Lincoln’s Rhetoric on the Struggle Between Good and Evil: Relevance to the Present

/27 Comments/in /by

In writing a chapter on Puritanism for my projected book on the Western liberal tradition, I came across a fascinating portrait of Lincoln by conservative intellectual M. E. Bradford — a portrait that is quite pertinent to the current political climate. Bradford, incidentally, was an early victim of the neocon takeover of the conservative movement during the Reagan Administration. Bradford was a prominent candidate for the director of the National Endowment for the Humanities. The battle, which Bradford lost,”pits so-called new conservatives [neocons] against more fundamentalist conservatives [paleocons].” The neocons were particularly energized by Bradford’s views on Lincoln.

As noted in TOO several times (e.g., here), a consistent strand of American political thought deriving originally from the Puritan strand of American culture (and exploited by Jewish intellectual movements for their own purposes, as noted in The Culture of Critique) is to cast political opposition in moral terms.

This is particularly noticeable on the left. The Kavanaugh circus and pretty much everything about Trump beginning with his candidacy in 2016 are good examples. As the politics of the country become ever more polarized by race and gender, these moral posturings are increasingly phrased as condemnations of White people as evil. This recent New York Times op-ed is a good example:

After a confirmation process where women all but slit their wrists, letting their stories of sexual trauma run like rivers of blood through the Capitol, the Senate still voted to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. …

These women are gender traitors, to borrow a term from the dystopian TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale.” They’ve made standing by the patriarchy a full-time job. The women who support them show up at the Capitol wearing “Women for Kavanaugh” T-shirts, but also probably tell their daughters to put on less revealing clothes when they go out. …

We’re talking about white women. The same 53 percent who put their racial privilege ahead of their second-class gender status in 2016 by voting to uphold a system that values only their whiteness, just as they have for decades. 

This moralistic tradition in American politics has a long history. Lincoln was of New England stock and is a good example of millenarian spirit that pervaded nineteenth-century American thought. Bradford emphasizes this aspect of Lincoln’s thought, describing Lincoln’s view as essentially “secular Puritanism” that “must replace Church with State”[1]  while retaining the moralistic, redemptive overtones. In the end, force, apocalyptic force should be used: this utopian future must be achieved as a result of the victory of the forces of good over the forces of evil. And against the forces of evil, there can be no accommodation, no compromise. Read more

A Plague of Pakistanis: Goyophobes Import Kaffirophobes

/13 Comments/in , /by

If you want to destroy a person, an injection of plutonium works fine. If you want to destroy a nation, try an injection of Pakistanis. When you look at collective nouns in English, you’ll find “a pod of dolphins” and “a murmuration of starlings.” What should be the collective noun for Pakistanis? I suggest “a plague.” For example, Somalis are experts at violence and Nigerians are experts at fraud, but Pakistanis are experts at both. When they enter a prosperous, high-trust nation like Britain, they must think they’ve died and gone to Paradise.

Combatting anti-Semitism and xenophobia are fundamental motives for Jews

After all, the Muslim Paradise has sex-slaves in abundance. Pakistani criminals in British towns like Rotherham and Rochdale have acquired thousands of those. When the White parents of the sex-slaves tried to get their daughters back, they found the authorities opposing them rather than assisting them.

Britain is controlled by a hostile elite that hates Whites and wants to destroy them with diversity. For example, the New Labour government opened the flood-gates of Third-World immigration under the traitorous shabbos goy Tony Blair. The minister responsible was a Jewish SJW called Barbara Roche, who told the Guardian in 2001 that she “entered politics … to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.”

Barbara Roche thinks that the way to “combat” hate is to import the most backward, illiberal and hate-filled groups on Earth, because those groups will undermine and attack Britain’s White majority and its traditional Christian culture. Other Jews in the hostile elite think the same as Roche. You’ll find them describing their political inspiration in very similar ways:

These Jews are all goyophobes or haters of White Christian goyim, as non-Jews are called in Hebrew. That’s why Jews in Western nations overwhelmingly support mass immigration by non-Whites and by Muslims in particular. These Muslims are kaffirophobes or haters of kaffirs, as non-Muslims are called in Arabic. Brown-skinned Pakistani Muslims are the antithesis of White British Christians, so what’s not to like for a goyophobic Jew? And one excellent example of a goyophobic Jew is Dr Richard Stone, the cold and calculating Jewish intellect behind the martyr-cult of the Black teenager Stephen Lawrence.

A Muslim fraud-gang: Natural Allies of Jews

Dr Stone’s “work bringing together British Jews and Muslims includes being a founding trustee of the Maimonides Foundation … and of Alif-Aleph UK.” He has proclaimed that “British Jews and Muslims are natural allies.” Against whom? Against the White and historically Christian majority in Britain, of course. And Dr Stone is merely one of the many Jews who want to use Muslims to undermine and dispossess British Whites. In the Jewish Chronicle, you can read articles like “Jewish and Muslim women pledge to work together to combat hate.” Whose hate is that? Hate from the White and historically Christian majority in Britain, of course. Read more

The War on White Australia: A Case Study in the Culture of Critique, Part 1 of 5

/7 Comments/in , /by

Editor’s note: Brenton Sanderson has written several articles on the Jewish war on White Australia. This is the first one, posted originally on August 13, 2012 as a 5-part series. Well worth reading or re-reading — and thinking about the world we have lost. 

Results from the 2011 Australian Census reveal that, for the first time in that nation’s history, the majority of migrants are now arriving from Asia instead of Europe. Indians and Chinese have become the fastest growing sections of the Australian population. Between 2006 and 2011 the number of Australian permanent residents born in India increased by 100 per cent, those born in China increased by 54 per cent, while those born in the Philippines by 42 per cent. These startling figures do not even include those born in Australia to Indian or Chinese parents. The Census also revealed that other non-White immigrant groups are also expanding rapidly, including various African groups. All of this is dismal news for White Australians and, indeed, for White people everywhere. Unfortunately, these figures only mirror what is happening throughout the West, where White people are under demographic and cultural siege from race-replacing levels of Third World immigration and the official embrace of “multiculturalism.”

In just a few decades these malignant policies have transformed Western societies to the detriment of their European-derived populations and culture. It is a remarkable fact that this revolution in immigration and social policy throughout the West occurred at around the same time (1962-1973), and that in all countries these changes reflected the attitude of elites rather than the great mass of citizens. Changes in immigration policy and the imposition of multiculturalism were imposed on resentful European populations despite overwhelming popular opposition to non-European immigration. The driving force behind this totally undemocratic shift in policy was the Jewish intellectual movements and ethno-political activism that Kevin MacDonald documented in The Culture of Critique. For those aware of the pivotal role of Jews in driving the demographic and cultural transformation of the United States, the story of the Jewish role in radically reengineering Australian society will have a depressingly familiar ring to it. Read more

Censoring Liberty

/25 Comments/in /by

There is a Canadian woman being held in a German jail without any recourse to friends or family or even legal representation. She is presently charged with no crime but was arrested for a video that questioned the “Holocaust” and is therefore that most evil of criminals, a “holocaust denier.” Most Americans would view her situation as a version of Orwell’s 1984 and believe it fictional. It isn’t. Today, in many Western nations, not only can an individual be imprisoned for being an “anti-Semite,” but that person’s lawyer can be arrested and imprisoned for providing a proper defense against that charge to his client!

Even worse, this attack on human liberty lacks limits. Exactly what is “anti-Semitism” and, in the same vein, what is “racism”—and is either a matter of criminality? After all, both of these concepts are political constructs, the latter emanating from communist Leon Trotsky, one of the first to use the word. Now, most people know the definition of “bigotry.” A bigot hates people for something over which they have no control whether it is it race or nationality or any other part of the human condition. On the other hand, matters of choice—such as religion—with their inevitable results are different as these can motivate people to do things that are in fact deserving of condemnation. Yet even the actual bigot does not break the law unless he commits a crime motivated by his bigotry!

Today the terms ‘anti-Semite’ and ‘racist’ are based not only on people’s reactions to matters of nationality and race, but on beliefs and behaviors found in and committed by the groups involved. In other words, if today I point out that communism has mainly Jewish origins and that the present-day left is financed and led by a great many persons of that religious and cultural persuasion, I am immediately judged to be an anti-Semite. It doesn’t matter if what I say is true, it only matters that I am pointing out a reality that certain groups do not want publicly voiced. If I question any Jewish historical construct, again I am an anti-Semite even if I can prove my claim with facts. And the same can be said of unpopular comments about Blacks! No matter how factual the comments, their utterance is simply not countenanced. Thus, bigotry is no longer a matter of mindless hate directed at particular groups, but any negative response, however valid, to the actions of those same groups.

Yet this understanding is not maintained throughout the culture. For instance, any intolerance directed at Whites and especially White males, as well as traditional Christians is perfectly acceptable though it contradicts the claim that mindless hate and intolerance are never acceptable. So we not only have a very broad definition of anti-Semitism and racism, but that definition is subject to a complete reversal contingent upon the target group. Thus, it is considered “Islamophobic” to criticize Muslims for raping and killing their fellow Muslims and infidels alike, but it is politically correct to persecute a Christian baker or florist for refusing to participate in a homosexual celebration because it is contrary to his or her religious beliefs. Yet, if it is wrong to even hold Jews or Blacks responsible for any truly objectionable behavior, why is it legally and morally permissible to persecute Whites and Christians for beliefs and behavior that is neither illegal nor immoral! Catholic Brett Kavanaugh is crucified for unproved sexual allegations while Bill Clinton is acknowledged to have raped and abused many women but gets a pass.

A somnambulant public needs to understand that the terms ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘racism’ are not legitimate. In many cases, such terms may not represent mindless bigotry (which though morally reprehensible is not legally actionable). Rather, they criminalize a rational response to the actions of certain groups and thus violate our God-given right to think and act. As long as these spurious “crimes” are used to shut down debate and opposition to acts of the State, we are essentially in chains.

Germany Rises as ‘Eurostan’ Looms Closer

/72 Comments/in , , , /by

The new ‘Eurostan’ in the making: Countries impacted by the migrant crisis

The writing is on the wall. The old Germany of our Christian ancestors is in the process of being destroyed. And after Germany, Europe is the target.

The EU, as we all know who have eyes to see, has now become the United States of Europe in all but name — an undemocratic and despotic confederation of states without borders whose primary aim appears to be White Genocide — the slow and systematic destruction of the white indigenous people of Europe by means of uncontrolled mass immigration and mongrelisation.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been the main force behind the ongoing destruction of the Europe of our ancestors, the Europe of traditional values firmly rooted in its Christian ethos.

Under Angela Merkel’s auspices, Germany has heard its death knell. It has seen its great cities with their shimmering Gothic spires, and its peaceful towns and villages nestling in the green countryside, invaded by well over a million uninvited guests from lawless lands who have turned their nation into a multicultural zoo. German women are being raped and sexually assaulted literally every day of the year by migrants. And still Frau Merkel sits there smiling complacently amid the ruins of her country, making no attempt to turn back the tides of mounting terror. Read more

“Modify the standards of the in-group”: On Jews and Mass Communications — Part Two of Two

/26 Comments/in , , /by

Go to Part 1.


“Millions of leaflets, pamphlets, cartoons, comic books, articles — and more recently radio and movie scripts — have been produced and disseminated in the propaganda war.”  Samuel H. Flowerman, Mass Propaganda in the War Against Bigotry, 1947.[1]

The Protocols of Samuel H. Flowerman

Samuel H. Flowerman, as Research Director at the American Jewish Committee, as colleague of the Institute for Social Research, and as a kind of hub for the expansive Jewish clique of mass communications scholars, was at the center of the drive to put Jewish “opinion research” initiatives into practical action. The clearest articulation of what this practical action would look like was articulated in his 1947 essay, “Mass Propaganda in the War Against Bigotry.” Flowerman’s foremost concern was that, although millions of dollars were being spent by organisations like the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League on propaganda, propaganda may not by itself be sufficient for the mass transformation of values in the host population — in particular, for the weakening of its ethnocentrism.

Flowerman begins by explaining the format and extent of existing efforts: “Millions of leaflets, pamphlets, cartoons, comic books, articles — and more recently radio and movie scripts — have been produced and disseminated in the propaganda war (429).” Flowerman’s use of the language of warfare is of course interesting in itself and will be discussed further below. For now, we should focus on what Flowerman lists as the five aims of the “propaganda war”:

1. “The restructuring of the attitudes of prejudiced individuals, or at least their neutralization.”
2. “The restructuring of group values toward intolerance.”
3. “The reinforcement of attitudes of those already committed to a democratic ideology perhaps by creating an illusion of universality or victory.”
4. “The continued neutralisation of those whose attitudes are yet unstructured and who are deemed “safer” if they remain immune to symbols of bias.”
5. “Off-setting the counter-symbols of intolerance.” (429)

Flowerman concedes that the level of work and control required to achieve these aims would be extensive, and that the project was highly ambitious, seeking nothing less than “successful mass persuasion in the field of intergroup relations (429).” But he is equally clear in the conditions required for such success. Read more