On America

Below, a comment by Trainspotter about a January 2012 article at The Occidental Observer by Matt Parrott. Why this webzine has been deleting all threaded comments of old articles is inexplicable. The cited text is a gem I rescued:


Excellent essay by Matt.

A particular point made, which I had never thought of before, was the change in Mexican self-perception from the heirs of the great Spanish martial tradition to, well, just being Mexicans. What a let down, and the picture [see it: here] was worth a thousand words!

It is of course debatable as to whether Matt is correct about a future of soft crashes as opposed to a more defined, paradigm shifting moment. My money is on both. Yes, we have examples like Brazil in front of us, but we also have the Soviet Union.

Yet our present system is so complex and unnatural, not to mention vulnerable to systemic shock and disruption, that The Long Emergency (Kunstler’s term) could easily reach a point where things play out rapidly. In other words, where the whimper rapidly becomes a bang. To quote our esteemed former President Bush, “This sucker could go.”

And it will.

The system bleeds legitimacy by the day, and it is hard to see how it can get it back in a meaningful way. It won’t reform itself for the simple reason that it can’t. As the system weakens and decays through inevitable soft crashes, it will become ever more vulnerable to a paradigm shifting crisis that changes everything. Now, whether that change will work out in our favor is another question, but at least there will be opportunity.

In any event, again, the above is debatable.

What I hope will move beyond debate, and the sooner the better, is Matt’s conclusion about where to go from here. We are not going to recover the entire United States, as the United States. It’s simply too late, and like it or not, it’s no longer our country at a fundamental level. In truth, it hasn’t been for a long time, though it has only become materially apparent fairly recently.

This is a vital paradigm shift that we must go through, and if we can make the necessary psychological break in time, it would go a long way toward distinguishing ourselves from the trajectory of ancient India or Brazil.

Just as an aside, go through a quick mental exercise: imagine that, against all odds, we did recover the entire United States. Not just the territory, but the United States as a package. Put aside the fact that there are well over 100 million non-whites here now.

degenerate musicHow much of its history and culture would we have to disown? How much of its music would we have to repudiate? Its films? Its philosophy? Its wars?

It’s rather sobering to think about. Again, this isn’t our country anymore, and hasn’t been for a long time. All one has to do is turn on the TV or walk outside the front door for this to become readily apparent.

As Whites, we are an ancient people. As Americans, we are not. America was a vehicle created, fairly recently in historical terms, to meet the needs of our people and its posterity. Unfortunately that vehicle failed, and we were slaughtering one another, at least in part over black slaves, within a couple of generations of the founding. Then there was Reconstruction. That was bad enough. Moving forward, the record of that vehicle in the twentieth century was nothing short of disastrous for our people, both at home and abroad. In the twenty first century, these long term trends are only accelerating. All told, the vehicle known as America has allowed many whites to become materially well off, but it has been an utter disaster for the long term survival and prosperity of our people.

We were Whites before hopping into this vehicle, and we’ll still be Whites when we hop out. The wonderful things that many older readers may remember, such as close knit neighborhoods and high trust, are more a product of our racial characteristics than anything uniquely “American.” We will have those things under a new flag as well. I have a bit of a recollection of that from my childhood in the seventies. It was fading, but it was still there. Perhaps ironically, only with something new can we have that again.

This is not to say that we can’t take our heroes and icons from American history as appropriate, as that is the story of our people too. But let’s face it, many of the greatest heroes in our history on this continent were men who decided that they didn’t want to be Americans any longer, such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. I’ve heard that when the Confederacy was first established, there was an outcry not to replace the American flag. There is a deep and natural reluctance to make that break. But they got over it, and created flags of their own that speak to many of us even to this day. We’ll have to do the same.

We can take with us what is truly “ours,” while accepting that the vehicle known as America simply no longer belongs to us. In fact, living in that vehicle has become intolerable to us. Orwell wrote something to the effect of a boot pressing on a human neck, forever. We get the same boot, but just to pour salt in our wounds, imagine being forced to watch a black male and white female making out… forever. That’s pretty much what riding in this car called American has come to mean. Oppression combined with low rent degradation… forever.

So let it go. Perhaps one day in the distant future whites will control the entire geographical area of what is today the U.S., but if so it will be in a different political form, and under a different banner. A very different banner.

We need something that is based explicitly upon the protection and perpetuation of our own people, not just abstractions about liberty and equality, or making a buck. That’s not to say that what we come up with won’t offer liberty or the opportunity to make a good living. It can and it should. But if that’s all there is to it, then we’ll end up back in the cesspool again.

Bottom line: we need an ethnostate, a land of our own. A White Republic.

On the US Constitution

by Jack Frost

“The Naturalization Act of 1790 says that the country is open to Free White Persons.”

There’s quite a bit of interesting history involved with this discussed at considerable length in the Dred Scott case from 1856, especially in the dissenting opinions given by Justice Maclean and Justice Curtis. For example, Maclean wrote:

In the argument, it was said that a colored citizen would not be an agreeable member of society. This is more a matter of taste than of law. Several of the States have admitted persons of color to the right of suffrage, and in this view have recognised them as citizens; and this has been done in the slave as well as the free States. On the question of citizenship, it must be admitted that we have not been very fastidious. Under the late treaty with Mexico, we have made citizens of all grades, combinations, and colors. The same was done in the admission of Louisiana and Florida. No one ever doubted, and no court ever held, that the people of these Territories did not become citizens under the treaty. They have exercised all the rights of citizens, without being naturalized under the acts of Congress.

Also, Curtis:

On the 25th of June, 1778, the Articles of Confederation being under consideration by the Congress, the delegates from South Carolina moved to amend this fourth article, by inserting after the word “free,” and before the word “inhabitants,” the word “white,” so that the privileges and immunities of general citizenship would be secured only to white persons. Two States voted for the amendment, eight States against it, and the vote of one State was divided. The language of the article stood unchanged, and both by its terms of inclusion, “free inhabitants,” and the strong implication from its terms of exclusion, “paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice,” who alone were excepted, it is clear, that under the Confederation, and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, free colored persons of African descent might be, and, by reason of their citizenship in certain States, were entitled to the privileges and immunities of general citizenship of the United States.


Did the Constitution of the United States deprive them or their descendants of citizenship?

That Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States, through the action, in each State, or those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon, in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of that State. In some of the States, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on this subject. These colored persons were not only included in the body of “the people of the United States,” by whom the Constitution was ordained and established, but in at least five of the States they had the power to act, and doubtless did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption. It would be strange, if we were to find in that instrument anything which deprived of their citizenship any part of the people of the United States who were among those by whom it was established.

I can find nothing in the Constitution which, proprio vigore, deprives of their citizenship any class of persons who were citizens of the United States at the time of its adoption, or who should be native-born citizens of any State after its adoption; nor any power enabling Congress to disfranchise persons born on the soil of any State, and entitled to citizenship of such State by its Constitution and laws. And my opinion is, that, under the Constitution of the United States, every free person born on the soil of a State, who is a citizen of that State by force of its Constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States…

It has been often asserted that the Constitution was made exclusively by and for the white race. It has already been shown that in five of the thirteen original States, colored persons then possessed the elective franchise, and were among those by whom the Constitution was ordained and established. If so, it is not true, in point of fact, that the Constitution was made exclusively by the white race. And that it was made exclusively for the white race is, in my opinion, not only an assumption not warranted by anything in the Constitution, but contradicted by its opening declaration, that it was ordained and established by the people of the United States, for themselves and their posterity. And as free colored persons were then citizens of at least five States, and so in every sense part of the people of the United States, they were among those for whom and whose posterity the Constitution was ordained and established.

So it turns out that, despite being a nation in which white supremacy was enshrined in law, there were numerous places and times in America when this was honored more in the breach than in the observance. Without any Jewish “control” whatsoever, unless Christianity is admitted to be such a controlling influence, there had always been a strong undercurrent of anti-racism and of America being a “proposition nation,” which eventually and disastrously grew to the whirlpool of destruction that sucked the whole nation down into the carnage of the Civil War. After that, through ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, it was made explicitly so.

Oh say can you see, by the dawn’s early light, a proud Christian nation of racial cuckolds? American patriotism = cuck pride!


by Jack Frost


“But [abolitionism] certainly was not a factor in the decision to wage the war, and was not the primary motivation for most Northern soldiers.”

It would be interesting to see some evidence for that assertion. Lincoln was raised in an anti-slavery Baptist church, and was morally opposed to slavery all his life. As early as 1855, in a letter to Jonathan Speed, he revealed himself as a dyed-in-the-wool racial egalitarian:

As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty—to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

We’ve already talked about the difficulties inherent in determining motivations. If even self-reporting, as in the song lyrics I referred you to, isn’t reliable, then how can you claim to know what the motivations were for “most Northern soldiers”? If it wasn’t a popular cause, then how do you explain the immense success of Uncle Tom’s Cabin? In any event, it’s inarguable that the setting of the negro on equal footing with whites was a catastrophe for the white race in N. America, and that was indisputably the result of the war. Are you trying to claim that the result was unintentional? What kind of idiots do you think whites of that era were? “Whoops! We freed the slaves, and even made citizens and voters out of them. Gosh darn it anyway, we sure didn’t mean to!” That would be a hard case to make.

“There is just no evidence to support the notion that the war was fought over slavery and we have numerous explicit statements from Lincoln that the war had nothing to do with slavery. If you don’t find that compelling, I’m not sure what else would make any difference.”

I suggest you pay more attention to what Lincoln actually did than what he said. Lincoln is more responsible than any other single man for the racial disaster whites face today. [emphasis added] It’s not for nothing that Obama was sworn in on Lincoln’s Bible; not for nothing that he’s a personal hero of his.

Now that I’ve answered your question, I’d have to ask you this one: Do you seriously think the American people would have endured another draft and 600,000 dead in a cause that lacked clear moral justification? It’s ridiculous to think so. Also, since you seem to want to believe everything Lincoln ever said, what about his reputed statement upon meeting Uncle Tom’s Cabin author Harriette Beecher Stowe in 1862, “So you’re the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war!” Even the fact he met with her at all is a significant indication of the powerful abolitionist influence.

“So it seems clear enough that even absent slavery, these economic issues would have still existed, would have still come to a head and still left Lincoln facing the same problems and the same choices.”

You think that the soldiers and the people would have endured all the destruction and 600,000 killed for the sake of some lost coins. I don’t. That’s the substance of our difference.

Why don’t you just answer the question instead of dancing around it? Do you seriously believe that freeing the slaves was accidental, or was it intentional? What about giving the negro citizenship and extending them the vote? Were those accidents too? I hope you don’t believe that, because that has got to be one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard. However, lacking Jews to blame I suppose you have no alternative but to depict it as an accident. There is a tendency in our circles to try to exonerate white people of any wrongdoing or culpability [emphasis added], and I think you’re falling into it again here. You ought to face that fact that a vast number of white people, possibly even the majority, are unsalvageable race traitors.

“I suppose one could argue that freeing the slaves was the first step in integrating them into White society, but it would be a pretty feeble argument. There was no integration of Blacks into White society or culture following the war.”

You’re ignoring a little thing called Reconstruction. Hundreds of negroes were elected to public office all over the South. Worse, making them citizens and the legal equals of whites once and for all abolished any hope of a nation based on race. Lincoln was the true founder of the modern American state, a “proposition nation”, anti-racist and hence inevitably anti-white by creed and public policy.

Another problem with the conventional thinking on the right, which you exemplify here, is not seeing the big picture. The legal equality of blacks, placing them on parity with whites, was resisted and slowed down by custom and tradition, but not stopped by it. Racial segregation was a hypocritical compromise that was doomed to fail from the outset. It was only a question of time.

It’s Christian axiology, stupid!

Once more, Jack Frost hits the nail in his endeavors to educate pro-whites who ignore that Christian morality has been more a primary causative factor of white decline than Jewish subversion. At The Occidental Observer Frost has responded to a commenter:


“Well, I think that if nothing else, the Jewish infrastructure ensures that there are lots of jobs and financial incentives to going along with their program. Non-Whites will not be immune to that.”

Non-whites don’t need incentives to hate whites. This is the same error that Christian conspiracy theorist Alex Jones makes. Jones’ constant refrain is that, but for the instigation of the globalists (who promote racial antagonism in a sinister “divide and conquer” strategy, of course), the races would naturally exist in a state of harmony and universal brotherhood. Because his almost all white audience has been steeped in Christian BS their whole lives, they already “know” this to be true and so they buy it.

Beyond this though, it seems to me the whole “incentive model” is taken from animal studies and is really an explanation that explains nothing when it comes to human behavior, which is made much more complex by an ability to foresee consequences that is vastly more advanced than in other animals.

Example 1: One incentivizes a rat to run a maze by rewarding him with a food pellet. Over time, you train the rat to do this, so in a sense, it’s fair to say your incentive is the cause of his maze-running behavior.

Example 2: You are walking down the street, see an attractive woman, and you incentivize her to have sex with you by offering her $50. At this point, she has a choice. She can either take you up on it or slap your face and walk away. Clearly, if she takes the money in exchange for her services, she’s a whore. But she might have done it for free, in which case she’d be only a slut. On the other hand, maybe she’d have done it anyway, but decided to take the $50 just because you offered it and it might come in handy later. In any case, whether she takes the money or not, nothing can really be said from this about questions of causality or morality. Your offer of $50 didn’t cause her to become a whore, if that’s what she is. Conversely, if she slapped your face and walked away, your offer of $50 didn’t in any way cause her virtue. In fact, it’s quite conceivable she might actually be a whore, but thought your offer was too low.

In the same way, Jewish incentives can’t meaningfully be said to cause any white (or even non-white) actions. Unlike in animal studies, with humans there is in fact almost never any way to distinguish between voluntary cooperation and caused (i.e., incentivized) behavior.

“We cannot determine these questions without further information, but what we can determine is that such incentives sway at least some people who would not otherwise have acted in the same manner.”

That seems reasonable, but still, you are assuming what you are setting out to prove. I can reduce it to this: Because human motivations are complex, much more so than with animals, there’s no way to ever be completely sure if something is done for an incentive or for other reasons. With the rat experiment, you can show causality because if you stop giving the reward, eventually the maze-running behavior will be extinguished. With humans, it’s much more complicated. They might, and in fact, in the case of sex, doubtlessly would, find other reasons to continue the behavior even if the incentive were not offered. To tie it in a little better to Kevin MacDonald’s remark, if a white man takes a job working for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is he doing it for the money and prestige (i.e., incentive), or because he actually believes in racial and sexual equality? Or both? Or neither? From the outside, and in fact, even from the inside (one’s insight into even one’s own motivation may not be perfect) I don’t see that there’s any way to say for sure.

“In this case we know how politicians (and others) behaved in the past. We know that since the rise of Jewish power, they have come to act in a dramatically different manner. We know about the control of information and we know about the system of incentives / disincentives. It would take some serious mental gymnastics to deny the causal relationships here.”

The main problem with this narrative isn’t merely that it’s an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, but that it contradicts history. The biggest boost toward legal and social equality with the white man the negro ever received was during and in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. Whites did this on their own, in the absence of modern mass media and the modern educational techniques, and before Jews even began arriving on these shores in any great numbers. This again points up the importance of worldview, since this first step in the direction of equal “civil rights” for everyone, regardless of race, was framed and justified in terms of Christian morality. A great many of the most prominent Abolitionists were Christian religious fanatics.

“We shouldn’t forget that it is not just the incentives / punishments that are in play here, there is also the power of Jews to control the flow of information upon which individuals rely to form their own world views. This is at least as important as the incentives / punishments in my opinion.”

Worldview is in fact much more important and more powerful than a system of incentives because it is logically prior to any such system. Worldview establishes a system of value that determines what can be used as an incentive and what can’t. For example, it determines whether money or race is considered more important. Someone who truly puts race first can’t be “incentivized” with money.

It’s not clear that Jews control white worldviews though, unless you want to allow that they’ve been in control of whites for two thousand years or more. A difficult position to maintain! In any case, to eliminate Jewish influence you’d have to go all the way back to pre-Christian times.

“In fact, the subject of abolition of slavery is not even relevant to subject here.”

I think the setting of negroes on equal footing with whites by means of a war that cost hundreds of thousands of white lives is extremely relevant. What it shows is that whites are quite willing to impose racial genocide upon themselves without any help from Jews.

“It has been well established that if you can control the information that people are exposed to, you can to a large extent mold their opinions and world view.”

Your argument here is tautological. If you can control people, then you can control them. Yes, that’s true, but so what? Information about Jews is widely available. That’s not the problem. The problem, from the white point of view, is that people overwhelmingly reject both racism and anti-Semitism. They just don’t agree with you. It doesn’t necessarily indicate they’re being “controlled”. If you have ever managed to persuade anyone to see the Jewish question your way does that mean that you’re now controlling them? The question you’re not coming to terms with is, how do you distinguish between someone who simply doesn’t agree with you from someone who is being “controlled”? If the problem is only lack of information, then it should vanish as soon as you supply the missing information. But it doesn’t.

“Clearly using their control of the money and media has been used to transform the culture and the society. It has been used to mold public opinion by altering the worldview of millions of Whites (and non-Whites).”

After the Christian takeover of white civilization, the philo-Semitic, anti-racist worldview of Christianity has never been altered by Jews. There’s been no need. The program it set forth has just been carried out and refined over generations by willing participants.

“It seems a reasonable and logical assumption that if one can control these environmental factors, that one can affect the worldview of an individual or even an entire society. ”

If you can control people, then you can control them? Again, a tautology. But I’m not persuaded that anyone really controls the worldview of a whole society or can dictate a change in it. There’s such a thing as reality, after all, and instinctive drives, such as the will to live, and to procreate. Surely that must count for something. Everyone has immediate and unrestricted access to the world itself through their own senses. They can see what is going on.

“I have held positions in the past based upon my exposure to mass media that I have since repudiated when I discovered that the ‘facts’ upon which I had based those opinions were not true.”

Again, the issue you are avoiding is how to tell the difference between someone honestly disagreeing with you and their being “controlled” to disagree. Also, I have to ask, what accounts for your peculiar immunity from this seemingly omnipotent Jewish “control”? Why is such immunity not more widespread? Why doesn’t merely informing the vast majority of people of the “facts” as you see them change their minds on the Jewish question?

“This is precisely what is happening to us. We are being domesticated and if we are to do anything more than allow ourselves to be herded to our fate, we need to understand what is happening, what the processes at work are and who is driving this.”

I agree that people are being modified genetically by civilizational processes; “tamed” if you want to put it that way. But most whites see civilization as a good thing and are willing participants. If they’re wronged or damaged, rather than killing someone in a duel, they sue. If a relative is murdered, rather than starting a clan-based vendetta, they let police and the courts handle it. Just as with the use of birth control to lower the white fertility rate below replacement level, this is not something Jews are doing to white people. They are doing it to themselves.

“If control of the flow of information and a structure of incentives designed to encourage anti-White behavior are not effective, then why all the hand wringing about Jewish control of media and the monetary system?”

I hate to break it to you, but not many white people are actually worried about this, Bob. They approve of the status quo, and in fact it would be impossible to run such a vast and complicated panopticon without the approval and active participation of white people.

“In fact, why are we all wasting our time trying to provide an alternative worldview to our fellow Whites at all if our information is not going to have any effect on their worldview?”

I think you’re confusing worldview with mere political opinions. They’re not the same thing at all. That’s why trying to build a political mass movement through “education” is a waste of time, in my opinion.

All attempts at educating white people out of their Christian worldview of universal brotherhood and racial / sexual equality have failed, and I believe this is because worldviews don’t so much depend on facts as determine what is regarded as a fact. They provide the framework for interpreting reality; for saying both how the world is and how it ought to be. They aren’t political opinions, but lay the groundwork for those opinions by defining what is permissible and what isn’t.

A shared worldview among the citizenry is essential for the smooth functioning of society. That’s why the state puts such emphasis on assimilating elements within it that don’t necessarily accept the standard list of Christian values: non-violence, anti-racism, respect for authority, belief in the value of work, and of the sacredness of human life as opposed to that of animals; belief in a uniquely human free will, a just God and fair dealing, equality, sin, forgiveness, redemption, the importance of being “moral”, etc.

toms cabin

Even a fellow like you, who thinks he is above being “controlled”, has actually accepted it, as your denunciation of slavery showed. In the Civil War you’d have been an abolitionist, fighting against your own race! Yet imagine what chaos would reign if people rejected all of these values, or simply forgot about them! Only at that point could you say they have changed their worldview. Of course, such a change would probably make civilization as we know it today impossible.

Christianity is a very good religion if you want to build a race-neutral technological civilization, but, as history has shown, it is quite inadequate to the task of preserving race.

“It shows nothing of the kind, unless of course you buy into the propaganda that the war was waged to end slavery. This is something that we know to be untrue. We need only look at the contemporary writings of Lincoln and others who were directly involved in the decision to wage that war.”

It’s something that you think you know is untrue, for reasons that are entirely unclear to me. What about the songs the soldiers would sing before marching into battle? Read the lyrics to The Battle Hymn of the Republic some time, replete with Christian religious imagery, and the telling phrase “let us die to make men free.” Or how about that other popular ditty, John Brown’s Body:

Old John Brown’s body lies moldering in the grave,
While weep the sons of bondage
whom he ventured all to save;
But tho he lost his life while struggling for the slave,
His soul is marching on.

John Brown was John the Baptist of the Christ we are to see,
Christ who of the bondmen shall the Liberator be,
And soon thruout the Sunny South the slaves shall all be free,
For his soul is marching on.

Or read Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1852 book Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which sold more copies in its day than any book except the Bible. These are facts that are very hard to explain unless abolitionism had a great deal to do with the war.

“The truth is that mistrust of Jews and belief in racial separation were the norm just a few generations ago. The average White American in the 1950’s would find nothing controversial about most of the views expressed here on The Occidental Observer. Why have they come to reject ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘racism’?”

Please think about what you are saying. The average white American man of the 1950s had just returned from crushing racist, anti-Semitic Nazi Germany, and he was mighty damn proud of himself for doing so, Bob. If anti-Semitism and racism had not already been so unpopular, there would probably not have been a war at all. Stateside, the races were still segregated compared to today, but much less so compared to slave times. There has been a slow but steady progression in integration and race mixing over time, just as always happens in any society in which two races live together. It has happened throughout history all over the world, even in places with no Jews. It’s part of the civilizational process.

“If the world was populated by philosophers and people with the time and inclination to research these things and sort them out for themselves, then your point would be valid, but it is not. Most people are busy trying to live their lives. They don’t expend extraordinary amounts of time and energy fact checking and researching ideological questions. They form their worldview based upon the culture within which they are immersed, the indoctrination they have been exposed to and the information that is spoon fed to them by the mass media.”

In that case, a well-informed fellow like you should be able to cure their ignorance very quickly, Bob. But the puzzling thing is, you can’t. All such efforts have failed, even by people far more eloquent than either of us, and even by those with far more prestige and power.

“Insofar as the domestication of Whites goes, if you think that the future we are facing is just the evolution of civilization, then you have completely misunderstood what I am saying.”

I think I’ve understood you perfectly. I just disagree with you.

“I do appreciate your contribution and your efforts certainly do cause me to think about things from different points of view. Thanks.”

Likewise, Bob. I appreciate your efforts too. Even when we disagree, they challenge me and help me tighten up my thinking.

On turning Americans into nazis

by Jack Frost


Although it might be possible to develop a racist interpretation of Christianity (e.g., what the Nazis tried), I’ve never seen a convincing theological justification of it. The fact that all major churches and 99%+ of all who today call themselves Christians reject racism ought to tell you something… You probably want to hang on to most of Christianity as it has been “traditionally” practiced in relatively modern times, while discarding only the anti-racism. Everyone who ever tried that has failed, but I guess you don’t see that as a problem.

Then again, the cognitive dissonance issue is nearly as problematic. In order to accept being called a racist or a Nazi with equanimity, normal American whites would have to reconcile that with their country’s history of being violently opposed to racism of any kind, from the Civil War forward. They would have to admit to themselves and to others that all of that blood shed in trying to stamp out racism had been shed in vain, and in fact, worse than in vain, in an evil cause. They would have to admit that their ancestors were evil, and that they themselves had also been evil before they saw the light and became racists.

It’s safe to say the chances of that happening on a mass scale are almost zero.

The 1st cuckservative

by Jack Frost

Terms like “White supremacist,” “racist,” “anti-Semite” “Nazi” have been devastatingly effective, but they are only effective because they are disseminated by our hostile elites. [a quotation from a Kevin MacDonald article]

They are only effective because whites take them seriously and accept that they’re evil. But this was no mere invention of modern mass media, as they were accepted as evil long before its advent. Racism and white supremacy have been out of style in America at least since the Civil War. White supremacy was offensive to Christians back in that day because it goes against so many Biblical teachings: the insignificance of race, the equal importance and uniqueness of all souls to God, the unimportance of the body, etc.

MatthewThus they abolished it, at great cost to themselves in blood and treasure, before Jews even began arriving on these shores in any great number. Further, doesn’t the Bible (Matthew 19:28-30) predict that when Heaven on earth arrives, that then when Jesus’ followers have completely forsaken their blood relations in order to follow him, that those who were last shall be the first, and the first shall be last?

Here we have the essence of cuckservatism, foretold in the sayings of Jesus. Hence, a devout Christian must prep the bull, in order to make up for having sinfully been first (cf. Mark 9:35). It shows proper humility.

On exterminationism

Editor’s note:

This passage from George Lincoln Rockwell’s White Power strongly reminds me the book I’m presently writing, Extermination; and cannot contrast more with the non-revolutionary nationalists who presently are defending the Confederate Flag (a flag that only made sense when southerners were bloodthirsty for war). Presently what we need is this metamorphosis of the mind in the Aryan peoples, not trying to resuscitate the cadaver of Southern Nationalism.

* * *


As Adolf Hitler said in Mein Kampf, the only question in the history of our times is: Will the titanic and final struggle of humanity turn out for the benefit of the White Aryan, or the benefit of the scheming Jew and his swarming army of colored inferiors?

As this racial Armageddon approaches, the real value of a human being will shortly appear with a vengeance whether we like it or not. Like the “plague of diamonds” pouring out of the sky, there will be such a roaring storm of people on this planet that it will sink in its orbit from sheer weight. Colored “humanity” will drop to lower than zero on the scale of value.

Your children or grandchildren will be forced to exterminate and/or transport swarms of wild Blacks until all of them are finally dead or corralled in Africa. And your grandchildren’s children, in turn, will look back on you and wonder how, in the name of heaven, we ever let this insanity go so far without doing anything but talk! …

There is no “cure” for the coming population horror other than to kill…

This was the situation, for instance, in what is now Rhodesia, where the native, Black population never exceeded 40,000 since the beginning of time. Then along came the humanitarian, half-witted, White liberal, and “outwitted” Nature by providing these swarms of human scum with the medical genius of a higher race, with education, with police to maintain order and prevent them killing and eating each other, with hygienics to put down germs and mosquitoes and prevent disease, with sanitation facilities, and otherwise applying the miracles produced by White brains and character, to enable Black and inferior humanity to proliferate like flies on a dung heap.

The Whites came to Rhodesia with law and order, medicine, education and food—and produced 40 millions of Blacks, who now demand to take over the Whites! The way out of this mess is not in making available more food, better medical care, more efficient farming, or birth control! There is only the old-fashioned way of Nature: death, one way or another. Somebody has got to go, ugly as that may be.

The problem would never have arisen, had men been wise enough to obey Nature’s ancient and eternal laws. But we didn’t, and the problem is about to overwhelm us in a furious catastrophe.

If we don’t do something about it, Nature will. There will be famines such as the world has never imagined, massacres such as the worst nightmare cannot envision, slaughter, disease, death and horror until there is nothing but blood and darkness on the face of the earth…

This is no call to brutal, heartless, sadistic massacre. There is no “hate” involved here, any more than there is “hate” involved when roaches or bedbugs invade a home and must be exterminated. It is a matter of survival.

If they survive and swarm by the millions, we must die. It will not be too many years before even the most rabid liberal will see that. Some of them already have, as the Blacks run around attacking them, shouting “Kill Whitey,” “Burn, baby, burn!” and sacking our cities.

To survive, we will undoubtedly have to kill vast numbers of those of the colored races who attack us. I believe the planet will run red with the blood of both sides, in the lifetimes of many now living, before order is restored to the world, and genuine peace is therefore possible.

To stop a plague of bed bugs takes killing, not words. To stop a plague of traitors, agitators and black half-animals is going to take killing, not words.

Locusts and bed bugs that do not invade your home do not need killing. Inferior humanity which leaves the White Man alone does not need killing, either, and can be left to limit their own numbers by their own stupidity, improvidence and cruelty. But it is forever too late for those colored people who attack the White Man to be permitted to survive.

We have no intention of attacking or exterminating those who leave us alone.

But let this be a declaration of war upon the savages who dare to shout “Kill Whitey,” and on those Jews and others who dare to encourage, agitate, arm and finance them in this bloody insanity. It’s them, or us!

On cognitive dissonance

by Jack Frost

Given the general Christian insistence on regarding all souls as “equal in the eyes of God,” cognitive dissonance without doubt has had a lot to do with the evolution of anti-racism throughout what used to be called Christendom.

Ben-Franklin-DuplessisFor example, the discomfort (i.e., cognitive dissonance) of the Founding Fathers with regard to race-based slavery conflicting with their worldview is palpable when you read their writings. Some, like the deeply religious Benjamin Franklin, became abolitionists, and freed their own slaves (n.b., but only after using them for most of their lives). The descendants of those same slaves no doubt are still preying on whites even today. How many murders, rapes, and robberies of white people have been the result of Franklin’s act of Christian generosity? How many shattered, ruined lives?

We’ll never know. Given the prevailing worldview, the question is uninteresting, just as the ongoing genocide of whites in South Africa is uninteresting. Eventually, of course, other abolitionists even fomented America’s Civil War over the issue, and their descendants, such as the founders of the NAACP, worked sedulously to make the negro the white man’s equal in law. Nearly all of these abolitionists were Christian fanatics who framed their objections to slavery in moral terms. Confronting such people with evidence they are wrong will usually only increase their fanaticism.

This being the case, could it be that efforts at “education” are not only fruitless, but counter-productive? This would explain much about the racial right’s long history of failure.

March of the Titans

The following paragraphs of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention. Together with the aftermaths of the French Revolution discussed in the previous post, the American Civil War proves once again that the white man is the deadliest enemy of the white man. Kemp wrote:

When Abraham Lincoln uttered the words “our White men are cutting one another’s throats” to a deputation of Blacks at the seat of government in Washington D.C. in 1862, not even he could have foreseen the slaughter that would take place over the next three years in his country: more Americans were to die in that Civil War than what were ever to be killed in any war before or ever since.

Once the Union had been established, it faced two critical issues: whether the United States of America should be a federation or a confederation; and whether the institution of indentured labor—in effect a lighter form of slavery—should be allowed to continue or not.

Together these two issues led to the American Civil War, which can be counted as one of the great turning points in American history: it set the new nation against itself, the South, supporting confederalism and indentured labor; against the North, who favored federalism and the abolition of slavery. Great White armies fought each other and finally decimated the South, all in an argument over the future of the Black race.

Before the Civil War, Blacks were not allowed to join state militias or the U.S. Army or Navy, and the federal government refused to give passports to free Blacks. This status had been confirmed by the US Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case of 1857, when it had ruled that Blacks could never be citizens of the United States.

When the Civil War started, the Northern government initially refused to allow Blacks to be enlisted into the army. By 1862, the rules had been changed slightly: Blacks were allowed to enlist in segregated units, led by White officers. By the end of the war, more than 200,000 Blacks had served in the Northern Army and Navy.

The North and the South had differing aims in the war, which were to determine their strategies: the South only wanted to maintain its independence; while the North wanted to suppress the secession. This meant that the North would have to invade the South: this led to the North being the offensive power in the war, with the South being the defensive power.

Lincoln indeed had suspended many of the tenements of democracy: critics of the war were arrested and detained without trial for long periods. The most famous example was an anti-war congressmen from Ohio, Clement L. Vallandigham, who was arrested in May 1863 after making an anti-war speech. A military court sentenced him to prison, but Lincoln changed the penalty to banishment to the Confederacy.

Then on 1 June 1863, Lincoln suspended the principle of freedom of speech—a right guaranteed by the first amendment to the Constitution—by banning publication of the Chicago Times, which had become increasingly anti-Lincoln. An uproar followed, and Lincoln was forced to back down on the issue.

The march north—led again by general William Tecumseh Sherman—again left a deliberate wake of destruction in its path. Once supplies had been seized, it was the norm for houses and farms to be destroyed, and then the White population to be left to the mercies of the freed Black slaves.

As a result of this scorched earth policy, Sherman’s name came to be hated in the South, and with good reason. Fifteen towns were burned in whole or in part, but no act of destruction compared with or caused more controversy than the burning of Columbia, the state capital of South Carolina, which saw the city utterly destroyed for no military purpose at all.

The Burning of Columbia, South Carolina (1865) by William Waud

On 17 April, the last Confederate forces surrendered in Durham Station, North Carolina, with the last two sizeable Confederate armies, one in Louisiana and the other in Texas, both surrendering in May 1865, realizing that the war was lost and that it was pointless to fight on. Finally the president of the Confederation, Jefferson Davis, was taken prisoner in Georgia on 10 May. The war was over.

The US Congress, now totally dominated by anti-slavery activists who wanted revenge on the South for not only the practice of slavery but also for seceding from the Union, passed a series of laws designed to bring the South firmly under control.

Then the Constitution of the Union was amended (the third section of the 14th Amendment, ratified on 9 July 1868) through which massive numbers of Southern Whites were disenfranchised because they had rebelled against the Union. At the same time full voting rights were extended to all the now emancipated slaves; the classification of Blacks as “three fifths of a person” clause in the Constitution was revoked by this amendment (although the Amerinds were still specifically excluded from the franchise).

The resulting administrations in the South provoked great resentment, and stoked the fires of racial conflict. Large numbers of Whites were barred from voting, and the legislatures of the Southern states were in many cases dominated by illiterate Black former slaves who suddenly found themselves propelled from picking cotton into running the affairs of state. They were of course incapable of running the government efficiently, and the organs of government began to deteriorate almost immediately, with orderly government breaking down in many areas.

Former Black slaves were also placed in many areas as soldiers and officers enforcing law and order over the defeated Southern Whites. This provided plenty of opportunities for revenge and abuse. In addition to the appointment of hopelessly incompetent Blacks to fill the positions of government, unscrupulous Northerners also took up positions in the Southern government, often merely to embezzle funds and enrich themselves: they became known as carpetbaggers. Northern civil war veterans were put on the official state payroll; Southern veterans were consistently denied any form of pension.

Finally in 1871, the American president of the time, Ulysses S. Grant, largely in reaction to Southern White complaints that they were disenfranchised while illiterate Blacks were granted the vote, assented to a further change to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing the rights of all citizens.

By 1871, with Whites having been given back the vote, they once again formed the majority of voters in the South.

The Southern Democratic legislatures then enacted a series of segregation laws designed to separate the races in all aspects, from schools through to public places. Many of these measures were in due course to spread to the north of the country a well. In 1875, the US Congress passed a Civil Rights Act of 1875, which barred discrimination by hotels, theatres, and railways. In 1883, this act was declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it interfered with the right of control-of-access to private property.

Racial consequences of the war. The after effects of the war on America’s White population was vast. At least 250,000 Confederate White soldiers were killed—five per cent of the South’s White population. Vast areas of farmland were devastated, and many great cities, like Atlanta, were virtually leveled to the ground.

Freedman's_bureauThe South’s four million Blacks took advantage of the chaos to seize as much property as was remaining, with their claims often being legitimized by the Black dominated Reconstruction governments.

The Civil War severely dented the White population in America: a total of 610,000 Whites were killed—compared to the 4,435 who died during the War of Independence. These figures included 360,000 on the Northern side and 250,000 on the Southern side. Although the North lost more men, that region had a greater White population of some 22 million.

The South, however, had a population of only some 8 million whites. In percentage terms then, the war was far more devastating to the South than to the North.

A secondary infection

“No one who is familiar with the 18th century and the 19th century can possibly believe that Whites are blameless” said Brad Griffin (“Hunter Wallace”) a little more than an hour ago. In another thread on the same subject, a commenter asked:

Why are Jews leading white nations to begin with? What level of idiocy does it take to allow your nation to voluntarily be led by a foreign tribe? That’s the question.

Griffin responded:

Ever since the French Revolution—see what happened in Haiti—, the answer has been liberalism.

Yankees believed in liberal capitalist democracy and their ideology legitimized the Jewish takeover of their society without a shot being fired. Germany put up more resistance under Hitler because Germans were less committed to liberalism.

It’s really that simple: Jews thrive in liberal democracies, under communism, and other systems that substitute abstract ideology for ethnic or religious solidarity.

Is Jewish influence bad? Of course.

It is a secondary infection. Jews don’t thrive in the Muslim world, China, Japan and other places because the conditions there aren’t favorable to Jews like they were in early twentieth century Yankeeland.

Yankees believed that Jews had a right to own their newspapers and film industry. They had a right to accumulate vast amounts of wealth and participate on an equal basis in their political system. The rest is history.

It couldn’t have ended any other way. See also Weimar Germany.

The strong feeling that Jews are bad and should be expelled is a healthy sentiment because Jewish influence has negative consequences.

What allowed the Jews to become so powerful? The culprit is Americanism which left the native population defenseless against the Jewish assault in the early twentieth century. Even without the Jews, Americanism alone had already inspired Yankees to destroy the South.

Liberalism also inspired Britain and France to inflict incredible damage on their Caribbean colonies.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 304 other followers