MacDonald the lapsed Catholic?

(Robert Morgan’s most recent comments)

 
Johnny Rottenborough: “[MacDonald] considers Christianity’s role as a major source of Jewish hatred [for whites].”

Sadly, erroneous and ridiculous as it is, what you say is true. MacDonald the lapsed (?) Catholic does consider Christianity a source of white racial solidarity. Christianity, a doctrine created and spread among whites by Jews, which has convinced whites that one Jew in particular is God and that Jews are a special race “chosen” by God, and further teaches that all men are equally creations of God and equal before him; Christianity, whose doctrines and adherents vandalized and collapsed white civilization once before already—this is what MacDonald thinks defended whites, and can continue to defend them!

One would think that his scientific pretensions would require him to explain how this symbiosis came about, and when and how it ended, if it ended. Weren’t Jews in competition with whites then the same as they are today? Doesn’t early Christianity fit the prototype of what, in The Culture of Critique he identifies as a Jewish movements designed to subvert whites? It has all the features: a charismatic, authoritarian Jewish leader, some white figureheads, a “moral, intellectual, and social vision”, etc. How did this wonderful gift received from Jews end up collapsing white civilization in the ancient world, and should it really surprise anyone that its doctrinal features may collapse white civilization again? Not a word from MacDonald on any of this. And his followers are too stupid to notice the omission!

Johnny Rottenborough: “Whites offer Jews a home …”

Why do they do that? And doesn’t choosing to do that make whites responsible for the consequences? After all, if I invite a known arsonist to stay in my house, and he burns it down, it’s at least as much my fault as his.

At this point in the exchange, I suspect there is likely to be some babble about “pathological altruism”, “white guilt”, etc. But really, those aren’t very good excuses, both sickeningly self-laudatory and ad hoc, seemingly tailor-made to exonerate whites and paint them as helpless victims. If they do describe real phenomena though, and are not just figments of MacDonald’s imagination, it should be noted they are things that only developed post-Christianity. MacDonald however not only passes over in silence this connection to the Christian religion, but has been unable to point to even a single instance of white guilt or pathological altruism in white civilization before Christianity. So much for them being part of whites’ “evolutionary psychology!”

Anon: “He doesn’t talk about technology beyond dancing around it since like other ‘White Nationalist’ spokesman he has a narrative of ‘Whites’ as both masters of the world and also hapless victims of the Jews. He won’t talk about the disaster technology and other feats Whitey have wrought since he doesn’t want to consider that just maybe Whitey’s state is at least a bit self-inflicted.”

Yes, you’ve put it succinctly. As I see it, there are two fundamental problems with MacDonald’s attempts to apply evolutionary theory in the context of whites’ interactions with Jews.

  1. By failing to consider unintended consequences of technological development as a cause of white cultural and racial decline, and focusing exclusively on Jews and their alleged “group evolutionary strategy” to manipulate whites, MacDonald presents a worldview that leaves whites with no responsibility for their own actions; they become just “hapless victims” of Jewish machinations. On the other hand, when it comes to things of which he approves, such as whites building world empires or technological “progress” generally, then in his view whites suddenly become responsible for their own actions again. This applies to technological development of all kinds, so long as we are talking only about its “good” effects.
  1. The second problem is allied to the first. MacDonald simply doesn’t go back far enough in history and carry his theory to its logical conclusion. For example, his big book The Culture of Critique focuses only on the twentieth century. But if whites and Jews are in Darwinian competition with each other, then haven’t they always been so? And if so, what does that say about Christianity, whites’ adoption of it, and the liberal ideologies that later arose from it? Were whites’ responsible for their actions then, or were they just as much helpless victims of Jewish manipulation then as he claims they are now? Like the role unanticipated side effects of technological development have played in the white decline, MacDonald doesn’t really want to talk about Christianity’s role either. Nietzsche, Revilo Oliver, and others have put forward the theory that Christianity, a cult which arose from Hellenized Judaism, was developed with the specific intent to undermine white civilization. MacDonald has never addressed this issue as far as I know, and it’s fairly easy to see why. Adopting the pose of an impartial scientist, he claims that Christianity can’t be to blame for the white decline, since it was the religion of whites at what he sees as their peak. If he posits that Jews are responsible for “manipulating” whites into becoming Christian, his theory breaks down into incoherence. Having agreed that in the singular case of Christianity Jews and whites formed a symbiosis that was, in his view, to the great benefit of whites, would commit him to having to explain how that symbiosis broke down, or indeed, if it ever has broken down, and doesn’t still continue; and that, apparently, is something he has no wish to try to do.

Editor’s note: I omitted this comment. My only difference with Morgan is that, as I see it, Asians imitate westerners in everything decadent (technology, capitalism, etc.) but not in suicidal mass immigration. Obviously, the Asians are not infected with Christian and neo-Christian (i.e. secular) altruism, nor they have a Jewish problem. That’s why I focus more on axiology than on technology.

Published in: on June 18, 2019 at 10:24 am  Comments (23)  

Lincoln refutes monocausalism

Editor’s note: This is a corollary to ‘Is Kevin MacDonald a charlatan?’ It seems a falsehood, but a single 340-word comment from Robert Morgan in the comments section of a discussion forum has more value than the scholarly essays published that same day in all alt-right sites!

How is that possible? For the same reason that in Copernicus’ time a single text by him was worth more than all the texts of Ptolemaic astronomy still in vogue at the beginning of the 16th century.

As seen in the texts of the Nazi leadership, including some SS pamphlets and the Führer’s intimate talks, the Germans were aware of the Judeo-Christian problem. Both Judaism and the Christian churches were equally mentioned as the foe.

American white nationalism has represented a regression toward geocentrism, so to speak. Unlike Europeans, a substantial number of Americans cling to their parents’ Christianity, thus the Copernican revolution in the American psyche that could have been born with a seminal book, Who We Are by Pierce, never happened. (In recent threads of discussion I’ve complained that Pierce’s story of the white race—and remember the power of stories—is no longer available in the market.)

Make no mistake: within their life spans, adult American racists won’t be cured of their schizophrenia (anti-Semites who obey the ethno-suicidal commandment of a Jew). It is imperative that sites like The West’s Darkest Hour start to convince racist teenagers that the white nationalist movement represents a gigantic cognitive regression compared to National Socialism.

Morgan, who apparently is American, has tried to communicate with his countrymen but the self-righteousness of the latter prevents them from seeing a simple truth. The main argument of Morgan in his unsuccessful attempts to communicate with them is that Lincoln and the American Civil War refute the notion that the Jewish quarter is solely responsible for white decline, as if whites were not free agents. (Remember: the civil war happened when Jews had not taken over the American media yet.)

The following is just a portion of Morgan’s relatively recent discussions in a forum:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

“The civil war, and it’s aftermath, never intended these inferiors to live amongst us as equals, they are this nation’s biggest liability…”

Sure. It was a complete accident. (/sarc)

“Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man; this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position; discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.” —Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln-Douglas debates, 1858).

“As Abraham Lincoln said in his speeches, it was never his intent to let these feral animals loose in society.”

Nope. In his last speech before being assassinated he proposed making them citizens and giving them the vote.

“The amount of constituency, so to speak, on which the new Louisiana government rests, would be more satisfactory to all, if it contained fifty, thirty, or even twenty thousand, instead of only about twelve thousand, as it does. It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. … The colored man too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it, than by running backward over them? —Abraham Lincoln, last public address, Washington, D.C., April 11, 1865.

“Lincoln … betrayed his own people. If you read his earlier speech with Douglas, he sure didn’t sound like the Lincoln you are quoting.”

That’s right. He betrayed the white race. I agree that he said some contradictory things, such as the quote you give in rebuttal, but the conclusion you should draw from this is simply that he was a liar. He was such an accomplished liar, in fact, that he still has fans like you defending him even after the horrendous consequences of his betrayal have become apparent.

“However, in his heart of hearts, he knew the negro would never fit in. There was a movement to resettle them in Africa, but to the detriment of our civilization, it never happened.”

Don’t pretend to know what was in his heart of hearts. Judge him on his behavior. He was more responsible than any other man for the racial disaster that has overtaken America. The “movement” to resettle negroes elsewhere never got off the ground because it was a joke from the outset.

“Looking in hindsight which is 20/20, do you think he would propose doing anything with these people other than removing them from our shores? I don’t!”

Apparently you are unaware that it was only voluntary self-deportation that was ever under discussion. Nobody, including Lincoln, ever spoke in terms of forcibly rounding up all the negroes and deporting them whether they wanted to go or not.

Organizations such as the American Colonization Society were set up to assist those who volunteered to depart, but never even broached the idea of forcibly removing them.

“Very intelligent and served as soldiers are qualifiers. How many negroes were very intelligent, and how many served as soldiers, Dr. Morgan? If he were for universal suffrage, why didn’t he say so?”

There were hundreds of thousands of negroes who served in the Union Army, and they weren’t any more intelligent than the ones infesting America today. He didn’t say he was for universal suffrage because he was a liar, and knew the idea wouldn’t have been acceptable to his audience. Remember that at the time, even white women didn’t have the vote.

“America was once an unapologetically white nation…”

I have to disagree with this. There was never a time, even in colonial days, when America was without at least a substantial undercurrent of white self-contempt. Abolitionists of the day, adhering to an egalitarianism inspired by their Christianity, regarded race-based slavery as an abomination. In fact, free blacks were legally equal to whites in several of the original colonies, and were extended the franchise in some. This undercurrent of white self-contempt ultimately resulted in the Civil War, at the end of which blacks were made the legal equals of whites nationwide; and this at a time when the country was virtually 100% white and Christian. This act of racial self-abnegation is still without parallel, even in modern times.

* * *

Having studied this issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that preserving their own race is very low on the list of white Americans’ priorities, if it registers at all. Mostly, the opposite is true. The common opinion among them is that any concern for preserving the white race is “racist”, akin to Nazism, and deeply Evil. Of course, without a conscious effort to preserve their race, it’s obviously not going to survive.

Consequently, American whites accept their own looming racial extinction with apparent equanimity. They have approved it directly through their own actions, and indirectly through laws passed by their representatives, for over a hundred and fifty years. They’ve had plenty of time to reverse course, and haven’t done so. Again and again, white dissidents have stepped forward to warn them, and they have been ignored or destroyed. All their efforts have done is underscore the fact that saving a race of people that doesn’t want to be saved is an exercise in futility [editor’s emphasis]. I must conclude that if there is hope, it won’t be found in politics.

“I’ve got news for you snowflakes. A majority of white Americans before 1970 were bigoted.”

Sure they were! That’s why, immediately after slaughtering hundreds of thousands of each other in the Civil War, they gave negroes citizenship, legal equality, and the vote.

It’s interesting to me though that the idea that most whites were bigoted prior to (fill in the year) seems to be a persistent delusion of right wingers on the left half of the IQ bell curve.

I’ve seen it asserted many times. But if “traditionalists” haven’t controlled America’s race policies since the Civil War, what the hell is the “tradition” you think you are defending? The only tradition America has with regard to race is a constant implementation of ever more race-blind egalitarianism. That is what the majority of whites approved for the last 150 years, and continue to approve.

Published in: on June 7, 2019 at 11:34 am  Comments (2)  

Hunter Wallace vs. Joachim Hoch

Update of 7 PM: I cannot believe it. All of Joachim’s videos seem to have disappeared from his channel! Can you see any of them?
 

______ 卐 ______

 
I am starting to believe German commenter Devan’s iterative claim that ‘Whites are Jews’, in the sense that even white nationalists have been Judaized to the core by failing to become apostates of (((Christianity))).

In my previous post I used as an epigraph Matt Heimbach’s silly words to convey the idea that the American pro-white movement is a grotesque chimera from the eugenicist’s viewpoint. (I know: to some visitors my chosen epigraph was like flogging a dead horse after Matt’s sordid scandal with the other Matt a year ago.)

Eugenics as a subject is so important that I had planned not to add new articles until Sunday. But Hunter Wallace recently posted a piece that illustrates my point about the impossible chimera (Christianity + white preservation) that flourishes at the north of Río Grande. Wallace’s basic moral tenets seem fairly similar to Heimbach’s. It is enough to quote Wallace’s recent reply to Joachim Hoch to get my point:

Joachim claims that non-violence is ridiculous (15:13)

The overwhelming majority of White people in this country believe that political violence is immoral.

Joachim claims that survival is its own morality (19:55)

No, that’s barbarism.

Westerners are a civilized people with a deep and rich moral tradition. Joachim is comparing us to animals now. I don’t think we should be encouraging our people to act like animals. We’re not going to persuade our target audience by comparing them to salamanders.

Instead, I believe we should be taking these deracinated people who have been stripped of their own culture and heritage and educating them so that they can start practicing the virtues and obeying God’s law to become better men and women like their ancestors.

Joachim argues that William Pierce, George Lincoln Rockwell and James Mason were morally sound (20:48)

Why are the SIEGE posters so enraptured by this Helter Skelter nonsense? William Pierce wrote violent fantasy novels like The Turner Diaries and Hunter and even created his own cult for alienated people called Cosmotheism.

Joachim claims that […]

Part of being a Christian is suffering and obeying the law: “Christ says that we should not resist evil or injustice but always yield, suffer, and let things be taken from us. If you will not bear this law, then lay aside the name of Christian and claim another name that accords with your actions, or else Christ himself will tear his name away from you, and that will be too hard for you.” – Martin Luther

Violence isn’t the prerogative of the aggrieved individual. In our culture, it can only be sanctioned as self defense or as a just war on behalf of the community. The question is closely bound up with that of who is the legitimate sovereign authority in any given area.

[On the comments section Wallace added:] If there is a God who created the entire universe in all its magnificence, why do you think such a being would be concerned with only your particular tribe or ethnic group [whites]? Wouldn’t such a God be responsible for creating ALL life?

Again, this is indistinguishable from Heimbach’s Orthodox Christianity.

Joachim Hoch is YouTuber ‘Burning Man’. It is precisely because Wallace prioritises Christian morals over racial preservation (‘You cannot serve two masters…’) what started the whole debate.

Joachim’s first reply to Wallace can be listened: here. His second reply after minute 23, aired today, can be listened: here. After minute 73 Joachim asks, ‘Do you want to be a preacher or a political leader?’ and later ‘There’s going to be a split’ of revolutionaries and non-revolutionaries.

Alas, ten minutes later Joachim reveals himself as a Christian and even piously quotes the gospel. He completely misses the point that Wallace (and Heimbach) are right about their interpretation of Christianity regarding Jesus’ commandment of universal love, which includes other races.

His Christianity aside, Joachim’s response to Hunter was really good. I do recommend it to those who visit Hunter’s Occidental Dissent. I especially liked Joachim’s response to Hunter’s words about William Pierce cited above. As to this Luther quote above (my bold type):

Part of being a Christian is suffering and obeying the law: “Christ says that we should not resist evil or injustice but always yield, suffer, and let things be taken from us…”

Wow!

Yes: Wallace follows Christian ethics to the letter. What neither he nor Hoch get is that such deranged altruism is destroying their little race.

Published in: on May 29, 2019 at 7:03 pm  Comments (17)  

Introduction to eugenics

by Evropa Soberana

‘All people can be Gods people now through the New Covenant… all peoples have a right to exist and continue to exist, but no race is superior in the sight of God. Each people has been given specific attributes and responsibilities but to God every soul is valuable’ —Matt Heimbach.

Editor’s Note: Is race a social construct? This is what liberals believe—and apparently Christian white nationalists like Heimbach believe that, for God, race is a mere human construct. (No wonder why people say that liberalism is the bastard son of Christianity…)

Below, my abbreviated translation of ‘Intro a la eugenesia’, published six years ago by the Spaniard blogger Evropa Soberana:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

It is undeniable that in the species and in any human group there are diversity of qualities.

Some individuals are intelligent and others are stupid; even there are morons. Some individuals have health of steel and others are sickly. Some individuals are tall, others are short. Some individuals are strong, others are weak. Some individuals are brave, others are cowards. Some individuals are disciplined and hardworking, others are lazy and slothful. Some individuals are honest, noble, righteous and loyal, others have a clear inclination towards lying, falsehood, disloyalty and betrayal.

It is also undeniable that almost all these qualities are hereditary and depend on genetics to a greater or lesser extent (usually more greater than lesser).

The question that arises is: what qualities, from those listed above, seem more desirable to us and which ones would we like they end up prevailing in the future world if we want the Earth to be a better place?

If you are a logical person I address the following question: in the path that, as a species, we have been going through the last millennia, what qualities, of those listed above, tend to be selected?

The current mentality, produced by a civilisation isolated in its technological bubble, ignores a hundred percent the laws of Nature, of blood, of selection and of the inequality of men; laws that, necessarily, place the best ones above and the worst ones below. The modern world is, then, the perfect example of a diabolical selection in reverse, or dysgenics. Many people of inferior genetics have been perpetuated, and many people of superior genetics have not done so (for example, in medieval times because of fratricidal wars, witch hunts and celibacy of very large social sectors at the hands of the Church). That hurts the race. When the number of biological waste increases and that of bodily monuments to the gods decreases, we can be sure without any doubt that we are moving towards a future of biological trash.

Today, the individual is sacred and untouchable, while concepts such as ‘race’ and ‘homeland’ are considered abstractions, when the only abstraction is the individual who is born and dies fleetingly and while only human groups are solid and lasting realities.

In harder and more authentic times, the birth rate was vigorous, but the harshness of environmental conditions cut off the lives of the weakest. Thus, in a family of ten children, it was possible that they reached reproductive age only five. Each of these five would have, in turn, ten children, of which five would survive, the fittest. The result was that, in several generations, the defectives were virtually eradicated and the only ones left standing were the fittest. Thus, fighting against the elements, in wars, epidemics and catastrophes, the population of the planet remained stable but, nevertheless, as a species, we tended to improve generation after generation. Each ‘litter’ tended to be better than the previous one.

Humanity was not spiritually prepared for the advent of the modern industrial revolution, technology and health services. Obviously, the technology turned out to be in many ways salvation for Man, but he forgot to foresee that the immense population growth that would inevitably take place would have to be compensated in other ways. Instead of foreseeing measures that would continue to maintain a selection of the best ones to regulate the population, the uncontrolled proliferation of human beings was allowed, at the expense of Nature and of the biological quality of the population.

Ever since health services, technology, social services and Judeo-Christian morality have spread freely, a whole legion of sick, decrepit, retarded and handicapped people invade the horizon of the species that in a world dominated by Nature would never have seen the light, or they would have lasted a short time. We, who have the technique and the means to quickly and painlessly do what Nature usually does slowly and painfully, are propagating and perpetuating the inferior seeds.

It is argued that technology in itself is not good or bad, but depends on the use that is given. Today, it is being used diabolically, oriented to make us sick, to weaken us and to get away from the Earth and our own nature. In the future, when the imbecility of this civilisation has been overcome, the application of technology must take a 180-degree turn.
 

But then there would be a selection: we would choose the types to prevail, we would discriminate, and that is unfair (for me, of course: because I want to perpetuate my genes, and with them, the associated declines)!

It will be unfair to you, but it is fair to the race, which is more important than you. On the other hand, it is unfair for the species that your hereditary rubbish spread like the plague, no matter how much that offends you.

And yes: it sounds to me like selection. It’s like in the exams. He who gets more than a 5, approves, and he who gets 5 or less stays out… a ‘selection’ in full rule. How monstrously unfair! What ominous discrimination towards those who did not pass! How politically incorrect!

Just like those places where they do not let you pass if you do not wear shoes, or if you wear piggy pints, or if you don’t go with female company, or if you dislike the Romanian gatekeeper.

Or those expensive restaurants where you cannot go if you’re not with tie and well dressed. Or those clubs where they only accept Latin bitches. Or those 5-star hotels where if you lack dosh to pay for a suite they don’t accommodate you. Or those bars where they would crush you if you say, ‘Long Live Spain!’

This is discrimination and pure and hard selection, which surrounds us 24 hours a day, and always in much more unjust and unnatural ways than genetic discrimination.
 

But then a caste system would be formed and the equality would be destroyed!

Yes, but don’t we have a ‘caste system’ today? Is not that capitalist caste system based on money? Doesn’t that destroy the sacrosanct ‘equality’? Is such an economic criterion of social stratification not infinitely lower, unnatural, unjust and petty than the genetic one? Don’t it tend to enthrone mediocre, vile and malicious individuals?

Nowadays, one can be clown, brat, son of a bitch, depraved, pervert, false, traitor, snake, unfriendly, repellent, drug addict and stupid: but they will open the doors wherever he goes and will bow if he is rotten with money and makes ostentation of it visible.

Likewise, one can be an intelligent, good, healthy, brave, strong and friendly chap that the System will overlook if he is poor.

Today, a chick is ‘good’ if she has a neckline, thong, miniskirt and shows off her body, even if mediocre, while a beautiful gal is not stunning if she goes in tracksuit and shirt. Is not that tremendously unfair?

So what are you afraid of when you suggest the possibility of wiping out all that and selecting the best individuals or genes for higher breeding?
 

But then we would operate modifications on the individual and force changes in the whole society!

So good! You have a son. Don’t you teach him to behave so that he is more presentable? Don’t you wash him and comb him so he looks better? Won’t you give him a better education to make him wiser? Isn’t that ‘operating modifications’?

Don’t we have a ridiculous and pathetic educational system, as well as a monstrous subliminal propaganda apparatus that ‘forces change’ throughout society, even in public opinion? Are not those changes, by the way, worse?

So what are you afraid of when you suggest the possibility of operating modifications for the better?
 

But then we would all end up being tall, handsome, blond, strong, gifted, indestructible, immortal, perfect and blue-eyed!

And what’s wrong with that?

Let’s see… taking the genetic range of yours and your partner, they give you to choose how you want your future child to be. How would you ‘ask’ him?

Short, maybe? Dummy? Black, no doubt? Something ugly, perhaps…?

Wouldn’t you ‘ask’ for the best range within your gene pool and that of your partner?
 

Oh, I don’t care how he looks like, and I’ll love him anyway.

I’m proud of you. Look, I’m going to shed a little tear with so much solidarity, so much progressivism, so much equality, so much tolerance and so many rainbows. But tell me: If the look doesn’t matter, then why the hell do you dye your hair or blow it?

Why do you brush or shave? Being a man, wouldn’t you ignore an ugly gal, fat and with a goatee? Why do you buy clothes designed to enhance your virtues and hide your shortcomings? Why do you make up? Why do you wear heels? Silicone? Implants? Operation of breast augmentation? Rhinoplasty? Lifting? Skin creams? Several liposuctions? Insulin for diabetes? Extirpation of the appendix? Gadgets for asthma? Barbiturates? Sleeping pills? Glasses or contact lenses? Anabolics?

Why, in short, do you try to pretend? Isn’t it because you are aware that this is a treasure? And isn’t all that a thousand times more unnatural than being born with privileged genes?

The problem is that people work on the phenotype, disguising their defects with money, paints, patches, amendments, accessories and harmful chemicals (and expensive, which is a lucrative and convenient business for the System). Perhaps, O hypocrites, wouldn’t you kill for good genetics, for health of steel, for beauty of birth and for not needing all those ridiculous complements to disguise your superficial miseries?

Don’t you spend (you and the State) bunch of monies in such patches and globs to hide your defects and your diseases, cash that could be saved if such defects were eradicated by tuning up certain genes harmlessly? Doesn’t all the waste of keeping the retarded, terminally ill, be cut off in a single generation with a little common sense, for God’s sake?
 

Oh, I wouldn’t choose the looks of my son, I’d just let him be born without messing with his genes.

Once again I’m shedding a tear. Sniff.

But when you see that all your little friends go through life begetting beautiful super-babes, healthy, responsible, intelligent, strong, loving, I have the vague feeling that you don’t want to stay behind, be the less coolest mother and condemn you to have to listen to your asthmatic, diabetic or simply mediocre child, without asking yourself how you were such a scumbag as not to give him a better birth having the means to do so.
 

But then babies born through genetic engineering will be unnatural beings!

Those babies wouldn’t be any more unnatural than a bourgeois obese with toad face; drinker, sedentary, dressed up to the neck and spending five hours a day on TV, or taking his BMW even to go shit.

Nor would it be more unnatural than a 50-year-old fat woman, unlookable, ramshackled, wrinkled, materialistic, smoker, varicosed, sterile, without children—but yes: a progressive, activist, sponsor of children of alien races in foreign countries, with her hair dyed blond, with lots of make up, with a purse, talking on her cell phone and stuffed with gelatinous muffin tops and flabs that none wants to see.

And, of course, they won’t be more unnatural than the troop of the sick, deviant, criminals, whores, parasites, inverted and degenerates who parade through our civilisation and to whom, on the other hand, no one deprived of their right to be born.

You yourself, don’t you take the bus or go by car? Don’t you get into noisy bars to get drunk and distract your will? Don’t you have sex with a condom or with an anti-baby device? Don’t you watch TV? Isn’t all that also ‘unnatural’? So what are you telling me, fucking piece of plastic with legs? I will accept the word ‘unnatural’ as valid only and exclusively if they come from the mouth of someone like Tarzan or Mowgli.

Why, then, almost perfect children, born out of the cross-breeding of the best of the species, should be unnatural and abominable beings? Couldn’t they be ordinary people, and have the same privileges as, for example, a homosexual mestizo, obese, diabetic, squatter and carrier of various venereal diseases?
 

Well, that seems discrimination to me. Who decides who is perfect? Isn’t that playing to be God?

Maybe it is playing God, but since no one is going to come down from heaven to give us instructions, and since we are not going to sit and watch the species degenerate until we become sickly Tinkiwinkies fused with TV, the bag and the car at the same time, someone with judgment has to fill that void.

Bearing in mind, moreover, that the species is on the verge of catastrophe we must favour an exacerbately high birth rate among the best specimens, and prevent the worst from multiplying. Modern Western civilisation is the only civilisation in the history of humanity that does not conceive of sex, marriage, family and birth-rate as biological weapons destined to propitiate ‘the victory of the cradles’—without which ‘the victory of the soldier’ is incomplete.

It will be necessary to cross-breed keeping in mind the selection of qualities such as Nordic blood, good constitution, intelligence, strength, stature, courage, leadership ability, health, resistance, discipline and a very long etcetera, which are the qualities selected by Nature itself when the suicidal and insane Judeo-Christian morality does not interpose between Her and man. It would not be necessary to ‘force’ things in this sense (‘you two are good specimens, let’s mate’), but to encourage their desire to emerge naturally and spontaneously.

If this type of policy was supported by the techniques and means that exist today, we would have, in a matter of generations, an almost perfect race, and all the defects—together with the expenses and miseries they cause—eradicated forever.

‘Good’ is everything that improves the race; ‘bad’ is everything that makes the race worse.

From this point of view, it could be necessary to resort to artificial methods (genetic engineering, state intervention, selective crossings) to correct the indescribable nonsense caused by 2000 years of artificial dementia.

Your urban brothel lifestyle, contaminated, uprooted, unhealthy, asphalted, greasy, degenerated, drunk and immoral harm the species and that is unnatural.

Your compassion and diligence towards junkies, the defective, retarded, homosexual, dirty, delinquent, sickly, parasites and judicially sentenced is something that harms the species and that is unnatural.

Your social-economic selection is something that harms the species, that makes it worse and tends to form a type of inferior man, in addition to being a thousand times more immoral than natural-genetic selection.

Your castration of the instinct of aggressiveness is something that worsens the species and leaves us unarmed before more brutal humanities.

Genetic selection, good birth and the selective matching of the best individuals are things that benefit the race and tend to form a type of superior man. Therefore they are good and desirable in themselves.

Conclusion: as long as an intervention in human reproduction is not a reality, mate only with individuals of similar genetic and racial quality of you. Guide yourself through the traits of the body, the soul, health and the tone of skin, eyes and hair.

How ‘Game of Thrones’ can be used

Further to Robert Hampton’s ‘Woke Christianity’ which reminded me of my ‘On empowering birds feeding on corpses’.

After Game of Thrones (GoT) betrayed the fans’ expectations with a girl killing the Night King, as we saw on this site the last Sundays, tonight we watched the great spectacle of an irrelevant war of the two bitches, where the pyromaniac Queen Daenerys burns the main city of Westeros after they had surrendered.

But if we keep in mind the message of the two articles linked above, after the absolute fiasco of these last episodes we still can use previous seasons of GoT to try to reach normies.

Remember the epigraphs of the second article linked above (‘Christian ethics was like a time bomb ticking away in Europe, a Trojan horse waiting for its season’ & ‘1945 was the year of the total inversion of Aryan values into Christian values’). Our historical season or climax of Christian values is similar to GoT’s ‘Sparrows’, the Faith Militant fanatics who believed in equality for all men (‘We’re all equal in the eyes of the Seven’, a rephrasing of the Christian ‘Every man is equal in God’s eyes’).

Also remember that George R.R. Martin obtained his inspiration from real events of Western history. In the Middle Ages, the Dulcinians were like the Sparrows. Inspired by Franciscan ideals, like today’s antifa they became thugs. As can be read in online encyclopaedias, the ideals of the Dulcinians were:

• The fall of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and return of the Church to its original ideals of humility and poverty

• The fall of the feudal system

• The creation of a new egalitarian society based on mutual aid, holding property in common and respecting gender equality.

Fra Dolcino (1250-1307) viewed the history of mankind as four epochs:

• The period of the Old Testament

• The period of Jesus Christ and his Apostles characterised by chastity and poverty

• The period of Constantine and the imperial Popes characterised by the decline of the Church due to excessive wealth

• The period of the Apostolics led by Dolcino. Like the ‘Sparrows’ in GoT, this is a period characterised by poverty, chastity and the absence of government.

It is true that for George R.R. Martin war is bad, feudalism and slavery are bad, feminism is good and religion is nuts. But as I have argued, Martin himself subscribes the nutty religion of ‘neo-Franciscanism’, something that is reflected in GoT. In Martin’s novels, after a couple of centuries of disbanding the Faith Militant, the military arm of the Faith of the Seven is restored, this time led by the Sparrows. The physical appearance of the Sparrows resembles, in real history, the violent or Dulcinite faction of the Franciscans.

Curiously, among GoT fans the High Sparrow was one of the most hated witches of the entire show. Hence we can use this character in our discussions with normies when trying to convey that Christian ethics was like a ticking bomb waiting for its season, and that after WW2 this inversion of values was fulfilled.

Just as today’s Woke Christians see Jesus in immigrants, refugees, people of colour, and demeaned women—and therefore the noblest thing, the White Male, must be degraded in order to equalise him with the downtrodden—, in GoT the Sparrows attacked the noblest houses of Westeros: House Tyrell and then Cersei herself, who apparently died in tonight’s show as Queen Cersei (one of the bitches).

Since in real life the Untermenschen cannot be equalised by decree, the only way to equalise them before the White Male is simply by degrading his status throughout the West: precisely what is happening. Westerners ignore that, after seven hundred years, our secular governments are implementing the core of the ideals of Fra Dolcino.

The difference between GoT’s Sparrows and the attempt to deconstruct the White Male in our times is that normies abhor the Sparrows while they accept the degradation of the White Male throughout the West.

The Roman Catholic Church destroyed Fra Dolcino and the Dulcinians in the 14th century when the Church felt threatened by them, just as Queen Cersei destroyed the High Sparrow and his Sparrows in Season 6 of GoT. But in today’s West the ‘Sparrows’ hold power in each Western government, media outlet and university. The only way to destroy them is through a revaluation of all values that not even white nationalists are willing to endorse, let alone enact if they reached power.

It is incredible the level of subjugation of the contemporary White Male before the core of the Gospel message, especially among secular, agnostic and atheist whites.

Published in: on May 12, 2019 at 9:35 pm  Comments (20)  

Robert Morgan’s comment

In order for white people to revolt as a race, they’d have to reject a century and a half of their own history. They’d have to abandon Christianity, and ruthlessly purge its cultural residue, since even atheists nowadays embrace its fantasy of a “brotherhood of man”.

People such as Lincoln, who is now a hero to most whites, would have to be seen as a villain. Likewise with MLK and FDR. They’d have to admit to themselves that they’ve been fools all along, and their ancestors crazy; that all the blood and sacrifice to stamp out white supremacy in the Civil War and in WWII was for nothing, or even less than nothing. The cognitive dissonance alone would probably kill them or drive them insane.

Frankly, I don’t see it happening.

Greg Johnson’s plan

by Robert Morgan

Greg Johnson evidently wants to undo and reverse the trend toward globalization, since mixing and trans-locating populations is part of that. Like flying to the moon by flapping your arms, it’s deceptively simple in concept, yet equally impossible. All we need to do, he says, is provide each people with a homeland and then get them to voluntarily move there.

But the devil is in the details. What do you do if they refuse to go? Violence is off the table, according to Greg. So now what? Even if some agree, who pays for relocating them? What about foreign ownership of another nation’s real estate or corporations? The foreigners and racial aliens may not want to sell. Shall we then “make them an offer they can’t refuse”? That would be a good way to start a war, but Johnson says all of this must happen peacefully. How?

And what about white ownership of vital, scarce resources in foreign countries that are crucial to our own self interest? Shall we permit that only to ourselves? Somehow I doubt other countries or races would think that is fair. This list of questions could be extended indefinitely, because a global economy truly is a Gordian knot, with everything intricately tied together in such a way as to be impossible to unravel.

It would take, in essence, a cultural and financial revolution; something that would change human nature as it has been since civilization began. People would have to value preserving race over their own individual success and pleasure. Not just pay it lip service, but actually suffer a great deal to achieve it. Further, they’d have to admit that they’ve been fools all along to think that races could actually get along together.

Psychologically, it would be impossible. For whites, the Christian religion as it currently is interpreted by more than 99.9% of Christians would have to be tossed out along with its cultural residue, for Christianity has triumphed in the West to such an extent that even most atheists nowadays subscribe to Christian moral tenets such as the so-called brotherhood of man. Besides, if race is now the highest value, how could the worship of the racial Other proceed?

Call me a pessimist, but I don’t see any of this happening. It would be easier to crash technological civilization completely than to attempt to revise it along these lines. Johnson’s plan of peaceful separation just won’t work.

Published in: on May 1, 2019 at 11:48 am  Comments (9)  

Robert Morgan’s comment

Pro-white racism has always, ever since the founding of the USA, been only a minor theme of white America. Far more important to it has been wealth, power, and growth of empire. Yes, you had white supremacy as in race-based slavery, but you also had America’s most costly war fought to abolish it and establish citizenship for the negro and grant him legal equality with whites. Yes, you had the Naturalization Act of 1790 which specified whites only as qualified for naturalization, but you also had many non-whites who became citizens in ways other than being naturalized (for example many non-whites became citizens automatically when Texas was added to the Union). Even at the time of the ratification of the Constitution free negroes were allowed to vote in several of the states. So the country as a whole has never been explicitly racist. Largely this is due to Christianity having shaped its culture.

The ideal of racial equality is built into the Christian worldview, as are many other racially harmful ideas. White pride? Look into what the Bible says about pride. Nothing good. The Bible preaches the opposite, humility and meekness. The cult of the victim? Jesus is the ultimate victim, the archetype. People only began seeing virtue in being a victim because of his example. God is love? What does that make you, if you hate negroes? It means you are against God. The Christian worldview acts against white survival in all kinds of ways. It not only inhibits a proper response, but it actively encourages race suicide.

Because a final solution to the racial problem necessarily involves transgressions against Christianity’s moral strictures, it’s obvious that nothing effective can or will be done until that morality is eradicated. White survival will take a cultural revolution, and the political organizing you’re calling for can’t and won’t take place until that’s accomplished.

Robert Morgan’s comment

“I’ve got news for you snowflakes. A majority of white Americans before 1970 were bigoted.”

Sure they were! That’s why, immediately after slaughtering hundreds of thousands of each other in the Civil War, they gave negroes citizenship, legal equality, and the vote.

It’s also why they fought against Nazi Germany—because Hitler was giving bigotry a bad name! Standing up for bigotry by crushing white supremacy wherever it reared its ugly head. That’s what white American bigots are all about!

And it’s also why they passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, and the Fair Housing Act in 1963. Because before 1970 white Americans were just plain bigoted.

The history of white American bigotry is truly appalling. It’s a disgrace to humanity.

Published in: on March 27, 2019 at 9:04 am  Comments Off on Robert Morgan’s comment  

Occidental ‘Dissent’

Joseph Walsh in yesterday’s thread:

Greg Johnson’s comment that Tarrant’s actions were ‘evil’ really betrays the Christianity behind his thinking. What the Christians term ‘evil’ is what Aryan man needs to behave like.

Today a southern nationalist wrote:

Jack Ryan and the overwhelmingly majority of OD [the American southern nationalist site Occidental Dissent] readers completely condemn the terrible, cowardly terrorist attack in Christ Church NZ.

Source: here. On that thread a Rudolf said:

This article is pacifist cuckoldry in its purest form. Instead of not commenting at all, the author chooses to be first in line of the traitorous weaklings who disavow their brothers in arms. This heap of effeminacy and meekness doesn’t even deserve to be addressed point by point. It’s all so tiresome.

And in a previous thread on Tarrant the admin of that site said:

I own plenty of guns, however, I have no intention of using them to shoot other people for that would be immoral.

Source: here.

But they were shot by the yanks, right?

What is striking about this Christian superego of 2019 is that eight years ago Occidental Dissent published an article by William Rome about the Breivik incident, ‘Knights Templar: Honesty and Hypocrisy’ that started with the words: ‘A lot of people are going to be infuriated by this post so I might as well get started early: I will not shed a single tear over the dead brats of Norway’s traitorous elite…’

The article is no longer available on Occidental Dissent, but I saved it for this site (here, see also here).

Published in: on March 25, 2019 at 7:35 pm  Comments (5)