JFG – a stepping-stone

Recently I have been linking to some videos of Jean-Francois Gariépy. But tonight I corroborate what I have said before: that the guy is a perfect example of a decadent westerner.

In minute 46 of his most recent video he said, ‘We don’t know what the original Greeks were genetically’ referring to the Greeks that built the great ancient civilisation. This is one of the problems with those decadent westerners of today. Like JFG, they have a pretty good grasp of science but are pathetically ignorant about the arts and the humanities (the ancient Greeks came from Nordic whites).

To boot, about ten minutes later JFG said he would not condemn the behaviour of those white girls who appear in porn movies having sex with blacks. When a YouTube commenter asked why, JFG responded, ‘I am a moral nihilist’.

Just compare this decadent vlogger with what Pierce thought about that sort of behaviour, not only philosophically but also from a healthy, vindictive POV.

JFG is a mere stepping-stone across a dangerous river. Once you reach the other side of the psychological Rubicon, the land where Pierce tried to build something in America, the stones should be seen as an obsolete, transient past.

Chris White’s long text

In my recent entry on ‘The Last Jedi’ I recommended The Turner Diaries as one of the few books that the initiate should read. But William Pierce made a terrible mistake in a passage of his novel. He wrote that if a freedom fighter raped a female guerrilla comrade he would be shot on the spot.

Like me before reading Roger Devlin, Pierce was completely unaware of the feminine nature. I recently blamed my father on this site for having swallowed the rosary of slander with which my mother defamed me throughout my adolescence, but I was unaware that many women behave the same, even in the white nationalist movement.

As will be recalled, there’s a recent entry on this site under the title, ‘A terrible mistake’. That letter from Chris White, whom I met personally in London, is de-contextualized in that post. But now Chris provides the proper context in a long post, ‘A Terrible Mistake: A Conversation With Collette in Exegesis & Why We As White Nationalist Men Should Forsake our Friendship with our White Sisters’ (read it: here).

So even the ‘Jedi’ who takes refuge on the island to do the internal work that will allow him to fight ZOG must know that not everything in the few Jedi books, that are in the great tree of wisdom, is true. As in the movie Luke rebelled against the arrogance of the Jedi, we must rebel not only against the mistake that Pierce committed in his great novel: but against other mistakes that other great priests of the 14 words have committed.

In other words, it is not enough to treasure the best ‘Jedi’ books. We must discuss with them based on recent findings about the nature of women, including the nature of the crown of evolution physically, the English roses.

Published in: on October 15, 2018 at 11:59 am  Comments (45)  
Tags:

Joyce on Jewish psyops

Fans of this blog may be familiar with my favourite article that explains the Jewish problem, one published in 1999 by the late William Pierce, ‘Seeing the Forest’. But to refute intellectuals like Nathan Cofnas and others, who claim that the Jewish problem is a hallucination of white supremacists, it is necessary to continue to write erudite articles that ratify what Pierce said almost twenty years ago.

Andrew Joyce is a heavyweight on the Jewish question. He recently wrote ‘Modify the Standards of the In-group: On Jews and Mass Communications’: an article published in two parts (here and here) on The Occidental Observer. It is an impressive piece of work that every sceptic of the Jewish problem should read. One of the commenters said: ‘This is the most important article by Dr. Joyce that I have read. I had no clue about this vital information’.

There is no excuse for continuing to be blind about the Jewish problem. Once one understands the Psy-ops that Jews have been doing to whites for millennia, it is easier to appreciate the starting point of this blog: the Psy-op that represented Christianity in the fall of the Greco-Roman world.

Anti-Galilean quote

It doesn’t matter that Europeans somehow managed to live alongside the Jewish Book for some time. It doesn’t matter that they somewhat made it usable through the ages by ignoring almost everything it says and stands for.

Pierce knew exactly how destructive and insane Christianity is, but he figured it would be better not to go on a front-line attack against it because people like that Christian Identity guy already existed back then as well.

Christians, by large, cannot be woken up anymore. They cannot read their own book. They do not see the errors within it…

Axe of Perun

Published in: on August 29, 2018 at 12:34 pm  Comments Off on Anti-Galilean quote  

A response to Spahn Ranch

The following is not a formal post but rather a comment that I chose to put here rather than on this thread, where it belongs.

______ 卐 ______

 
Obviously, we see the world in a very different way.

The mere fact that Rome changed from Republic to Empire was a voluntary surrender to evil, as Brutus and his followers saw it. Julius Caesar should be one of the most reviled figures in Western history.

Believing the Jews was explicable among the envious non-whites around Rome. But for a white Roman to believe them, and allowing being baptized, was a sin as Julian the Apostate saw it.

Following Constantine and the next Christian emperors was voluntary surrender to evil, as philosophers like Libanius saw it.

Once Christianity was established, having burned the libraries of classical knowledge was voluntary surrender to evil. To have broken the statues that represented the divine beauty of the Aryan race was voluntary surrender to evil (for a list of these atrocities see: here).

To have destroyed the temples, including the most beautiful building of Alexandria and another one, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World leaving only these ruins in the respective two cases, was voluntary surrender to evil.

The fact that whites repudiated the healthy religion of the Hellenes and accepted the idea of eternal torture by fire, even for unbaptized infants, was such a massive and astronomical voluntary surrender to evil, that it is most likely that their little race will perish due to such a sin.

That the so-called secularized whites of today are incapable of healing psychically, and continue to believe the lies of the Jews and Christian ethics, is voluntary surrender to evil.

As Axe of Perun says, with the historical and exegetical tools at our disposal today there is no excuse. Nationalists could repudiate the perfidy of their own parents—their religion—; the ethics that accompany it, as well as its secular offshoot from the late 18th century. Not doing so is voluntary surrender to evil. And there are hundreds of white nationalists who think they’re good but deep down they’re bad. (That’s why the first pages of my Day of Wrath start with the example of Greggy’s ethics.)

If there is something that emerges from my Hojas Susurrantes and ¿Me Ayudarás? it’s to frame the discourse in ethical terms—if we are to save the West from the extermination in progress. But that can only be done with the complete collapse of the USA and through the acute suffering that, for decades, white sinners shall suffer: a dark night for the soul, a window of opportunity to amend one’s own ways.

As Pierce said about the common American, so surrendered to evil, ‘The only way to persuade the population of this country that they need to change their ways is to give them a good, hard boot in the ass—about 600 times. They need to be reprogrammed, and that takes order and discipline, not books or leaflets…’

Pierce’s stance on Christianity

Editor’s note: Will Williams responds to an article published on Counter-Currents:

 
1st comment:

Greg Johnson says: I was unaware the religion was one of the issues of contention in the fracturing of the National Alliance after Pierce’s death.

Will Williams replies: Greg, reading what Dr. Pierce, Founder of Cosmotheism, wrote to his members in 1982, shows that he had no intention of compromising with Xians. He wanted to disentangle our race from the clutches of this Abrahamic slave creed and strike out on a higher path.

Most Alliance members realized there was a spiritual aspect to the National Alliance, and that we took a decidedly dim view of Xianity. There were never any prayers at our meetings, or any other Xian trappings like that. To some of us the Alliance was our Church, grounded in reality and Nature, and race-centered.

Imagine how many Pierce loyalists who had dedicated their lives and fortunes to Alliance-building must have felt when Gliebe and Walker & Co. removed the entire following section from the second printing of the National Alliance Membership Handbook.

All else aside, that one ill-advised blunder could arguably be what did the Alliance in once and for all. Gliebe had gone big tent—for expediency and short term gains—and drove the Alliance into the ground from then on.

2.d. OPPOSED IDEOLOGIES (written in 1992)

2d.vii. Christianity

The National Alliance is not a religious organization, in the ordinary sense of the term. It does, however, have to concern itself with religious matters, because religions influence the behavior of people, society, and governments. The doctrines of various religious groups—Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, et al.—deal with the temporal as well as spiritual matters and therefore often conflict with National Alliance doctrine.

Christian doctrines are of much greater concern to the National Alliance than the doctrines of other large religious groups, because Christianity is the most influential religion in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the White world. Most members of the National Alliance come from families which are, or a generation ago were, at least nominally Christian, and very few come from families which practice or practiced, Islam, Buddhism, or other religions. Furthermore, the history of our race for the last thousand years has been inextricably bound up with Christianity. The National Alliance really cannot avoid taking positions regarding Christian beliefs and practices, despite the complications this causes our work.

The immediate and inevitable fact which forces us to come to grips with Christianity is that the mainstream Christian churches are all, without exception, preaching a doctrine of White racial extinction. They preach racial egalitarianism and racial mixing. They preach non-resistance to the takeover of our society by non-Whites. It was the Christian churches, more than any other institution, which paralyzed the will of White South Africans to survive. It is the Christian establishment in the United States which is preeminent in sapping the will of White Americans to resist being submerged in the non-White tide sweeping across the land. Most Christian authorities collaborate openly with the Jews, despite the contempt and abuse they receive in return, and the rest at least follow Jewish policies on the all-important matter of race. The occasional anomaly—a Catholic bishop in Poland speaking out angrily against Jewish arrogance, a few Protestant groups in the United States expressing sympathy for oppressed Palestinians—does not invalidate the rule.

We are obliged, therefore, to oppose the Christians churches and to speak out against their doctrines. But we do not, as some groups have done, accuse the Christian leaders of being false Christians. We do not say, “We are the real Christians, because we stand for the values which the mainstream churches stood for a century ago, before they were subverted.” We do not reach for our Bibles and point to verses which seem to be in accord with the policies of the National Alliance and contrary to the present policies of the Christian churches. A diligent Bible scholar can find in the Judeo-Christian scriptures support for—or ammunition against—virtually any policy whatsoever.

Beyond the immediate conflict between us and the Christian churches on racial matters there is a long-standing and quite fundamental ideological problem with Christianity. It is not an Aryan religion; like Judaism and Islam it is Semitic in origin, and all its centuries of partial adaptation to Aryan ways have not changed its basic flavor. It was carried by a Jew, Saul of Tarsus (later known as Paul), from the Levant to the Greco-Roman world. Its doctrines that the meek shall inherit the earth and that the last shall be the first found fertile soil among the populous slave class in Rome. Centuries later, as Rome was succumbing to an internal rot in which Christianity played no small part, legions of Roman conscripts imposed the imported religion on the Celtic and Germanic tribes to the north.

Eventually Christianity became a unifying factor for Europe, and in the name of Jesus Europeans resisted the onslaught of Islamic Moors and Turks and expelled the “Christ-killing” Jews from one country after another. But the religion retained its alien mind-set, no matter how much some aspects of it were Europeanized. Its otherworldliness is fundamentally out of tune with the Aryan quest for knowledge and for progress; its universalism conflicts directly with Aryan striving for beauty and strength; its delineation of the roles of man and god offends the Aryan sense of honor and self-sufficiency.

Finally Christianity, like the other Semitic religions, is irredeemably primitive. Its deity is thoroughly anthropomorphic, and its “miracles”—raising the dead, walking on water, curing the lame and the blind with a word and a touch—are the crassest superstition.

We may have fond memories of the time before the Second World War when pretty, little girls in white dresses attended all-White Sunday schools, and Christianity seemed a bulwark of family values and a foe to degeneracy and indiscipline. We may cherish the tales of medieval valor, when Christian knights fought for god and king—if we can overlook the Christian church’s bloodthirsty intolerance, which stifled science and philosophy for centuries and sent tens of thousands of Europeans to the stake for heresy.

We may even find Christian ethics congenial, if we follow the standard Christian practice of interpreting many of its precepts—such as the one about turning the other cheek—in such a way that they do not interfere with our task. But we should remember that nothing essential in Christian ethics is specifically Christian. Any successful society must have rules of social conduct. Lying and stealing were shunned in every Aryan society long before Christianity appeared. Our pagan ancestors did not need Christian missionaries to tell them how to behave or to explain honor and decency to them—quite the contrary!

Historians may argue the pros and cons of Christianity’s role in our race’s past: whether or not the unity it provided during a period of European consolidation outweighed the loss of good genes it caused in the Crusades and the bloody religious wars of the Middle Ages (and through the Church’s policy of priestly celibacy); whether the splendid Gothic cathedrals which rose in Europe during the four centuries and the magnificent religious music of the 18th century were essentially Christian or essentially Aryan in inspiration; whether Christianity’s stand against the evils of self-indulgence—against gluttony and drunkenness and greed—was worth its shackling of the human mind in superstition or not. One thing already is clear, however: Christianity is not a religion that we can wish on future generations of our race.

We need ethics; we need values and standards; we need a world view. And if one wants to call all of these things together a religion, then we need a religion. One might choose instead, however, to call them a philosophy of life. Whatever we call it, it must come from our own race soul; it must be an expression of the innate Aryan nature. And it must be conducive to our mission of racial progress. Christianity, as the word is commonly understood, meets neither of these criteria.

The fact is that, completely aside from the racial question, no person who wholeheartedly believes Christian doctrine can share our values and goals, because Christian doctrine holds that this world is of little importance, being only a proving ground for the spiritual world which one enters after death. Christian doctrine also holds that the condition of this world is not man’s responsibility, because an omnipotent and omniscient deity alone has that responsibility.

Although some Christians do believe Christian doctrine wholeheartedly, however, most do not. Most instinctively feel what we explicitly believe, even if they have repressed those feelings in an effort to be “good” Christians. Because of this many nominal Christians, even those affiliated with mainstream churches, can, under the right circumstances, be persuaded to work for the interests of their race. Other nominal Christians—especially those who stand apart from any of the mainstream churches—have interpreted Christian doctrine in such an idiosyncratic way that the contradictions between their beliefs and ours have been minimized.

For these reasons we want to avoid conflict with Christians to the extent that we can. We don’t want to give unnecessary offense, even when we speak out against the doctrines of these churches. We don’t want to ridicule their beliefs, which in some cases are sincerely held. Some of these people later will reject Christianity’s racial doctrines. Some will reject Christianity altogether. We want to help them in their quest for truth when we can, and we want to keep the door open to them.

Members who want to study the subject of Christianity and its relationship to our task in depth should read Which Way Western Man? by our late member William Simpson. The book’s initial chapters describe the spiritual odyssey of a man of exceptional spiritual sensitivity, who was far more intensely a Christian than nearly any Christian living today and who eventually understood the racially destructive nature of Christianity and rejected it.

A more concise study of the difference between the Christian world view and ours is given in Wulf Sörensen’s The Voice of Our Ancestors, which was reprinted in National Vanguard No.107.

 
2nd comment:

Back in the late 1980s, before we had the Internet, I was editor of the Racial Loyalty tabloid, the monthly newspaper for Ben Klassen’s Church or the Creator (COTC). I recently found RL #52, July ’89, and saw in it a letter to the editor I published from a National Alliance member which included the following quote from Dr. Pierce from his February ’89 National Alliance Members Bulletin:

The greatest obstacle to the survival of our race is Christianity. Even with all their malice and cunning, the Jews would pose no real threat to the race were it not for their Christian collaborators. In the U.S. just as in South Africa, the Jews may be pulling a lot of strings behind the scenes, but the troops in the war against the White Race are mainly White Christians filled with religious guilt and obsessed with the need to expiate that guilt by sacrificing their own race on the altar of ‘equality’…

Let us never forget… that Christianity itself is an alien, hostile, racially destructive creed of Jewish origin, and in the future most of those who have fallen under its spell will continue to be our enemies and the enemies of our race.

A couple of years after Dr. Pierce wrote those words to his Alliance members in the internal NA Members Bulletin, and I republished them for Creators in Racial Loyalty, he invited me to come work with him in WV as the Alliance’s first Membership Coordinator.

The COTC self-destructed around 1992 and many Creators, knowing Dr. Pierce’s world view, naturally gravitated to the National Alliance (especially after he purchased the COTC headquarters property from Mr. Klassen), so it doesn’t take a great leap of imagination for some of the more activist-minded former Alliance members to want to help rebuild a viable Creativity Alliance. Erich Gliebe’s “new & improved” National Alliance is unrecognizable to them compared to the Alliance they had been a part of under Dr. Pierce.
 

3rd comment:

That essay by Dr. Pierce was his editorial for the monthly internal National Alliance Members Bulletin 28 years ago. Dr. Pierce’s intellectual honesty should have been apparent to anyone reading this statement:

Any Alliance member who is also a member of a church or other Christian organization which supports racial mixing or Zionism should decide now where he stands, and he should then resign either from his church or from the Alliance.

I sure remember how that sentence grabbed me on first reading. I must have distributed hundreds of copies of that editorial to others who I thought those words by Dr. Pierce’s would resonate.

It was an effective Alliance recruiting tool, until, that is, The Alliance went “big tent” after Dr. Pierce’s death, and the policy procribing Xianity as an opposed ideology to that of the Alliance was reversed. It was all downhill for the NA from then on. What had set it apart from the other big tent organizations was jettisoned.

Published in: on May 25, 2018 at 9:45 pm  Comments (6)  

Pierce quote

“The race’s last chance to overcome its problems in this relatively painless manner died in January 1943, at Stalingrad.”

William Pierce

Published in: on May 15, 2018 at 12:01 am  Comments (9)  

The Story of Philosophy, 6

The Republic

The last words of Will Durant in the previous entry of this series: ‘Let us study The Republic’. But in this post I will not quote any passage from Durant’s book. I will give my opinion on this classic work that bequeathed us historical Greece.

In the first place, it must be recognised that the race of the ancient Greeks was of the Nordic type. In The Fair Race there are two articles on the subject, one written by a Spaniard and another by an American. Since then civilisation has metamorphosed so much, especially in axiology, technology and demography, that what Plato wrote could only be valid after the extermination of all non-whites, as William Pierce put it at the end of The Turner Diaries. Sorry, but the Greeks of the ancient world were physically beautiful, says the article of the mentioned Spaniard. Hence, in our technological times with a demographic explosion that, because of Christianity, reversed the beautiful values of the classical world, only in an ethnically cleansed Earth what the ancient Greek philosophers discussed could become germane again.

The tragedy of the Aryans reminds me of the meaning of the One Ring in the tetralogy of Wagner, a symbol that Tolkien would pick up in his novel. It has been Aryan greed what blinded them to the fact that using non-whites as capital was suicide in the long term. That is the moral that emerges from the stories about the white race of William Pierce and Arthur Kemp. But even from the 19th century some Americans felt the danger, as shown in the paintings of Thomas Cole. A world with the destroyed Ring means, in many aspects, a return to the small cities: the subject matter not only for Plato but for Aristotle. For the latter, a Greek city should not exceed ten thousand inhabitants…

That is precisely the moral of my books in Spanish: after so many hells in ‘the Black Iron Age’ as I said as a teenager, I propose a return to the Shire so to speak. For the same reason, if there is something that hurts me when I see the sites of white nationalists, it is that they are cut off from their European past. I have spoken on this site about music, but not much about painting. The following is the oil canvas by Claude Le Lorrain (1600-1682) that appears at the top of my Facebook page:

On my most recent trip to London I saw some splendid canvases of Le Lorrain’s paintings in the National Gallery. Outside of London and the madding crowd, some English aristocrats of past centuries took Le Lorrain as a paradigm to mould their extensive lands, and even some buildings in the countryside. Some of this can even be seen in the movies of this century. In this very beautiful film of 2005 for example, when Mr Darcy declares his love to Elizabeth, I could not contain my admiration for that place: it seems to be taken from a canvas by my favourite painter (watch the last ten seconds of this YouTube clip)! Who of the contemporary racists has such contact with their visual past?

A true racist should reject any image of pop culture sold to us by American Jewry. But going back to Plato. Let us suppose, just suppose, that the white race will emerge alive from the coming apocalypse and that, in an Earth already without Orcs and (((Sauron))), they would reconstruct white civilization. In an unpopulated land and with only a few small cities, like the one seen in the painting above, the question would arise as to what kind of government is desirable. In this world, the survivor could be asked about Plato’s magnum opus, something like a second chance or a fresh start for the West. So let’s expose our views about the philosopher.

The first thing I could say is that the distortion that is taught in the academy about the classical world is such that we would have to change the title of The Republic for the simple fact that it is an invented title. The original in Greek was Politeia, whose translation would be ‘regime or government of the polis’, that is to say how to govern a small city-state. The title The Republic falsifies the mind of Plato already from the cover of the book we see in bookstores, inducing the popular notion that the author was an utopian. He was nothing of the sort. Politeia was the recipe of Plato to remedy the bad governments he saw in ancient Greece. His starting point had been the examination of the Greek cities of his time, not of a hazy future but the four regimes of Greece: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny.

Imagine a world à la Lorrain in which only whites inherit the Earth. The bookstores, this time with imprimaturs that do not admit anything from Semitic pens, would show Plato’s main work with the original title… But that does not mean that we should consider the disciple of Socrates a provider of laws, a new Lycurgus. At this stage of the historical game it is obvious that Plato did not see, nor could he see, the iniquity of the world; of men, of the Jewry that would invent Christianity, and the catastrophic industrial revolution.

For example, Plato does not speak of the need to keep Nordic blood pure, at least not with the lucidity the Nazis had. The closed polis of the Spartans complied more with the laws of nature than the open polis of the Athenians (in this Durant was fatally wrong). But not even the Spartans knew Pierce’s formula: to maintain an Aryan culture one must maintain the Aryan ethnicity: and that can only be done by exterminating or expelling all non-Aryans.

Plato’s missteps go further. Above I complained that the typical racist of today has no internal contact with the world of the great masters of painting. Another common ailment in those who have abandoned Christianity is that they keep infectious waste that puts the Aryans at a clear disadvantage compared to the Jewish quarter. One of these residues is the belief in post-mortem life. He who believes this doctrine will not fight as much in this life as the Jews are currently fighting, insofar as they believe they will have a second chance (either in the afterlife or reincarnated).

Jews do not masturbate their minds with unearthly hopes: one of their enormous advantages before us. But to be fair to Christianity I must say that even before Christianity Plato already masturbated his mind, and the minds of his male pupils, with such fantasies: what I have called in this series the root of the baobab. In fact, Plato finishes his great work sermonizing us: if we stick to what he says and believe in the immortal soul, we will be happy:

Thus, Glaucon, the tale has been saved, and will be our salvation, if we believe that the soul is immortal, and hold fast to the heavenly way of Justice and Knowledge. So shall we pass undefiled over the river of Forgetfulness, and be dear to ourselves and to the Gods, and have a crown of reward and happiness both in this world and also in the millennial pilgrimage of the other.

As I observed in a previous entry, during the savage destruction of most of the books of the classical world by the Judeo-Christians, it survived a work that many consider a precursor of the Christian doctrine of the human soul. The Republic, to use the falsified title, is anachronistic in many other ways. In addition to his post-mortem masturbations, what is the point of praising Plato when he did not oppose the incipient miscegenation of Athens with the greatest possible vehemence?

Unlike every rabbi who practices intuitive eugenics, Plato did not even leave offspring. He was not a husband or father. In his case, no good genes passed to the next generation (where his sperm ended, I dare not speculate). Moreover, he believed that in his republic women could perform the same functions of the male, even the highest. Compare the feminism of this philosopher of 2,400 years ago with what the Orthodox Jews of New York teach today: they educate their women to behave like little red riding hoods!

Whoever complies with the laws of Nature survives and who violates them perishes. At present the Jews fulfil them and the Aryans violate them. The white race will not be saved unless it makes a destructive criticism of much of what passes for ‘wisdom of the West’, starting with the Greeks.

Pierce nails Mexico

Editor’s note: ‘These days the mestizos are feeling their oats and flexing their muscles more than in the past’ wrote William Pierce twenty years ago in ‘The Mexican Menace’, Free Speech magazine, May 1998, Volume IV Number 5. Nowadays they are far more emboldened, as can be seen in the political programs of the Mexican TV. Below, some excerpts from Pierce article:
 

The population of Mexico today is about 30 per cent more or less pure-blooded Indians; about 60 per cent mestizos, or European-Indian mongrels; and less than 10 per cent Whites, most of Spanish origin. Social caste in Mexico is based largely on the percentage of White—that is, Spanish—blood a person has, with Indians at the bottom of the social hierarchy, Whites at the top, and mestizos distributed in between roughly on the basis of their degree of Whiteness. At least, that’s the way it used to be. These days the mestizos are feeling their oats and flexing their muscles more than in the past.

The red-bearded Spanish conquistador, Hernán Cortes, taught the Indians of Mexico to respect the White man. With 500 Spanish soldiers and 16 horses he landed in 1519 at what later became Veracruz, burned his ships behind him to discourage desertions, and during the next two years conquered all of Mexico, which at that time had a population of more than two million Indians, and utterly destroyed the empire of the Aztecs, who were renowned as fierce and bloodthirsty warriors. All of that, however, was nearly 500 years ago, and things have gone downhill since.

In contrast to the English settlers to the north, who came seeking land and brought their own women with them from England, the Spanish came seeking gold and brought no women. Instead they mated with the Indian women—a practice encouraged by the priests accompanying them, who were eager to convert the Indians to Christianity. Thus began the growth of the mestizo element in Central America.

This process of racial mixture did not bring about the peaceful amalgamation of the races that the priests claimed it would. Instead, the history of Mexico has been a series of bloody revolutions and racial warfare, mostly of mestizos and Indians against Whites, but also of Indians against mestizos, as in the case of the recent civil war in Mexico’s southernmost province of Chiapas.

Since the Second World War there has been a very noticeable growth in Mexican nationalist sentiment among the mestizo element in the southwestern United States, and a similar sentiment is found throughout Mexico. It expresses itself in a smoldering hatred of gringos: a hatred which often bursts into open flame.

Published in: on April 9, 2018 at 11:59 pm  Comments (4)  

Old Time white nationalism

In his most recent article what Hunter Wallace doesn’t mention is that the most conspicuous difference between the American racists of yesteryear and the Alt-Right of today is that the latter relapsed into Christian ethics, and by that I even include the secularists like Spencer, Johnson and MacDonald.

That’s why I dislike the term ‘cultural Marxism’ which inherently blames the Jews for the mess. I prefer the term ‘cultural Christianity’. (Ironically, in his discussion with a Negro anchor to describe himself, this term was used by Spencer on mainstream TV.) The big difference between Pierce and the Alt-Right is that the latter still has to revalue its ‘cultural Christian’ values back to Aryan values, beautifully illustrated by Yockey.

On lesser subjects, Wallace wrote: ‘Academics can’t figure out what the Alt-Right is because it is a post-literate discourse that is communicated th[r]ough tweets, images and memes’. I agree but then Wallace adds: ‘The psychopathic hatred of women was also relatively absent from WN 1.0 which generally complained about the lack of women in the movement. The idea that White Nationalists would be talking about creating rape squads would have been considered scandalous a decade ago’.

Wallace misses the point. When Pierce was young, women weren’t as nasty as they are today. I wonder if Wallace and the commenters on his webzine have read my summary of MGTOW, a movement I don’t endorse but which has nailed the women question.