Against Spencer et al

by Edwin

Edwin’s February 24, 2016 piece hits the nail about what is wrong with race realism, American southern nationalism, the Alt-Right, white nationalism (and I would say, even the speakers of the recent Erkenbrand 2017 Conference).

 

 
The ethno-nationalist question needs to be handled with a certain degree of intricacy and delicacy.

Goethe expresses the ideal of ethnos by the phrase: “Outwardly limited; inwardly limitless.” Only by limiting myself within a specific local history, people, language and geographic boundary is it possible to develop an authentic Personality. Only by renouncing political involvement and accepting traditional authority (aristocracy) can I attain an inner freedom. Only from the organic development of a distinct nation held together by blood and soil can I acquire culture and produce works of art (symbols) that transcend earthly boundaries. This notion of individuation as a long heroic journey only for a few is entirely foreign to the mindset of the White American.

There is no question that White Nationalism in all its various incarnations has been an abysmal failure, and that ethno-nationalism, within the European context, is presently the only source of public resistance to the ongoing program of dissolution and displacement implemented by the globalists.

It seems inconceivable at the present moment that the salvation of Aryan man will not involve using the hidden reservoirs of resentment brought to the surface by ethno-nationalist parties, if only for tactical reasons. The European masses at present seem incapable of rising above petty politics to unite under a common banner. Also, the hate crime legislations currently existing in Europe make more radical forms of resistance almost impossible. Consequently, we can conceive of ethno-nationalism as merely a transitory political phenomenon; a temporary stop-gap supported with grave reservations until political conditions (the Plebs) are ripe for truly revolutionary politics.

Ethno-nationalism, considered strictly as a theory, posits a return to a more authentic, traditional way of life, a golden age in which society was structured vertically. There is a romantic element that captures the imagination at a sub-intellectual emotive level, promising a life of meaning beyond the material. The simple argument of allowing the right of self-determination for distinct ethnicities sounds sensible for those that live within the modern world.

But ethno-nationalism in practice poses a number of serious problems:

Secessionists in America assume a priori that non-whites have a distinct separate ethnos and are capable of creating a viable nation state without the active intervention of whites. With few exceptions, racial “realists” believe that some sort of practical accommodation can be made with Blacks and other mud bloods. According to this fantasy, North America will eventually devolve into a dozen independent nations, divided along racial and linguistic lines. In this new political dispensation, Blacks are to be given their own slice of paradise under the sun, free to live among their own kind and to pursue their own destiny.

We are told by self-anointed intellectuals like Spencer, McDonald, and Johnson, that racial separation will be likened to a friendly “divorce”; contra history, population transfers will be “humane” and “peaceful,” with no shedding of innocent blood. Never mind the fact that this new Black Zion will be a grotesque farrago of Western and African culture, a pantomime of political theater, merely resembling the outward form of a state. Never mind the fact that blacks lack the ability to build a modern infrastructure and will face starvation. But no! Our intellectuals tell us that we must not believe our eyes (Africa, Haiti, Detroit). Facts, in this one instance, do not matter. We have dispensed with Christian theology but must still believe in miracles!

Ethno-nationalism, being a by-product of modernity, always panders to the lowest common denominator. Every single ethno-nationalist party in Europe adopts a horizontal understanding of power, claiming to represent the true “will of the people” by defending mass democracy. No present elected leader offers a higher ideal or unifying principle. Economics and base materialism rule every policy decision.

Every national history is largely a sad tale of petty victimhood, as though presenting a nation as a perpetual innocent “victim” that has undergone enormous suffering somehow ennobles and valorizes its right to exist; as though presenting the nation as a total weakling can be a source of strength and unity.

And even if such a leader were to emerge, a leader who does not prostitute himself by promising to satisfy every material want, a leader who demands harsh discipline and allows for no excuses, the masses would not follow him. Europe has reached such a state of total degradation that the Finn, Kai Murros, finds it necessary to adopt the style of a Maoist Dialectician (!) if only to dress his revolutionary nationalism under a “respectable” analytical framework.

Surveying the political landscape, the words of Nietzsche come to mind: “On the rulers I turned my back, when I saw what they now call ruling. To traffic and bargain for power—with the rabble!” The question must be asked: Can the debased White American with no ethnic identity support ethnic-nationalism? Or to be blunt: Can a White American value an object if no financial gain is possible?

Ethno-nationalists treat all European ethnicities like antiquarian idol-objects; they deserve preservation simply because of age, as if all were of equal value. Practically every single racial “realist” in Europe and America considers the question of biological differences and cultural achievements among indigenous European nationalities to be a social taboo. He is happy to point out the racial differences between Whites and Blacks yet becomes apoplectic if shortcomings among European populations are pointed out.

Why should anyone care about preserving Polish or Croatian identity if their impact on world history is negligible? How does that advance the interests of Aryan man? What exactly does ethno-nationalism mean for a country (i.e. Greece, Portugal) that includes a significant number of mud bloods among its native population? The ethno-nationalists have no answer.

The proposition that any nation state, like the National Socialists of yesteryear, may expand its territory and impose a new order from above is treated as a modern day heresy by ethno-nationalists. Even the apologist David Irving is critical of Hitler and the National Socialists for refusing to grant self-determination for the Slavic people of the East. Lesser personalities such as Andrew Anglin and Carolyn Yeager are no better and find it necessary to rationalize the harsh treatment of the Slavs by the Germans.

Ethno-nationalism is not enough for all men. There are a few differentiated men who have an inner orientation and perspective totally foreign from everyone else. Such men recognize that their identities cannot be so easily circumscribed by the nation or tribe, and always feel a sense of alienation around other people. They recognize that they are part of a great chain of Being stretching back to pre-historic time.

They see kindred racial spirits in the Aryans of Ancient India and Persia. They see themselves as spiritual heirs to the cultural patrimony left to us by the Greco-Roman world. Their horizons extend beyond the narrow confines of a nation state toward the idea of an Empire. They feel no moral qualms over outrageous territorial expansion. They look with outright disgust and nausea at what passes for “culture” in the modern era. These men have a naturally artistic temperament and are united by a common purpose: there must be a fanatical pursuit of beauty at whatever the cost.

Goethe, Nietzsche, H.S. Chamberlain, Oliver, Pierce, and a few others belong to this rare category of men. Contrast this with present day ethno-nationalists whose view of history does not stretch back even a hundred years—as though the idea of an Empire, of Rome or Greece never existed!

National Socialism is the perfect fusion of German nationalism with the artistic temperament of Ancient Greece and with the martial valor of Rome. When asked for his reason for joining the National Socialist Party, the philosopher Martin Heidegger replied: “It was the one political movement in the twentieth century that took an essentially tragic view of life. That managed to bring the ethos of the Ancient Greeks 2500 years into the present.”

Eugenics and Race, 1

A passage from the first chapter of Eugenics and Race,
a booklet now available from Daybreak Publications (here):

This theory of an African origin is interesting as the African Negro remains the most ape-like in appearance of all the existing races of man…

With the improvement in climatic conditions he [Cro-Magnon man] started to roam the earth, and in Europe, in a few centuries, probably, he exterminated Neanderthal sub-man: the evidence of broken skulls would tend to suggest, at least, that the disappear-ance of the latter was due to his work. He exterminated them—all, that is, except the females, some of whom he definitely retained.

Like all conquering races of mankind, he would appear to have kept for his own use females from the tribes he conquered, for several fossils of this period show characteristics which point clearly towards an admixture of the two species, the one highly advanced, the other considerably lower on the scale; and isolated throw-backs to Neanderthal characteristics have ever since appeared amongst the various human races, admixture being greater in some areas such as Asia than in others.

Ever since man became more mobile, this retrogressive tendency towards the mixing of the sub-species has progressed with increasing rapidity, until we have the complex and generally blurred pattern which we know today.

Color of crime

“Several times more Whites were killed last year by Blacks in America’s simmering one-sided race war than have been killed by all the Islamic terrorist attacks on Americans combined.”

Matt Parrott

Published in: on September 16, 2015 at 10:29 pm  Leave a Comment  

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.

Constitution_of_the_United_States,_page_1

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!

Black perp

A disgruntled negro shoots and kills two co-workers on live television over racial slights. See e.g., today’s article at Occidental Dissent.

journalists

Postscript:

Originally I embedded a clip. The black man, who used to work on TV, filmed his killing! YouTube deleted it after the first incarnation of this entry. (The video that’s circulating now was filmed by one of the victims.) On the pic I’ve just added instead, the two journalists that would be murdered this morning.

Published in: on August 26, 2015 at 6:47 pm  Comments (1)  

It’s Christian ethics, 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.

Quotable quote

jefferson-davis“You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be.”

Jefferson Davis

Published in: on August 2, 2015 at 8:11 pm  Comments (2)  

Clueless southerners

confederate-flagIn my previous post I tagged as “cuckservative” the Second Klan for the well-explained reasons that Hajo Liaucius wrote in an original, 2013 essay exclusively for this site. Unlike the anti-Christian insights of Jack Frost about our parents’ religion, what white- and southern nationalists are always missing is that presently whites are trapped in a meta-ethical structure that compels them to behave like pupils of St Francis. Here for example is what Brad Griffin posted today on the Occidental Dissent blog:

Black Run America (BRA) doesn’t meant that blacks literally run America. Rather, it means that the American elite, whom Paul Kersey calls Disingenuous White Liberals (DWLs), are running the country as a kind of charity for black people. Every single mainstream institution in BRA is dedicated to the project of black racial uplift, not maintaining “white supremacy.” Because black people are revered objects of worship in Black Run America (think of any number of Morgan Freeman movies), major cities like Detroit, Birmingham, and Memphis have been reduced to ruins under decades of incompetent black rule. We live in a country where civilization itself has been subordinated to “social justice.”

Unfortunately, the thousands of southerners who have been reading Occidental Dissent and flying the confederate flag are completely clueless about the plate tectonics that enabled the ongoing volcanic eruption of “Franciscanism.”

Published in: on July 28, 2015 at 12:40 pm  Comments (6)  
Tags:

On Thomas Jefferson

Thomas_JeffersonI find hilarious the recent exchange at The Occidental Observer between those American patriots who still believe that the US started unpolluted and those who, like Jack Frost, rub salt into their wounds. The fact is that the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States either committed, or allowed among one of the male members of his family, a Sin against the Holy Ghost—having sex with a non-white! Why this is a sin that should not be forgiven is explained: here.

Replying to his angry critics, Frost said yesterday: “The fact is that the Jefferson Y chromosome entered the Hemings line [a Negro family], and it is still true that it came either from Jefferson himself or one of his male relatives. In the latter case, either he knew his slave was being used sexually, which makes him a pimp, or he didn’t know, which makes him a fool. The Hemings case was not inusual…”

Brace yourself!

“Whites are dying because they have no defense in real life, just whining internet cowards. Every site that is pro White is White Nationalist infantile dribble. Until Whites can muster a defense without the vulgar and endless brooding [in] White Nationalism they will continue to die.”

Keith

 
It’s eight days now since I posted the “Syssitias” article. At a very generous estimate, pro-white discussion over the net, whether race realism, white nationalism, southern nationalism or neo-Nazism is only a mood, not a movement.

Unlike what can be read in Hitler’s biography, presently a sponsor for creating a boots-on-the-ground movement doesn’t exist. But what is really alarming is that thousands of pro-white men discussing in the internet don’t want to fight.

Jack Frost recently reminded us that William Pierce used to say that the only way to re-educate a brainwashed individual is with a stout oaken table leg. Nothing else will work. This is my take on the subject:

    1.- Presently, whites are in Happy Mood (proof is that even white nationalists are unwilling to pick real fights, as Commander Rockwell did);

    2.- Right after the dollar crashes, whites, in general, will be in Angry Mood;

    3.- The following months, after hungry blacks chimpout and start attacking us massively in the big cities, in the countryside whites will switch their minds to Combat Mood, a mood that is basically defensive: they will defend their farms and families from feral niggers looking for food and white pussy;

My crystal ball cannot see beyond this scenario. But if racists were not as spineless as they are today, they would know that Chaos is Opportunity and that, if Syssitia-like groups were already formed, a big window of opportunity would be opened to form cadres for these whites in Combat Mood (which again, is merely defensive provided that private guns will not be confiscated). We would educate them about the causes of the unfolding societal collapse.

Combat Mood is preliminary. My ideal brothers-in-arms would be those who are so fanatic that they are already in:

    4.- Killing Mood.

This mood has been illustrated in Pierce’s The Turner Diaries. The ultimate goal for those in this mood is fighting a guerrilla war, of decades if necessary, until obtaining control of the nuke bombs of a western nation. (Which is why I am not considering Covington’s novels, as he believes that a non-nuclear, neo-Nazi nation at the corner of the US, can survive without such weapons of mass destruction.)

braceI am already in this Killing Mood but, if I won’t become violent for the moment, it’s because the masses of westerners are in Happy Mood and wouldn’t understand such action. (See these excerpts of Pierce’s second novel that illustrate my point, and also his 1968 article.)

Forming Syssitias would be the first baby step in the direction of bracing ourselves, but isn’t it depressing that racially conscious whites are not preparing for The Day?