Blacks by comparing Flights of Fancy with Black British Lives Matter. Books in their modern form were also a White invention, but in the 21st century books are part of the leftist war on the White West. On their own, Blacks never even invented writing, let alone the arts of paper-manufacture and printing. And on their own they wouldn’t have been able to use books to attack Whites and express their self-righteous self-obsession. Blacks are not intelligent, literate or well-organised enough to have created the modern cult of minority-worship and to have set themselves at the heart of leftist ideology. Instead, minority-worship was created and Blacks were sacralized by the highly intelligent, literate and well-organized group known as Jews, who were trying to fight anti-Semitism by remote control. As I’ve pointed out before, if birds had language, then cuckoos would be the loudest exponents of the Brotherhood of Birds. They would coo seductively that “There Is Only One Species — the Avian Species.”

Predators and parasites

But birds aren’t in fact brothers, and different species most certainly may well have conflicts of interest. Although birds have a common ancestor and their similarities are far greater than their differences, those differences are literally a matter of life and death. Some birds prey on other birds and some birds, like cuckoos, parasitize other birds. As biologists like Richard Dawkins are well-aware, predation and parasitism are strategies that have evolved independently again and again among animals. I don’t think human beings are an exception. What is exceptional among humans is the way that our predators and parasites often operate. A cuckoo doesn’t use language to fool its hosts into working against their own interests and spreading alien genes. The human cuckoo Stephen Jay Gould used nothing but language to fool gullible Whites into doing the same thing.

Black British Lives Matter is a Gouldean book, but Flights of Fancy is a golden book. And I hope that Richard Dawkins one day uses his undoubted literary ability to champion the race to which he belongs and to which the world owes so much artistic beauty and scientific knowledge. Dawkins already knows about the existence of race and is fast learning about the malignancy of leftism. If he abandons atheism and embraces race-realism, I think he’ll earn his angel’s wings.

21 replies
  1. Strange World
    Strange World says:

    Religiosity, i.e. the superstitious monoligizing about religious contents (e.g. what their fictional “Sky Daddy” supposedly demands and constitutes) and the wanting to convert all others, can also “be” quite austistic, Mr. Langdon! When I look at guys like Anglin or his new “Christian hero” Ye (who thinks Hitler was the inventor of his microphone), it makes me sick to my stomach. Or take the strange “hospitalized” body movements of the Jews at their Bible exegesis and in front of their “Wailing Wall”. That clearly has autistic features! The unimaginable fool George W. Bush, after all, justified his military campaigns, which plunged the whole world into chaos, as an act “willed by Jesus”. These lunatics believe in their “personal chosenness” and God personally gives them their thoughts.

    To call it “a-theism”, not being addicted to the Abrahamic monotheism is morbid anyway, as impudent as to call all people who are not addicted to cigarettes “non-smokers”. The abnormal here is declared zo be the yardstick for the normal. Someone once made the convincing argument: Religiously inclined people cling to their “faith” because they cannot develop moral principles from within themselves. Therefore, they follow foreign standards like children who are afraid of the punishment by their strict parents. One should be on one’s guard against them. Because as soon as their “faith” justifies a crime (“holy war”) and/or a “chastisement” in the name of their madness, they lose all (fake) empathy, which is innate and firmly anchored only in rationalists who are capable of reason.

    • Strange World
      Strange World says:

      “It is real (in their mind)”… Every psychiatrist
      would diagnose clearly delusions of grandeur.

      There can be no doubt at all: “God’s” (especially in the personification of Jesus!) most urgent main interest is to let guys like Anglin and his (latest) hero “Ye” prevail and to make them the undisputed rulers of the (“coming”) world kingdom. They may count themselves already (alone due to their impeccable curriculum vitae) practically to his “heavenly ground staff” and claim a privileged place on the “heavenly honorary tribune” (to the right side of God, of course!). After all, God is known (or let’s say rather, infamous) for being all too happy to surround himself (just like the Godfather from Sicily!) with such characters! He enjoys their company (and especially their brilliant ideas!). Stupid humanity will finally get the message one day!

  2. Sandy
    Sandy says:

    As one who returned to the mother ship (the Catholic Church) just in time for the lock downs I really enjoyed the essay, especially the quib about the cuckoo calling for equality. for the Avian Species. What, oh what would ” Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, and Father Leonard Feeney ” think of today’s church of the mixed multitude? But the real shocker was the age of the priests and the famine to come. Our civilization could indeed end with a whimper rather than the proverbial bang. But I digress.

  3. donna sherwood
    donna sherwood says:

    i think you are wrong with mr. hitchens. I had very much the same opinion about him until he was welcomed by david horowitz of the freedom center as friend and contributor. He had been invited to deliver a talk at the union club as keynote speaker for organisaiton some years ago. I went reluctantly finding myself standing across the street in front of the Frick observing him in conversation with an attendee. I watched him for some time astonished realizing I was seeing a man of extraordinary sensitivity and soul who wordlessly had touched me immensely. His delivery that evening only confirmed this impression. Hitches had been wrong with many conclusions he arrived at but he was a sincere individual on the quest to understand. This was only solidified watching a lengthy video presentation of his engagement with a evangelical christian apologist for creationism They filmed a few days time spent together in many settings speaking of their views Hitchens was slaughtered it was painfully amusing to observe his incomprehension of the superior arguments of this man but at no point did he behave as anything other than a complete gentleman. . Hitchens was overwhelmed by the outpouring of concern and support he received from those he encountered from many people who he had thought of as adversaries during his devastating cancer battle. “Professor” dawkins well as they say “there are no words”.

    • Servenet
      Servenet says:

      You´re as mistaken as anyone could be. That Hitchens wasn´t the beast to ordinary people that he is when he drains his bile onto those with whom he engages in debate and blasphemes with complete promiscuousness – doesn´t lesson the sickening thing it is to watch and hear. YOU…may not UNDERSTAND this, but to insult the Infinite to His face is the most shocking evil of all. Think about it.

  4. jason trueth
    jason trueth says:

    “And I hope that Richard Dawkins one day uses his undoubted literary ability to champion the race to which he belongs…”

    He already does. Like all atheist scientismist losers he was born a Jew. They fake converted to Anglicanism just so he could later complain about having been taughg about hell after the ADL set him up with a pseudo-science gig.

  5. Hitmarck
    Hitmarck says:

    Dawkins is a clear and careful writer who is more interested in describing biology than in demonstrating his own cleverness.

    1. Egoistic Gene, Gene caring about getting into the next generation

    2. Genes beneficial to religiosity are beneficial to reproduction

    ===> Atheism likely can never compete with Christianity and much more likely not with other Religions

    3. Dicky Dawkins, who should know and understand the above, spergs out against exactly one Religion, feels incredibly smart while doing so, nearly as smart as his dumbo Fans feel personally smeared by their own brainpoo if they get pointed out how Dawkins ACTIONS as pro european genocide activist contradict his own Egoistical Gene Nobel Thesis, obviously not worth the Price if the laudate cant even apply his own shit.

    The amount of brain damage atheists really manage is stunning beyond believe.

  6. Flavia
    Flavia says:

    Very nice way of teasing out separate threads then weaving them back together again by the end. Lovely.

    Flight was also in the Greek imagination, thousands of years before it was realized in fact, brought to life in Daedalus, the crafty inventor. (Then, too, in Homer the Greeks gave us the first robots as well, those golden maidens of Hephaestus–the first automatons on record, as far as I’m aware. The reference to his golden automata in the Iliad was intriguing enough to have inspired me to write a novella around them.)

    It’s necessary to remind people of these things we formerly knew and took for granted as common knowledge.

  7. Michael Fury
    Michael Fury says:

    …But how was it possible

    These descendants of captains of impassible

    Waters, surveyors of oceans by sail

    And continents by wheel, who with steel

    In hand and heart explored the earth

    And made of the wilderness a hearth,

    Who apprenticed sons to build cathedrals,

    Engineered the wing’s dihedrals

    Mastering flight and stood upon the moon

    To witness earthrise over its horizon

    Had been reduced to little more than cattle?

  8. charles frey
    charles frey says:

    Flies, so small as to enter through my screen door, settle on the wall next to my night light. Difficult to conceive of these miniscule creatures being blessed with the capacity to fly: necessitating sight, digestion and musculature lending propulsion to their aerodynamic design.

    Why exclude rocketry from our discussion of flight ? It requires aerodynamic design, a directional control system and a separation of propulsion power from its warhead.

    And it was the Chinese and Koreans who developed rocketry over a thousand years ago. I once saw Werner von Braun outside of his villa near Freeport [ Bahamas ].

    He was the brains behind the V-1 and V-2; later Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama.

    We Whites pride ourselves with development of jet flight, joining Chinese rockets with my flies at home. Wouldn’t it be equally reasonable to ask; ” what took us so long ? ” After all, it’s only a simple joinder of thrust and lift.

    Otto Lilienthal [ aryan ] got his thrust from simple gravity, jumping off hills in and around Berlin, in the 1880s. As did Wright in Kitty Hawk, NC.

    My point is: when we blow our White horns so loud, that they bring the walls down, we shoul first check whether said walls are built on sand. Our opponents will certainly notice. Why blow air under their wings ?

    • Tenet
      Tenet says:

      “It was the Chinese and Koreans who developed rocketry over a thousand years ago.”

      You don’t even notice the leftist propaganda shaping your speech. In your mind it’s like a computer game, where the new slot in the tech tree was opened from over here.

      No, Chinese and Koreans ALSO developed primitive rockets at one point. That doesn’t mean Whites didn’t develop rockets. Do you see now, or do I need to explain it further?

      You remind me of the leftists spouting with glee in school that “Chinese developed gunpowder first, ha ha!” Same people who eagerly claim that “humans can only fly with machines, birds have wings!” and every othe way they can think of to denigrate their own group. How does your leftist claims excluse the fact that Whites developed gunpowder and rockets and tens of thousands of other things? Your inability to see history as anything other than bullet points blinds you – a real look would show that even though the Chinese had very favorable conditions that gave them THOUSANDS OF YEARS of civilization, they could never go above the Medieval stage. Only a brief flicker came from some men who could do things like invent gunpowder, but it wasn’t “the Chinese” as a collective. No, “the Chinese” as a collective held back the accomplishment’s of these individuals. Unlike the Whites as a collective who promote such accomplishments by their fellow Whites, therefore making them true White accomplishments. The Chinese could only use gunpowder for fireworks and for primitive guns that weren’t very effective, a bow and arrow was better. They certainly couldn’t go from gunpowder to dynamite, like Alfred Nobel did, with his fellow Whites building on his invention to blow away mountain sides to make roads, make harbors, to mine for metals and build civilization to a higher stage. Far above the Medieval one.

  9. charles frey
    charles frey says:

    A plane’s wing does not push the plane up, it sucks it up from above. Its leading edge slices into the air which wants to join up again at its trailing edge.

    The wing is shaped like that of a bird; the top is curved upward causing the air to flow faster across its top; to come together again at its traiing edge.

    This necessarily faster airflow across the top creates a lower pressure, sucking the wing/plane upwards.

    The Chinese had toy helicopters, propelled into the air. Archimedes developed a propeller/screw within a pipe, to raise water from an irrigation ditch onto the fields.

    Leonardo da Vinci developed his famous helicopter, driven by human power.

    Before flight, ships had been driven by pushing propellers for decades. If a propeller pushes water it can also suck air, in reverse, doing away with the necessity to depend on gravity for forward propulsion, jumping off hills or Lililienthal’s Berlin tower,

    Again, what took us so long, to make use of what others had placed before us ?

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      “The Chinese had toy helicopters . .”
      You get little seeds that fall off trees with a tail shaped like a rotor blade that makes it spin in the air. So probably everyone has had this idea.
      I never thought it was fair making fun of the blacks for never developing the wheel, as surely the axis is the difficult part.
      Though I cannot defend the blacks for not inventing the sail on their boats for traveling up their rivers. But maybe they did. The blacks that were linked with the Egyptians certainly did.

      Everyone at this site must be at the level where you realise mainstream history is about as accurate as mainstream politics, as that is what history is: It’s not what happened in the past, it’s what happened in the politics of the past.
      So mainstream archaeology is going to as accurate as today’s politics or yesterday’s history.

      The official story of the pyramids holds water to a similar extent as the official story of 9/11 does, or the moon landing. Or WWII.
      Only the most basic outlines of their stories are correct, 9/11 happened on the 11th of September, the moon landing was about the moon, WWII was a war and the pyramids were built long ago. We can all agree on that, the rest is for the most part made up gibberish.
      If you want to know what really happened, you need to find out yourself which happily you can with the internet, but certainly the truth will not be fed to you along with the rest of the masses.

  10. Emicho
    Emicho says:

    The New Atheism movement came around just as I was taking an interest in politics and my older brother was a fully paid up member of this cult.
    But for me, nothing has ever pushed me so far towards Christianity as all that ridiculous atheist dogma. I was genuinely shocked at how bad it was, how weak their case is and how simple it is to demolish those childish arguments.
    I’ve been a defender of Christianity ever since. The Christian arguments always made much more sense, were in touch with reality and are right wing.
    The next part, the true belief in the Resurrection etc is the part I’m at now & this is the hard part, the spiritual, metaphysical part.

  11. Tenet
    Tenet says:

    “Atheism”, that typical American insult. Very childish to use it, Tobias. I guess you think it sounds cool. In your call for Seeing the Truth you ignore what atheism actually is, and uses it as “not wanting to see the arguments I make”. Well then, you argue in favor of a doctrine that claims the Earth is flat and resting on seven pillars, with a dome above on which the sun, moon and stars are attached. When someone says that ideology is false you go “don’t be autistic!” Nice propaganda.

    Who are more “autistic” than the ones who keep claiming that “Jesus was White”? In the face of a mountain of evidence – even from their own hallowed Jewish-written book. All churches in all times have known Jesus – real name Yeshua – was Jewish, but they can’t accept that, so they claim otherwise. Focusing only on their own narrow “arguments” which are simply based on “if you say otherwise you’re anti-White”. In reality the Jesus = White argument came from the “Christian Identity” bag of nutcases, who meet exclusively online these days. They came from the British Identity group before them, who claimed, in extreme vanity, that the British were the “lost twelve tribes of Israel, so we’re biblical!” Then one of them moved to the U.S., but the problem was not all Americans were British. So he expanded the claim to that ALL Whites were “the lost twelve tribes of Israel,” and before that Europe had been empty. Only an extremely dumb mind can believe this, and ignore all history and archeology.

    The CIs don’t often repeat their main claim, instead using the retreat position that “Jesus was White”. They know that few in nationalist forums will spend time and energy on arguing that Jesus was Jewish. This is how extremists function in every movement – the most hateful feminists can make up all sorts of claims about evil men, and the other feminists won’t spend their cred on defending men, so the extremists go unopposed.

    Well, I’m opposing the religionuts in this case. Jesus was a Jew. As all churches have always said, as the hymnbooks say, as the Bible says. As Jesus himself said, if we believe that the Bible writers actually quote him correctly – the guy never wrote anything down, unlike the founders of other religions. (But of course, the Jewish Saul was the real founder and spreader of Xtianity.) Here is all the proof you need, gathered in one convenient list:

  12. Armoric
    Armoric says:

    Orwell-1984: ** leftists have the ability “to hold simultaneously two opinions which [cancel] out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them.” **

    In the novel 1984, the passage where this is explained continues: “The instructress had called them to attention again. ‘And now let’s see which of us can touch our toes!’ she said enthusiastically. ‘Right over from the hips, please, comrades. One-two! One-two! …’ ”

    This is probably how the Jews do it in their synagogues. They practice gymnastics and doublethink techniques simultaneously: One-two, there’s only one race! One-two, Whites are innately villainous!

    The Jews don’t care about logical consistency and the Law of non-contradiction. They support Jewish nationalism in Palestine and oppose White nationalism in White countries. They invoke universal values, but care only about what’s best for the Jews.

    They say race replacement doesn’t matter, since we are all the same. But for some reason, racial under-representation is a problem. The Jews think it is terribly unfair that the replacement of Whites by non-Whites doesn’t go as fast in the leadership positions as in the streets. My own view is that I would rather be under-represented than race-replaced.

    I tend to see the Jews as frauds, and the leftists as unrealistic. The Jews consciously have a double set of standards. Meanwhile, the lazy leftists are not aware that they have been programmed by the Jews to have the same double set of standards.

    For example, here are two sets of similar statements.
    The first is an example of ANTIRACIST speech, while the second is RACIST speech:

    1. WHITE PEOPLE are super rich
    They have plundered every country they have been to
    They prefer to keep to themselves and not mix with others
    TV stations are TOO WHITE
    WHITE PEOPLE control the world

    2. THE JEWS are super rich
    They have plundered every country they have been to
    They prefer to keep to themselves and not mix with others
    TV stations are TOO JEWISH
    THE JEWS control the world

    Because of our exposure to propaganda and intimidation from the government and the media, we tend to internalize the idea that it’s okay to criticize White people and tricky to express similar criticism about the Jews. In the case of Jews and other non-Whites, we have to be extra-tolerant. On the other hand, White people are always fair game. The internalized rule is that the “tolerance” always has to work in favor of the genocide of White people. But the leftists won’t admit it to themselves and they are not entirely aware of it. And it isn’t just leftists. Everyone has more or less internalized the Jewish propaganda. However, in a private environment, it is possible to block out the most indoctrinated parts of our brain and to revert to common sense and logical consistency.

Comments are closed.