Heisman’s suicide note, 11

Or:

A key to understanding the ethnosuicidal United States

I had said in the previous post that I would not read beyond page 500. But a friend on Facebook suggested that I read what Heisman says about the Norman Conquest and I have found oil. I wonder if those white nationalist scholars in the history of Britain and the United States know this thesis? Although Heisman was a Jew, in good hands his thesis could be a vital piece to put together the puzzle of the whys of white suicide, which leads the United States of America. Heisman wrote:

 

Remarkably, the Anglo-Saxons and Germans are very closely related in their cultural-ethnic origins. Yet during the Nazi period, the Germans continued a cultural-political path that lead to an idealization of the Jews as their greatest mortal enemies, the destruction of Western cultural values inherited from Christianity, and the systematic genocide of the alleged propagators of those values. The Americans ventured towards the total opposite historical trajectory becoming perhaps the most Christian nation of the developed world, the most culturally compatible nation with the Jews, and the greatest ally of the state of Israel. At the root of this historical divergence between the Anglo-Saxons and the Germans lay the Norman Conquest. […]

An essential inheritance of America’s Anglo-Protestant values is an inclination to forget ethnic origins, national rivalries, and presumptions of hereditary status that were characteristic of the Old World. The Anglo-Saxons planted the model of this morality of turning a blind eye to national origins for all other Americans to follow and this implicated the erasure of everyone else’s ethnic origins as well. The freedom to forget the past appears to be the obverse side of America’s traditionally optimistic vision of the future. But why is this past problematic? Why were hereditary origins an issue in the first place?

The “race problem” should not matter in America, yet somehow it is the most American issue, the most relevant innovation of the entire American experiment. The old answers, moreover, that attempted to account for the entire “race” issue simply do not add up. There is a lack of coherent answer to the question of why race matters.

American historian Gordon Wood observed that

the white American colonists were not an oppressed people; they had no crushing imperial chains to throw off. In fact, the colonists knew they were freer, more equal, more prosperous, and less burdened with cumbersome feudal and monarchical restraints than any other part of mankind in the eighteenth century.

What exactly were the colonists rebelling against, then? What was this world-historical commotion called “revolution” really about?

 

Conquering the Conquest, or, Enlightened Saxon-centrism

The unanswered questions about race and revolution can be concentrated into a single historical question: When did the Anglo-Saxon nation stop being conquered by the Normans? For the sake of empirical accuracy, let us refuse to indulge in vague abstractions or undemonstrated traditional assumptions of assimilation. If we demand a specific, empirical date or period that marks a distinct end to the Conquest, what can the study of history offer?

Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, a descendant of an old aristocratic family from Normandy, wrote in his famous treatise on American democracy, “[g]eneral ideas do not attest to the strength of human intelligence, but rather to its insufficiency.” The holy abstraction of “freedom” has effectually pulled wool over the eyes of those who have mindlessly submitted to the authority of the metaphysics of freedom. Freedom, in this way, seems to grant freedom from rational reflection upon the authority of “freedom.” Instead of being misled by fuzzy, mystical, metaphysical abstractions such as “freedom”, let us ask, specifically and empirically, freedom from what? In its distinctive historical context, what exactly was it about the British political order that radicals such as Thomas Paine sought freedom from?

The very title of Paine’s book, The Rights of Man, might suggest a tendency to abstract or grossly generalize his particular anathema to “hereditary government” in England and France in universal terms. Yet this appearance does not fully stand up to scrutiny. In the case of England, he inquired specifically and empirically into the identity of its hereditary government and followed its very own hereditary logic back to its hereditary origins to discover:

that origin is the Norman Conquest. They are evidently of the vassalage class of manners, and emphatically mark the prostrate distance that exists in no other condition of men than between the conqueror and the conquered.

This means that the “prostrate distance” between the conqueror “class” and the conquered “class” was also a hereditary distance. This kinship discontinuity between rulers and ruled suggests possible grounds for ethnic hostility between the descendants of the aristocracy and the majority population.

In The English and the Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation, and Identity, historian Hugh Thomas documented the ethnic hostility that existed between the native English and Normans following the Conquest. Justifying a common tendency to conflate ‘Anglo-Saxon’ with ‘English’, he maintained that English identity ultimately triumphed over both Norman identity and ethnic hostility. His thesis implies a kind of democratic cultural revolution and a belief in Anglo-Saxon conquest through cultural identity imperialism. If Thomas was right, then we should really date the first “modern” step towards democratic cultural revolution around the beginning of the thirteenth century. But was the Conquest really conquered so easily?

If the Norman Conquest, Norman identity, and ethnic hostility were conquered so easily, then how does Hugh Thomas explain these words of Thomas Paine in The Rights of Man?

The hatred which the Norman invasion and tyranny begat, must have been deeply rooted in the nation, to have outlived the contrivance to obliterate it. Though not a courtier will talk of the curfew-bell, not a village in England has forgotten it.

This is a direct refutation of the Hugh Thomas’s thesis, in The English and the Normans, that ethnic hostility ended by the beginning of the thirteenth century. Paine provided a powerful refutation, not simply as an observer, but as a highly influential embodiment of ethnic hostility against the Norman conquerors and their legacy. So who is right, Hugh Thomas or Thomas Paine?

The historian noted, “[l]ong-standing ethnic hostility would have completely altered the course of English political, social, and cultural history.” This unverified assertion that ethnic hostility did not continue significantly past the period covered by his study (1066-c.1220) was also contradicted by Michael Wood’s recollection of his childhood encounter with Montgomery in the 1960s:

Monty, of course, still bore his name and still carried his flag. And that explained his take on the Conquest. For though he was as English as I was, he saw himself as a Norman—and that’s what counts when it comes to matters of identity… as far as I was concerned, Monty would always be a Norman.

Still, in the twentieth century, the old ethnic identities mattered.

Did “Englishness” mean more than a quirk of geography, and more than “class”, to a hereditary Norman dominion eventually engulfed Ireland and Scotland as well? The label of Englishness certainly triumphed and the very core of the English language re-emerged. Yet England ultimately became something different, neither Norman nor English, but neither and both. Even if we ignore actual hereditary descent, the famous, and distinctively English “class system” dates from the Conquest and can itself be considered a long-term cultural triumph of Norman identity.

Genealogist L. G. Pine attested to the fact that the prestige of a Norman pedigree, associated with the identity of the “best people” or upper class, triumphed to the extent that many ambitious native English wanted to be Normans throughout post-Conquest English history. Ultimately, it was not so much that Normans became English so much that the English became British. The permanent occupation of the conqueror “class” formed the hereditary basis of the “British” Empire. While Thomas is fundamentally wrong, it is fortunate that he has clarified the issue by rightly raising the point that the reality of early post-Conquest ethnic hostility should wake people out of the complacent assumption that Normans and English should ultimately merge into one people.

Cultural assimilation is one thing; genetic assimilation, however, is quite another. Here the deficiency of historical studies that fail to account for biological factors and a general evolutionary perspective becomes most apparent. While Thomas’s scholarship offers many contributions to the debate, especially his balanced judgment on many topics, conclusions about the ultimate effects of the Conquest will remain fundamentally unbalanced if genetic factors are left out of the final equations.

Thomas writes history as if Charles Darwin never lived. Even if the Normans had completely assimilated culturally yet maintained a hereditary monopoly of leading positions within the country, that cannot be called full assimilation. The notion of special political-hereditary rights and privileges passed on from generation to generation that the American revolutionaries fought against in theory are the exact opposite of genetic assimilation.

Thomas’s thesis makes sense only if it can be demonstrated that the Anglo-Saxons are an ethnicity indifferent as to whether their government is or is not representative of “the people.” Thomas’s thesis could be saved only if the evidence verified that Anglo-Saxons are an ethnicity with no sense of the value of liberty, their fawning natural servility allowing them to live together with their new Norman aristocracy happily ever after. In summary, the real question of assimilation is whether the Anglo-Saxons assimilated to the notion that the Normans had a right to conquer them.

As L. G. Pine wrote, “The historian whose unthinking conscience allows them to justify the Norman Conquest, could as easily justify the Nazi subjugation of Europe.” Thomas’s perilous, conciliatory suppression of any negative attitudes towards Normans that could be construed as ethnic hostility led him to acquiesce in a neutral or sometimes even positive attitude of appeasement towards those exemplary Normanitas virtues expressed in ruthless military domination, genocide, and the crushing of all native ethnic resistance (a.k.a. conquest; the antithesis of the rights of man; the negation of the every principle that the most egalitarian of the American founders sought to bring to light in opposition to the founding of the British Empire in 1066).

Michael Mann’s The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing proposed two versions of “We, the people.” He proposed that the liberal version, exemplified by American Constitutionalism, is characterized by individual rights, class, and special interest groups. In the organic version of democracy ethnicity rivals other forms of interest and identity and in some circumstances can express itself in ethnic cleansing. This is the “dark side of democracy.”

In Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union, Mann observed, “democratization struggles increasingly pitted a local ethnicity against a foreign imperial ruler.” The demos was confused with the ethnos. Was America any different? If the Normans conquerors achieved some degree of success in perpetuating their hereditary government over the centuries, and the original ethnic conflict that Thomas documented was not perpetuated with it, then how does one explain that? What would make the impetus of organic and liberal democracy so different from one another?

For the sake of argument, let us entertain this peculiar idea of hereditary separatism, just as John Locke does in his Second Treatise of Government (and try in earnest to assume this has nothing to do whatsoever with the Norman Conquest):

But supposing, which seldom happens, that the conquerors and conquered never incorporate into one people, under the same laws and freedom; let us see next what power a lawful conqueror has over the subdued: and that I say is purely despotical… the government of a conqueror, imposed by force on the subdued… has no obligation on them.

The Declaration of Independence proclaims, “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This assertion implies that the Norman Conquest was illegitimate. The Norman takeover was achieved despite the lack of consent of the governed. That government was instituted with strategic violence against any significant resistance from the governed. From the view of its author, Thomas Jefferson, the Norman Conquest was the institution of an unjust power against the rights of the people. It is thus not a coincidence that the hereditary “English” political tradition was founded in utter violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

In The Rights of Man, Paine explained, “by the Conquest all the rights of the people or the nation were absorbed into the hands of the Conqueror, who added the title of King to that of Conqueror.” Paine posited a remarkable ambiguity between the “rights of the people” and “the nation.” King was equated with Conqueror. In 1066 there existed a right of conquest, but no “rights of the people.” The modern invention of the latter justified, at long last, the reclamation of Anglo-Saxon “rights” from the “hands of the Conqueror.”

The Declaration of Independence further asserts, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” America provided an opportunity to do just that.

Taking full advantage of this opportunity meant that America would truly be different from the old world. As The Rights of Man explained, “In England, the person who exercises this prerogative [as king] is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country.” A lack of “natural” connection between the political elite and the people was significant for Paine. The contrast with America was clear: “The presidency of America… is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded; and in England, it is the only one to which he is admitted.” The new world would be different.

America, for Paine, was the place where foreigners were excluded from that high office. Democracy meant that “commoners” could finally be admitted. Revolution had turned the old order upside down: the rule of the people meant the triumph of Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism over the legacy of the Norman-centric aristocracy.

It is unfortunate for believers in the distinct superiority of the liberal form of democracy that the organic and liberal varieties are more equal than they think. Faith in the categorical distinction between the liberal and organic expressions of democracy is only a display of naiveté towards the cunning of ethnocentrism. Democratic Saxon-centrism has prevented an appreciation of the ethnic diversity at the very heart of the American founding.

Are the Anglo-Saxon ethnically superior to ethnocentrism and thus superior to all other peoples on Earth in this respect or has something been overlooked? Is it true that Anglo-Saxons are always superior and never inferior to the power and influence of the Norman Conquest or is it at least possible that this unspoken assumption might have something to do with Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism? It is as if a conquest of the Conquest has been attempted through an enlightened ethnic cleansing of the Norman impact on world history. The Norman conquerors of history, however, were not conquered so easily.

 

The Peculiar Revolution

For the title of original, permanent English colony in the New World, the Pilgrims of the Mayflower take second place. It was the English settlers of Jamestown, Virginia, who were the first permanent English colonists, thirteen years before the Mayflower. Jamestown was birthplace of the United States, and, it just so happens, the birthplace of American slavery of Africans. In 1619, a year before the landing of the Mayflower, the first black slaves were brought to Virginia.

America was born a land of slavery.

In the Old World, it had been “the Norman” who so often represented tyranny, aristocracy, and inequality. But surely things must have been different in America. In the land of freedom, democracy, and equality, perhaps only Southern slavery posed a truly fundamental challenge to these modern values.

The question nonetheless remains, who were these Southern slave masters?

It is as if recent historians have confidently assumed that, in all of human history, there could not be a case where the issue of race was more irrelevant. Never in human history was the issue of race more irrelevant than in regard to the racial identity of the American South’s essential “master race.” This is a truly fantastic contradiction: the South apparently fought a war in the name of the primacy of race, yet the distinctive racial identity of the South primary ruling race is apparently a matter of total indifference.

Virtually every other people in history, from the Italians, to the Chinese, to the Mayans, to the Albanians, possessed some form of ethnic identity. The French, the Germans, and the Russians did not and do not simply consider themselves to be merely “white.” The original English settlers of the North, moreover, are considered, not simply white, but Anglo-Saxon. Why, then, was the South’s “master race” nearly alone in its absence of a distinctive ethnic identity? Is this state of affairs only a consummation of the Northern victory?

Of course, that blacks possessed a distinctive African ancestry is admissible, but the ancestry of the South’s ruling race is apparently inadmissible. This must be a state of affairs almost more peculiar than slavery itself. Everyone else across the world is permitted a distinctive ethnic or racial identity except the great Southern slave masters. For some peculiar reason, the original Southern slave masters are not allowed to have a distinct ethnic or racial identity. This means that the only people in American history who apparently have no distinct ethnic or racial origins beyond being white are precisely the same people who thought other people could and should be enslaved on the basis of their ethnic or racial origins.

These aristocratic planters must have been the most raceless, bloodless, deracinated, rootless, cosmopolitan universalists ever known to history. We must conclude that of all white people, these aristocrats must have valued heredity or genealogy the very least. The Virginia planters were most peculiar, not for being owners of black slaves, but for being the least ethnically self-conscious white people in world history. Is this an accurate reflection of reality?

This is really one of the great, peculiar paradoxes of world history: the elite Southern planters, one of the most extreme, unapologetic, and explicitly racist groups in history, are precisely those who may have the most obscure racial identity in history. Their claim to fame has been tied to identifying blacks as a race of natural slaves and in identifying themselves as race of natural masters—a “master race” without a racial identity. Perhaps the time has come to recognize that they have also merited a claim to fame simply for the obscurity of their racial identity.

Who were they?

The Englishmen who first settled the North identified themselves as Anglo-Saxons. But what about the “First Families of Virginia”? Virginia’s Tidewater elite largely originated from the geographic entity of England. But did these racists consider themselves specifically Anglo-Saxon? This question must be posed as carefully as possible: did they or did they not specifically identify themselves as members of the Anglo-Saxon race?

Who were these American slave masters?

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the North possessed “the qualities and defects that characterize the middle class”, while the South “has the tastes, prejudices, weaknesses, and greatness of all aristocracies.” There could probably be no greater confirmation that South possessed a genuine aristocracy in the traditional sense. Yet this prescient antebellum observation begs the question: how did young America acquire an old aristocracy?

It is as if, in America, of all places, no explanation is required for this profound cultural difference between North and South. America was supposedly a country defined by “the qualities and defects that characterize the middle class.” But the idea of a slave race assumes the existence of a master race, not a bourgeois or middle-class race. The Union was not threatened by the leadership of poor Southern whites; it was threatened by the leadership of a subgroup of whites with an aristocratic philosophy that mastered the entire cultural order of the South.

If the Civil War was fought against slavery, and to fight slavery was to fight the slave-masters, then the Civil War was fought against the slave-masters. Since the slaves were not guilty of enslaving themselves, the argument that the Civil War was about slavery is practically identical to the argument that the Civil War was about the slave-masters. No matter which way one looks at it, all roads of inquiry into slavery leads to an inquiry into these peculiar Southern slave-masters.

Who were they?

“These slaves”, said Abraham Lincoln, “constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war.” Did Lincoln state here that slavery was the cause of the war? No, Lincoln stated that slaves, as property, constituted an interest, and this interest was, somehow, the cause of war. The question then becomes, whose interest did these slaves serve?

To speak of aristocracy is to speak, by definition, of a minority of the population. The original aristocratic settlers of Virginia were called Cavaliers. “[T]he legend of the Virginia cavalier was no mere romantic myth”, concluded David Hackett Fischer in Albion’s Seed. “In all of its major parts, it rested upon a solid foundation of historical fact.”

But who were the Cavaliers?

One year before the outbreak of the American Civil War, in June of 1860, the Southern Literary Messenger declared:

the Southern people come of that race recognized as cavaliers… directly descended from the Norman barons of William the Conqueror, a race distinguished in its early history for its warlike and fearless character, a race in all times since renowned for its gallantry, chivalry, honor, gentleness and intellect.

Normans and Saxons: Southern Race Mythology and the Intellectual History of the American Civil War documented the thesis of Norman/Saxon conflict from a literary perspective. Its author, Ritchie Devon Watson, Jr., interpreted this thesis of Norman-Cavalier identity as “race mythology”, just as historian James McPherson has called this peculiar notion the “central myth of southern ethnic nationalism.” Yet how can this thesis be dismissed as myth without a thorough, scientific, genealogical investigation into the matter? Is it a myth, rather, that the Norman Conquest, the most pivotal event in English history, had no affect whatsoever on America? Is it true that representatives of virtually every ethnicity and race have come to America—with one peculiar Norman exception? Were the descendents of the Norman-Viking conquerors of England the only people in the world who were not enterprising or adventurous enough to try their fortunes in a new land?

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union,” Lincoln explained, “and is not either to save or destroy slavery.” Yet it has become commonplace to disagree with Lincoln and to propagate the myth that the Civil War was first and foremost about the slavery of black people. The repeated claim that the Civil War was about slavery can be deceptive because it serves as a means of avoiding focus upon the slave-masters, which further avoids facing the centrality of the identity of the Norman-Cavaliers. The American Civil War was fought primarily, not over black slavery, but over Norman mastery.

There is a sense, however, in which the Civil War was provoked by the slavery of a race of people. Norman-American George Fitzhugh, the South’s most extreme and comprehensive pro-slavery theorist, clarified the relationship between race, slavery, and the Civil War amidst that violent clash of two Americas:

It is a gross mistake to suppose that ‘abolition’ is the cause of dissolution between the north and south. The Cavaliers, Jacobites, and Huguenots of the south naturally hate, condemn, and despise the Puritans who settled the north. The former are master races, the latter a slave race, the descendants of the Saxon serfs.

This is a key piece of the racial puzzle of America. Fitzhugh implied that the North sided with a black slave race because the Anglo-Saxons themselves are a slave race. Fitzhugh depicted Anglo-Saxons as the niggers of post-Conquest England.

With these words, Fitzhugh verified that the Norman Conquest, in its origins, was a form of slavery of the Anglo-Saxon race. The foundational irreconcilability between North and South is incomprehensible without recognizing that North’s peculiar obsession with “freedom” evolved precisely from the fierce denial that they or their ancestors were, in fact, a Saxon “slave race” born to serve a Norman “master race.”

“True,” Horace Greeley admitted in an issue of his New York Daily Tribune in 1854, “we believe the tendency of the slaveholding system is to make those trained under and mentally conforming to it, overbearing, imperious, and regardless of the rights of others.” Would he have believed, too, that the tendency of the Saxon-holding system in England after 1066 was to make those trained under and mentally conforming to it, overbearing, imperious, and regardless of the rights of others? Could there be any connection between these two very peculiar tendencies?

Could revulsion against the very notion of a slavish Saxon-holding system be the root and source of the inordinately strong Anglo-Saxon tendency toward freedom? The key to understanding the modern fame of the Anglo-Saxons as a free race is to understand the medieval fame of the Anglo-Saxons as a conquered and enslaved race. The Norman-Cavaliers’ belief in the rectitude of slavery was a direct descendant of belief in the rectitude of the peculiar institution of the right of conquest.

Yet, as Fitzhugh made clear, he and other Cavaliers were not the only whites of the South, even if they were as decisive in forming the culture of South as the Anglo-Saxons were in forming the culture of the North. The Jacobites refer to the Scotch-Irish who became the majority of the Southern white population. A smaller population of French Huguenots followed the original Cavaliers and concentrated in South Carolina.

According to the late American political scientist Samuel Huntington, “American identity as a multiethnic society dates from, and in some measure, was a product of World War II.” Huntington believed that America has a Puritan essence. He implied that American identity is rooted in a single ethnic identity and that ethnic identity is Puritan and Anglo-Saxon. If this is true, then it goes without saying that ultimate patriarch among the “founding fathers”, George Washington, must have been a pureblooded Anglo-Saxon. Is this genealogically accurate?

According to one source, the very first Washington in England was originally named William fitzPatric (Norman French for son of Patric). He changed his name to William de Wessyngton when he adopted the name of the parish in which he lived circa 1180 A.D. Another source, the late English specialist in Norman genealogy L. G. Pine, related that George Washington and his family “has plenty of Norman ancestry.” He confirmed that this family was on record as owners of Washington Manor in Durhamshire in the twelfth century and of knightly rank. Since George Washington was the possessor of “a carefully traced decent from Edward I,” this implies that the first president of the United States was also a descendant of William the Conqueror. None other than the twenty-eighth president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, affirmed in his biography of Washington that his Cavalier ancestors “hated the Puritans” and that the first Washingtons in Virginia were born of a “stock whose loyalty was as old as the Conquest… They came of a Norman family.”

George Washington was a Norman-American and a classic representative of the aristocratic, slave-owning, Cavalier culture of Virginia. Unfortunately for Mr. Washington, Samuel Huntington has no room for the kind of diversity represented by America’s first president and his Puritan hating, Cavalier ancestors. Everyone must conform to the Anglo-Saxon, Puritan cultural model if they want to be counted as real Americans—even George Washington. Wasn’t that what the Civil War was about?

How is it even conceivable that Norman conquerors who developed into Southern slave masters could also have played a decisive role in the architecture of American liberty? Huntington, so keen to stress the English roots of American liberty, neglected to point out that Magna Carta was a product of Norman aristocratic civilization. It was the Normans who first invented the formal tradition of constitutional liberty that eventually conquered the world.

So while Washington was an heir to Norman aristocratic tradition, Magna Carta was a part of that tradition. Southern resistance to King George III in 1776 could trace its struggle for liberty to the resistance of Norman barons to King John in 1215 (and this also preserved their special privileges or “liberties” against the tide of assimilation with Anglo-Saxons). It was only in the seventeenth century that Anglo-Saxons exploited and selectively reinterpreted Magna Carta for their own purposes.

The ultimate foil of Hugh M. Thomas’s thesis that ethnic hostility between Normans and Anglo-Saxon went extinct by about 1220 is to be found in the endurance and persistence of Samuel Huntington’s question: Who are we? The “universalism” of the American founding actually emerged out of the attempt to preserve a rather peculiar form of multiculturalism that balanced the democracy-leaning North against an aristocracy-leaning, slaving owning South. The American Civil War resulted in the Northern conquest of the multicultural America that formed the character of the American founding. The Anglo-Saxon conquest of 1865 was the real founding of Samuel Huntington’s presumption of a single Puritan-based American culture.

What Hugh Thomas actually did was to dig up the root of the Anglo-Saxon cultural identity imperialism that late twentieth century multiculturalism began to expose. Thomas’s conclusion that the Anglo-Saxons culturally conquered the Normans in thirteenth century was made seemingly plausible only by nineteenth century conquests of the Normans. Thomas only uncovered the origin of this Anglo-Saxon way of cultural conquest through a struggle against the multicultural England of medieval times.

Multiculturalists who have promoted the contributions of women and minorities at the expense of the usual dead white males of history are following directly in the footsteps of Anglo-Saxon historians who downplayed the Norman impact on their history. The underdog biases of multiculturalism is not an aberration, but only a continuation of the majoritarian bias of democracy itself against a fair assessment of the contributions of Norman aristocracy to world history. William the Conqueror is the ultimate dead white European male in the history of the English-speaking world.

Hugh Thomas’s unspoken assumption is that Anglo-Saxons culturally conquered the Norman Conquest. They, the Anglo-Saxons, were ultimately history’s great conquerors. But is this true? Let this point resound around the entire world with utmost clarity: the issue here is who conquered whom? Did the Normans become victims of conquest by the Anglo-Saxons in modern times through characteristically modern methods?

Is it all possible that Anglo-Saxons might possibly be biased on the subject of the people who once defeated, conquered, and subjugated them? Most humans have submitted to the yoke of a “modern” Anglo-Saxon-leaning interpretation of long-term effects of the Norman Conquest. The repression of the impact of 1066 upon modern times has stifled a rational, evolutionary understanding of liberal democracy in the English-speaking world. The time has come for America and the rest of the English-speaking world to overcome this ancient bloodfeud and reclaim its Norman heritage, a heritage to goes to the very heart of the American founding.

In modern times, the Anglo-Saxon culturally conquered the Normans by Saxoning away their multicultural difference into presumptions of Anglo-Saxon “universalism.” To call America “Anglo-Saxon” is thus tantamount to ethnically cleansing George Washington of his Norman or Cavalier ancestral identity. Was George Washington the victim of a cultural form of ethnic cleansing by the Anglo-Saxon people?

[pages 654-675]

Liberalism, 16

Classical and modern

Enlightenment philosophers are given credit for shaping liberal ideas. Thomas Hobbes attempted to determine the purpose and the justification of governing authority in a post-civil war England. Employing the idea of a state of nature—a hypothetical war-like scenario prior to the State—he constructed the idea of a social contract which individuals enter into to guarantee their security and in so doing form the State, concluding that only an absolute sovereign would be fully able to sustain such a peace.

John Locke, while adopting Hobbes’s idea of a state of nature and social contract, nevertheless argued that when the monarch becomes a tyrant, that constituted a violation of the social contract, which bestows life, liberty, and property as a natural right. He concluded that the people have a right to overthrow a tyrant. By placing life, liberty and property as the supreme value of law and authority, Locke formulated the basis of liberalism based on social contract theory.

To these early enlightenment thinkers securing the most essential amenities of life—liberty and private property among them—required the formation of a “sovereign” authority with universal jurisdiction. In a natural state of affairs, liberals argued, humans were driven by the instincts of survival and self-preservation, and the only way to escape from such a dangerous existence was to form a common and supreme power capable of arbitrating between competing human desires. This power could be formed in the framework of a civil society that allows individuals to make a voluntary social contract with the sovereign authority, transferring their natural rights to that authority in return for the protection of life, liberty, and property.

These early liberals often disagreed about the most appropriate form of government, but they all shared the belief that liberty was natural and that its restriction needed strong justification. Liberals generally believed in limited government, although several liberal philosophers decried government outright, with Thomas Paine writing that “government even in its best state is a necessary evil”.

As part of the project to limit the powers of government, various liberal theorists such as James Madison and the Baron de Montesquieu conceived the notion of separation of powers, a system designed to equally distribute governmental authority among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Governments had to realize, liberals maintained, that poor and improper governance gave the people authority to overthrow the ruling order through any and all possible means, even through outright violence and revolution, if needed.

Contemporary liberals, heavily influenced by social liberalism, have continued to support limited constitutional government while also advocating for state services and provisions to ensure equal rights. Modern liberals claim that formal or official guarantees of individual rights are irrelevant when individuals lack the material means to benefit from those rights and call for a greater role for government in the administration of economic affairs.

Early liberals also laid the groundwork for the separation of church and state. As heirs of the Enlightenment, liberals believed that any given social and political order emanated from human interactions, not from divine will. Many liberals were openly hostile to religious belief itself, but most concentrated their opposition to the union of religious and political authority, arguing that faith could prosper on its own, without official sponsorship or administration by the state.

Beyond identifying a clear role for government in modern society, liberals also have obsessed over the meaning and nature of the most important principle in liberal philosophy: liberty. From the 17th century until the 19th century, liberals—from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill—conceptualized liberty as the absence of interference from government and from other individuals, claiming that all people should have the freedom to develop their own unique abilities and capacities without being sabotaged by others. Mill’s On Liberty (1859), one of the classic texts in liberal philosophy, proclaimed that “the only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way”. Support for laissez-faire capitalism is often associated with this principle, with Friedrich Hayek arguing in The Road to Serfdom (1944) that reliance on free markets would preclude totalitarian control by the state.

tom green

Beginning in the late 19th century, however, a new conception of liberty entered the liberal intellectual arena. This new kind of liberty became known as positive liberty to distinguish it from the prior negative version, and it was first developed by British philosopher Thomas Hill Green. Green rejected the idea that humans were driven solely by self-interest, emphasizing instead the complex circumstances that are involved in the evolution of our moral character. In a very profound step for the future of modern liberalism, he also tasked society and political institutions with the enhancement of individual freedom and identity and the development of moral character, will and reason and the state to create the conditions that allow for the above, giving the opportunity for genuine choice. Foreshadowing the new liberty as the freedom to act rather than to avoid suffering from the acts of others, Green wrote the following:

If it were ever reasonable to wish that the usage of words had been other than it has been… one might be inclined to wish that the term “freedom” had been confined to the… power to do what one wills.

Rather than previous liberal conceptions viewing society as populated by selfish individuals, Green viewed society as an organic whole in which all individuals have a duty to promote the common good. His ideas spread rapidly and were developed by other thinkers such as L.T. Hobhouse and John Hobson.

In a few years, this New Liberalism had become the essential social and political program of the Liberal Party in Britain, and it would encircle much of the world in the 20th century. In addition to examining negative and positive liberty, liberals have tried to understand the proper relationship between liberty and democracy. As they struggled to expand suffrage rights, liberals increasingly understood that people left out of the democratic decision-making process were liable to the tyranny of the majority, a concept explained in Mill’s On Liberty and in Democracy in America (1835) by Alexis de Tocqueville. As a response, liberals began demanding proper safeguards to thwart majorities in their attempts at suppressing the rights of minorities.

Besides liberty, liberals have developed several other principles important to the construction of their philosophical structure, such as equality, pluralism, and toleration. Highlighting the confusion over the first principle, Voltaire commented that “equality is at once the most natural and at times the most chimeral of things”. All forms of liberalism assume, in some basic sense, that individuals are equal.

In maintaining that people are naturally equal, liberals assume that they all possess the same right to liberty. In other words, no one is inherently entitled to enjoy the benefits of liberal society more than anyone else, and all people are equal subjects before the law.

Beyond this basic conception, liberal theorists diverge on their understanding of equality. American philosopher John Rawls emphasized the need to ensure not only equality under the law, but also the equal distribution of material resources that individuals required to develop their aspirations in life. Libertarian thinker Robert Nozick disagreed with Rawls, championing the former version of Lockean equality instead.

To contribute to the development of liberty, liberals also have promoted concepts like pluralism and toleration. By pluralism, liberals refer to the proliferation of opinions and beliefs that characterize a stable social order. Unlike many of their competitors and predecessors, liberals do not seek conformity and homogeneity in the way that people think; in fact, their efforts have been geared towards establishing a governing framework that harmonizes and minimizes conflicting views, but still allows those views to exist and flourish.

For liberal philosophy, pluralism leads easily to toleration. Since individuals will hold diverging viewpoints, liberals argue, they ought to uphold and respect the right of one another to disagree. From the liberal perspective, toleration was initially connected to religious toleration, with Spinoza condemning “the stupidity of religious persecution and ideological wars”. Toleration also played a central role in the ideas of Kant and John Stuart Mill. Both thinkers believed that society will contain different conceptions of a good ethical life and that people should be allowed to make their own choices without interference from the state or other individuals.

Liberalism, 8

Radicalism

The radical liberal movement began in the 1790s in England and concentrated on parliamentary and electoral reform, emphasizing natural rights and popular sovereignty. Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man (1791) was a response to Burke’s conservative essay Reflections on the Revolution in France.

paines-bookAn ensuing revolution controversy featured, among others, Mary Wollstonecraft, who followed with an early feminist tract, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Radicals encouraged mass support for democratic reform along with rejection of the monarchy, aristocracy, and all forms of privilege.

The Reform Act 1832 was put through with the support of public outcry, mass meetings of “political unions” and riots in some cities. This now enfranchised the middle classes, but failed to meet radical demands. Following the Reform Act the mainly aristocratic Whigs in the House of Commons were joined by a small number of parliamentary Radicals, as well as an increased number of middle class Whigs. By 1839 they were informally being called “the Liberal party.”

The Liberals produced one of the most influential British prime ministers, William Gladstone, who was also known as the Grand Old Man: the towering political figure of liberalism in the 19th century. Under Gladstone, the Liberals reformed education, disestablished the Church of Ireland, and introduced the secret ballot for local and parliamentary elections.

“This article was like a breath of fresh air”

An insightful article by William Rome on the Norway incident, “Knights Templar: Honesty and Hypocrisy,” was published today at Occidental Dissent:



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.

For over half a century the Evil Elites of the West have systematically brought tyranny to the people they rule over through non-white immigration, forced integration, forced busing, and Multicultural propaganda which has led to an endless maelstrom of rape, robbery, assault, and murder. To top it off these evil elites also institute Hate-Crimes legislation to silence those who speak out against their tyranny.

Are the Evil Elite and their children affected by any of this? Of course not! They’re protected and hidden away in gated communities and private schools. In other words for half a century the Evil Elites of the West have forced policies that they insulate themselves from.

The hands of this Evil Elite are dripping with the blood of their people from the assaults, rapes, and murders they have unleashed. The lives of countless families have been shattered because of the policies shoved down their people’s throats. Why should I shed one fucking tear when they finally get a taste of what they’ve unleashed? Sorry: my tears are reserved for the people whose lives have been shattered by the policies of the Evil Elite not the Evil Elite themselves. To paraphrase Marie Antoinette, “Let them eat lead.”

As Hunter has pointed out, Anders Behring Breivik didn’t simply pull off some Columbine-style massacre of teenagers for the hell of it (as much as many are making it out to be) but an attack on the next generation of traitors for Norway’s government. They weren’t attending a Salute Your Shorts Camp Anawanna but the training camp of 16-22 year olds for Norway’s ruling Multicult-loving Leftist party. In other worlds he hit them where it hurt most: the training ground for their hand-picked successors.

That is why I included the quote from Rikky-Tikky Tavi in the beginning [Chechar's note: omitted here]. Anders Behring Breivik (as all intelligent political thinkers once did) knew that eliminating the heirs was just as important as eliminating those currently in power. But many will say, “He killed kids! He’s an insane lunatic!” My question is: since when does killing kids for political reasons right away mean lunacy? Roman emperors and Norman dukes killed their rival’s families. The Bolsheviks shot the Romanov children along with the Tsar and Tsarina. We bombed Kaddafi’s children in Libya. Does this mean every Roman emperor, Norman duke, the Bolshevik shooter, and the American pilots that killed children in the name of politics were batshit crazy? And let’s not forget the murder of millions of children every year in the form of abortion which Leftist cheer as a “Human Right”. Is every white woman that gets an abortion a batshit crazy lunatic? Maybe to gain Leftist sympathy he should call himself an extremely late-term abortionist.

I’m not jumping up and down cheering what he did but let’s put the womanish sentimentalism aside. Is killing children for political reasons cold, cruel, and calculating? Absolutely. Does it mean mental illness? Absolutely not.

Even worse those knee-jerkingly calling Anders Behring Breivik a lunatic strengthen the old Marxist canard that all violence done against the Left is a sign of mental illness, while Leftist violence such as the crimes of Che and Mandela are acceptable if misguided acts of political dedication. Why is it that violent Leftists are never mentally unstable?

While I won’t be toasting his actions tonight I also won’t be shedding tears for the loss of the future traitors who would grow up to continue their parents destruction of Norway. The Evil Elite brought this backlash on themselves with the policies they forced. That’s my honestly.

Now for the hypocrisy.

The reaction by the non-mainstream Right to the events in Norway has been jaw-dropping. First off is the spectacle of those who worship Hitler denouncing Anders Behring Breivik for killing fellow whites. They scream, “How could a Nationalist kill his own people?” This from the people who worship a man who killed millions of white people (Eastern Europeans) because they were Slavs? Such hypocrisy is stunning.

The next hypocrisy is from those who are doing everything imaginable to distance themselves from Anders Behring Breivik, saying he’s not one of us. Such self-survival is understandable and justified (especially those in Europe). But this distancing is coming from the same people who are routinely denouncing mainstream conservatives for being too afraid to embrace and identify with the non-mainstream Right. They are doing the exact same thing they lambast mainstream conservatives for: being afraid to embrace their extremists like the Left does.

The third hypocrisy is from those who are saying Anders Behring Breivik should have attacked some Muslim rapists and he would have gained more sympathy. This from the same people who’ve said for years that we shouldn’t attack those the Evil Elite have invited in but the Evil Elite themselves. Anders Behring Breivik did just that and he’s being denounced by some for not doing they’ve always said not to do.

My fourth hypocrisy is one of cowardice. On this site and others there is continuous talk about the backlash and collapse of BRA [Black Run America] here in America and Eurabia in Europe. How did you think this would play out? Debates on German philosophers? Essays on political theory? As much we may like to see ourselves as contemporary Voltaires, Thomas Paines and Martin Luthers, our radical writings (like theirs) will have no teeth to them until they’re taken up with physical force. Am I calling for this physical force? Hell no! I know when it finally comes it will be violent and unpredictable. I’m not looking forward to the day it comes but I know it’s coming and I know it won’t take the form of democratic elections or academic debates. Anders Behring Breivik is just the start of the form the backlash and collapse is going to take. Muslims in Eurabia and blacks in BRA are assaulting, raping, and murdering us while they riot, bomb, and burn our cities to the ground: did you not expect a backlash just as violent?

No system falls except in blood. The Roman Republic, Vatican control over Western Europe, British control over the American Colonies and Ireland, and the French and Russian monarchies all collapsed in blood. BRA and Eurabia will be no different. So unless the armchair revolutionaries denouncing Anders Behring Breivik while publically wanting the same thing (Muslims out of Europe) are ready to accept this they need to stop reading Harold Covington, listening to IRA rebel songs, admiring the American Revolutionary Fathers, and saying we’ll never vote ourselves out of this mess because they’re no different from the hated mainstream conservatives who say this country needs a revolution while also saying we shouldn’t be too extreme.

Anders Behring Breivik walked the walk you only talk.

Selected comments from the thread


Wayne says:

Mr. Rome: I’m with you. No tears shed by me. Those were no “children”, they were young adults. It is all-tragic, but is clearly the fault of no one but the white-hating leftists who brought multi-culturalism. They deserve the blame as they were the root cause of this, as well as the rape of over 800 Norwegian women.

Denise: Did you see their pictures… no kids there. Young adults. Multi-culturalists have brought havoc on Europe and possibly America. Our children will have to fight for their lands and heritage. Thanks, multi-culturalists.

My question to all groups involved, regardless of the spectrum of rightist politics you fall into: Do you believe there is any way to regain our land, culture, heritage and protect our race without bloodshed? I sure hope so, but honestly don’t see it. It’s not our fault, it’s the multi-cultists.


Ed the Department Head says:

I agree completely with Rome’s analysis of this situation. While I don’t like any of Breivik’s neocon stances, Rome is right about this situation. Breivik is the new Pied Piper. The leftist Norwegians hate and vilify the poor Germans over the war and try to psychologically destroy them for being German. The leftist Norwegians sentence their fellow Norwegians to rape, torture, and murder by invading mud people the leftists let through the gates, all for the crime of being white.

Breivik only showed them that if Germanic people and white people are to be brutalized they should be consistent. They take innocent white people’s children and now he has taken their evil guilty leftist brats. It is well deserved!


Discard says:

Unless someone has advocated killing adolescents, they are not a hypocrite to think Breivik a madman. Bombing governments is revolutionary activity. Slaughtering your enemies’ children is simply savage.

As a civilized White man and a racist, I don’t model myself on Roman emperors, Norman dukes, or Trotsky’s death squads. By the way, since Richard III murdered the sons of Edward V, no English prince has been named “Richard”. That kind of thing hasn’t gone over well, historically. Denise is right, nobody will see anything but a pile of nice looking dead White kids. I recognize that you can’t send the tyrannical class to the gallows and let their offspring go walking down the street, but that’s what re-education camps are for, once you’ve won your revolution.

But you won’t win any revolution by shooting up youth camps, even commie youth camps. What did the PLO’s repeated bombings and shoot-ups of school buses and airliners get them but the contempt of every non-Nazi White in the world? 9-11 sure persuaded a lot of people to look into the Sand People’s grievances, didn’t it?

That said, this event is just one more in the war that the multi-cult has brought on us. This will spin out of anyone’s control. These dumbass kids will not be the last victims.


Wandrin says:

“Denise is right, nobody will see anything but a pile of nice looking dead White kids.” – Discard

I think Norway’s ruling elite will be traumatized.


Ed the Department Head says:

Wandrin said “I think Norway’s ruling elite will be traumatized.” I think you are right and I wonder if in their (deserved) grief and panic they won’t do something evil and stupid and oppressive that will, in the short term, harm the White Norwegian people, but in the long term might so injure and alienate the general population that this could eventually lead to civil conflict.

I hope so. I hope they decide after this to try to destroy the Norwegians with much more overt oppression and greater mud immigration and the people either succumb or fight back. (Obviously I want the latter.)


Wandrin says:

“I just wish that their pain had another source” – Discard

I don’t really know what I think. My gut feeling is this will have an impact in Norway itself and one that is less predictable than most people seem to believe but at the same time my kids are that age so trying to think about this event is like sandpaper in the brain.


Yggdrasil says:

Is this the very first time that a gathering of leftists in a Western Nation, post 1960, has been made to pay the ultimate price for their anti-democratic multicultural impositions? If so, then I suspect that the pictures of dead young adults will have a rather powerful deterrent effect on parents who might otherwise encourage their kids to be leftists.

It is hard to imagine a more powerful and socially compelling deterrent than to inject the sort of horrific risk that these pictures implant into the minds of multiculturally inclined parents.
Viewed without emotion, this incident implies a multi-layered level of calculation that I find quite remarkable – an example not to be emulated to be sure – but remarkable nonetheless.

Thus far, Islamic terrorism has been confined to sub-way commuters in Spain, Street car commuters in Britain, and primarily, office workers in Manhattan – all nobodies that the elites could, quite frankly, care less about losing. 
All that the Islamic terror attacks carried out on average working stiffs accomplished was to generate broad popular support for the war on terror and the vast increase in budgets for the security state. In short, their targeting was terrible as they never terrorized the elites responsible for their grievances. This attack was entirely different, as it appears designed to inject an element of extreme risk into volunteering to join the ranks of the multicultural political elite.

Further, the soft sort of totalitarianism of the Frankfurt School variety that is spreading throughout the West is carefully designed to avoid pushing its victims over the edged to the kind of violent reaction that occurred in Norway. Multiculturalism was supposed to be something you could impose on the proles without any cost!

This attack seems to be a rather remarkable demonstration that the velvet-glove totalitarianism that we all live under has failed in its primary mission to keep the elites safe from harm. What are they going to do? Have platoons of guards armed with automatic rifles patrolling the campus of Harvard to protect the future elites from the townies? Wouldn’t that be a bit obvious?

After Norway, hasn’t the task of obliterating the White race become a bit more “messy”?

The analogies of Hunter and others to the killings commanded by Bush and Western butchers are apt, but miss the point. This job had the kind of purposefulness that one would expect from a state planned attack, not an attack prompted by the rage of some lone nutter.

It hit the aspiring elites were it hurts, in their training camp for future leaders, and it hit the proud, self righteous multi-culti parents where it hurts as well. It revealed the soft underbelly of the multicultural regime for all to see.

On a personal level, I feel sad for the parents and relatives of these dead young adults. After all most were lured into a wildly risky scheme of Quisling oppression of their fellow countrymen thinking that the enterprise was riskless and profitable.

But putting on the cap of an intelligence analyst, I see a picture of profound significance and meaning, one sure to be a major turning point.


CBM says:

Yggdrasil, thank you for your posting. This is exactly what needs to be said rather than this mindless handwringing and conspiracy nonsense that has gone on in right wing circles since this happened. I am glad that there are people out there on the right that are actually thinking.


Kievsky says:

Old Atlantic, I agree we have a right of self defense. But if shoot people, will that be an effective defense? It shall remain to be seen if Breivik’s act reduces the mud-flood into Scandinavia. My criticism is that it is taking a gun to a MindWar.

What needs to be happening in Norway is that most Norwegians need to be fanatically opposed to open borders ideology, to scare the crap out of the leaders. The Europeans have to decide whether their native country is really their home or not, and if it is, to take to the streets like in Greece, or better, Egypt.

If ordinary natives have a blase or even positive attitude to the invasion of their own native home country, what can you do for them? Not much? I think a great slogan would be,
“The immigrants have a home somewhere else; but this is the only home you have. Are you ready for your grandchildren to be refugees from their ancestral land?”

I’m kind of surprised to see this article from William Rome. Aren’t you the one who has a kind of multicultural lifestyle?

Maybe it’s because he has the same kind of cognitive dissonance as Breivik did. I think it must be horrible to be a “Cultural Conservative” while partly or wholly denying the significance of race.

I’m glad it wasn’t a WN or Neo-Nazi though. The kosher conservatives are like the nerd boys who play by the rules and still get bullied and mistreated, and then go postal.

We WN’s are like the kids wearing hoodies smoking pot and cigs in the woods across the street from the school — we say “fuck your rules” right from the get go. And so we have less cognitive dissonance about the whole thing. We are able to keep our cool better.

The Systematic global displacement and genocide through mixing and attrition program against Whites is a MindWar, not a hot lead and cold steel war.

If you treat it like a hot lead and cold steel war, the neutral Whites who might have been on our side will end up shooting us on behalf of the Leftists. This is the mistake Germany made — they relied on too much hot lead and cold steel, and not enough on diplomatic savvy. The Jews ran circles around them diplomatically speaking — they had the US and the USSR sewn up, they encircled them, and the Germans thought they could just shoot their way to victory, all the while refusing to develop the atom bomb. Just like Knights in Shining Armor going against Mongols with compound bows on ponies. Beautiful defeat, rather than dirty victory.

The shooting spree is a sort of romantic expression of hopelessness — “we are defeated, so I will go down with guns blazing” statement.

The MindWar is where it’s at.
I wrote a post about how hate is like gasoline, and you can burn yourself, or you can fill a tank and start a useful engine with it. Breivik is an example of someone who burned himself (and others).
One of the kids at that youth camp may have been a future nationalist leader. Maybe one of the survivors is. Who knows how this will shake out. It could end up changing some minds in our direction. Violence is certainly part of the European soul.

And some things should be hated.


Old Atlantic says:

Kievsky, I agree with your strategy. This view, which I find much to agree with, could be stated as:

1. With the support of the people, the violence is not needed.

2. Without the support of the people, the violence is useless and even counter-productive.


Rollory says:

Thank you. This is an excellent piece. Says everything I would have.

Excellent, excellent piece.

“Your Anders hero just screwed White Nationalism forever.”
- Denise

This is a comment I posted at Mangan’s but I suspect isn’t going to be approved:

I was not specifically expecting an event like this but I don’t find it at all unbelievable or nonsensical. It fits into the overall pattern.

Tom Baugh’s black hats/white hats dichotomy comes into play here. This guy was a black hat. GoV and Auster and Mangan are white hats. It would be better if the white hats could win on their own civilized terms, but I see no reason to expect that to actually happen. The Left simply does not believe that consequences for their actions are possible, therefore they will continue to act in defiance of the facts that imply those consequences and civilized behavior predicated on those consequences; therefore those consequences will become more extreme. There will be more black hats, lots more. That is simply the nature of the situation we are in. Calling it ugly won’t make it go away.

“There is no substitute for victory.” – Douglas MacArthur


Jeffrey Heavin says:

The events in Oslo are part of a beginning. Revolutions are bloody, ugly events without glamour. The glamour comes only later when stories are told to grandchildren. Any real White Nationalist understands what Mr. Rome understands, and that is that “history rhymes” — there is precedent upon precedent of violent events that make a revolution. Lawyers and other such hustlers have not only failed us but have become impotent and quite ridiculous.

To expect such change as is needed to occur without violence is like expecting a pork chop without killing a pig.


Spooky says:

God forbid that we feel anything but horrendous guilt that a group of Marxists took it in the groin for the first time in 70 years. Yes, we’re only supposed jump for joy when our Apache helicopters strafe a few brown journalists in Iraq. Otherwise we’re “showing our negro.”


Wandrin says:

“How would you like it if an anti-racist leftist killed your kids because of what you believe?”
- Lew

See here: “Thus far, Americans have proven to be more tolerant of the ethnic vibrancy in their midst, despite the Sept. 11 attacks and 4,380 annual murders by immigrants.” They are doing it already. They’ve been doing it for decades.

I agree that going after their kids is too much but the political elite have been doing this for years to everyone who can’t afford to get away from diversity murder.

“Don’t have the stomach for this small event”
- WR

It’s not a small event. I have relatives who infiltrated terrorist organisations as part of the security services. None of the people in those organizations would have dreamt of going after the kids of their enemies. The mafia doesn’t do this. It’s a big fucking deal to specifically go after the kids of the political elite rather then the elite itself.

Given the specific nature of the crimes of the political elite and given that it is other people’s children who have been the majority of victims of forced integration, mass immigration and murder by diversity I can see the logic of what he did but morally it is a big fucking deal. Don’t pretend it’s not.


Spooky says:

Not that I’m jumping for joy, mind you. Nor am I weeping in my yard.


Denise says:

Oh…but….Muslims were not persecuting Jews when Israel was created…..it bagan after Jews started attacking Muslims….but who cares? As long as the Aryan Hero is killing lefties! Woo HOO!!!!! tha’t ALL that matters! Lefties! YEE HA!!!
NO dead Muzzies or anything. Labour’s still in power. Woo HOO! He killed Lefty Teens! WOW!!!! This is just like Poitiers! Just like the Seige of Malta! The 300! Woo HOO!


Spooky says:

Fair enough. 


But do you honestly still believe we will beat this thing with nothing but breeding and talk? You agree they have us totally surrounded electronically. So very few voices are actually going to get out, regardless of wealth or looks. In the meantime millions of voices are raised to the contrary, educated to the contrary, and prepared to act contrary to our message.


Kievsky says:

Your Anders hero just screwed White Nationalism forever.
- Denise

Denise, I don’t think that the people we are trying to reach have such weak stomachs as to forever swear off White nationalism just because a roiled up neocon whacked some of our common enemies.

He was not a WN! And maybe Labor will have second thoughts about being traitors.


Spooky says:

Thank you Kievsky. Revolution makes strange bedfellows. Doesn’t make sense to argue ideological purity.
I’m going to get a knock on the door for this shit. Just talking Janet! Just talking!


Brutus says:

“it’s ABOUT the FACT that your Anders hero just screwed White Nationalism forever. ”

Hardly.

Where have you been? It used to take a few months, but now it is only taking about two weeks for the public to forget.


Rob says:

“How would you like it if an anti-racist leftist killed your kids because of what you believe?”
- Lew

Well they are targeting our kids. Its called Demographic Warfare and Genocide by assimilation. Just because the anti-whites keep their hands clean, by using non-whites to do their dirty work, does not mean they are not every bit as guilty as Anders. The only difference between Anders and the anti-white left, is Anders did not delegate.

All Rapes in Oslo Committed by Immigrants, British National Party (here). So please explain who is responsible for bringing in these rapists and why they are not responsible for their crimes.

Is the only difference between them getting actual dirt on your hands?


Richard Harlos says:

This is a sober interpretation of the situation and an icon of sanity following two days of reactionary bias-confirmation by those who seemed to jump from fanatical opportunity of bias-confirmation to the next. This is only the second piece I’ve read on this site, being introduced to it only yesterday but I’m quite pleased with what I’m reading and I’ll surely return for more.

Thank you for having the courage not merely to look at the situation for what it is, but also for having the courage to state it so plainly.


sybille says:

This article was like a breath of fresh air indeed. I thought I was the only one who was not actually mourning the demise of some far-left youth and “youfs” (I believe many were non-white).

And if it keeps people from becoming white nationalists, Denise, what use would they have been anyway if they care more for the deaths of some leftwing youth than they care about the impending extinction of our entire culture and race due to those cultural-Marxist leftists and their parents?


AnalogMan says:

William,

Good article. Your shares have gone up. I understand what many others seem to have missed: that you have consistently argued against this kind of action.

There are only two ways that the present situation can be resolved. The peaceful solution means the death of the race. We may not win a racial war, but we can’t win any other way. History often turns on seemingly trivial events. I have no idea whether Breivik’s actions will be one of those events, nor whether they will lead to the extinction of WN, as Denise believes, or to escalating rounds of reaction and counter-reaction. But I agree that it was a logical development, and quite likely not the last.

This is not to be interpreted as endorsement of his actions. I’m not wise enough to judge them. There is no evidence that he did them to further our cause.

One point of fact seems to have been overlooked by some commenters agonising over the image of Nordic children being slaughtered. This was a political camp attended by the rising generation of the perpetrators of the multicult – and their clients. Many of them were immigrants from Africa and Asia. At least one of the survivors quoted in the press was a Member of Parliament. As you point out, it was a logical target.

On a lighter note, for any readers of golden age science fiction, here’s a parable from 1961 that illustrates the logic.


Norman Lowell says:

Very good article expounding the result of Breivik’s action. The Left, the Do-Gooders, the Traitors will tremble–as they should.

The follow up action to Breivik will all be positive for us: the RRRRR: Radical, Racialist Right, Revolutionary Reactionaires.
But his ideology and intentions were wrong–terribly misguided. He was a patsy, a tool in the hands of the Rodents: a Christian Zionist.

Can one get any lower than that? You couldn’t. But yes, Breivik has set in motion a ripple, a wave, a Tsunami of wrathful Whites–the Right ones.

This is just the beginning: just the start of the White Man’s Fury. And our Ideology, our Intentions will be diamond pure, diamond hard.

The Final Battle has started. No quarter given to Traitors–and none asked.
2012: Anno Zero!

Published in: on July 25, 2011 at 5:59 pm  Comments (9)