Dr. Kevin MacDonald wrote this month within an article on The Occidental Observer:
The Jewish commitments and motivations of the main players were never a subject of discussion, and the movements themselves were presented as scientifically sound and morally superior to the traditional culture of the West.
On April 14, 2015 Jack Frost commented:
Deceptively phrased. Jews never oppose the “traditional culture” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) of the West directly by presenting an alternative that they claim is morally superior. Rather, they work within the traditional framework of moral values established by Christianity, the ultimate source of Western morality. Moral authority comes from the Bible, churches, and Jesus, not Freud or Karl Marx. Anti-racism and philo-Semitism are things already present within Christianity, and all the Jew does is draw them out. Any positive moral value ascribed to these things is only possible because Christianity already endorses them. The stress laid on universal brotherhood in the Bible is the source of communism’s attraction; and Freud’s message would have fallen on deaf ears in a non-Christian culture.
Frost’s comment was a mere comment within a threaded discussion. Perhaps if he was writing a more formal article he would have included other examples.
One example that comes to mind now that I’ve just added Hitler’s talk on how to deal with the conquered inhabitants of the Soviet Union, is the widespread dismay by virtually all white nationalists regarding such plans.
For genuine apostates of Christianity it goes without saying that a people that have surrendered their institutions to the Jews, as happened in the SU, deserve to be conquered by a healthier race. Presently that the US allowed the same, if a Reich was in charge of Europe and Russia the natural thing for a healthy white would be cheer about the conquest of America by these hypothetic Germans.
Let me convey my point in another way. Back in 2011 a well-known, neonazi commenter said that I was a “profoundly confused man” because I rejected abortion while, in cases of serious genetic flaws (e.g., Down syndrome), I accepted the Third Reich policy on euthanasia. Like those white nationalists who are extremely dismayed when reading the table talks and find passages like the one I quoted today about Hitler’s plans on Russia, nationalists are dismayed too when someone really breaks away from Christian axiology.
For a Greek or a Roman of ancient times it would have been unthinkable to raise a genetically-flawed baby. This is certainly a Christian value. If Hitler had won the war and in his empire from the Atlantic to the Urals the Germans behaved like the Spartans with their defective offspring, and the Russians became relegated to second-class citizens, a true Nietzschean would not shed a tear. The fact that even the editor of Ostara Publications has found necessary to add a disclaimer in the best edition of Hitler’s Table Talk that I know, claiming that the German leaders had to revise their opinions toward Russians, proves how Christian axiology has so shaped white culture that no one has been able to stand outside of it, not even racialists.
Exactly the same can be said of those who are dismayed by The Turner Diaries, and I am talking even of those who somehow like Pierce. Neochristians, white nationalists included, are morally incapable of accepting the view expressed in that novel that the “millions of White people who died, and who have yet to die before we are finished” are not really “innocents” because they allowed themselves to be subjugated by Jews in the first place.
The huge difference between Hitler and Pierce on the one hand, and white nationalists on the other, is that the latter cannot break away from the grip of Christian axiology, atheists included.
28 replies on “Jack vs. Kevin”
If it was unthinkable for ancient Romans to have genetically flawed babies, then why did the Roman Empire fall from all of its flaws?
Because of: this.
Roman Empire did not fail because of any racial reason or genetics. I learned from professors, that Roman civilization declined gradually due to a combination of factors. One theory that was given, is that Romans became very wealthy, but also decadent and lazy because of the wealth. Moral qualities of the Roman elite declined, infighting and government corruption weakened the ability of the Roman army to defend the Roman Empire’s borders. Another explanation was that as the Roman Army declined, the birthrate among Romans fell. Barbarian tribes such as a Goths, Vandals and Huns in the 4th century had a much higher birthrate. These barbarian tribes poured through the borders and corrupt Roman officials initially allowed them to pass through. But again … these largely Germanic barbarians did not cause the final collapse of Roman civilization. In fact, Goths and various other Germans tried to preserve the Roman culture and civilization later on. The final blow to Roman civilization was dealt by … Islam. Dr. Bill Warner proved to a number of white nationalists that Islam caused the final and complete downfall of Classical Roman Civilization. There was the Eastern Roman Empire, which under Justinian and Belisarius reclaimed Italy and Spain. Many Germanic Frankish and Gothic Kingdoms preserved much of Roman culture. It were the Muslims under Khalid Ibn Al Walid, Caliphs Omar and Osman and Muawiya which destroyed much of Roman civilization in Syria, Egypt and Cyrenaica. It was the Muslims who destroyed many of the most advanced Germanic barbarian tribes such as Goths, Vandals and partially Franks. Ever since 711-732, there was a constant threat of Islamic invasion of Italy and France. Muslims were able to defeat many Roman and Gothic armies primarily due to religious zealotry and huge numbers. Islam basically exploded violently in the 7th and 8th centuries and in a short period of time was able to cut, slaughter and conquer from Battle of Yarmouk in Syria against Romans in 636 to the conquest of Gothic Spain in 711.
Your teachers were PC historians. Read this.
The interesting thing about the White race at present is that it has embraced an inverted Jewish-Christian morality in which what’s good is evil and what’s evil is good. The survival of the White race is seen as evil and racist whereas the extinction of the White race is seen as good and moral and ‘the height of progress’. What sort of ‘morality’ is this?
It’s the same with Whites support for homosexual marriage. They dress up evil as ‘good, tolerant values’. Western civilization at present is fundamentally morally flawed. The most evil thing Whites are doing at the moment is exploiting millions of non-whites by allowing them into their countries in order to use them to replace themselves while Whites commit suicide.
I truly hope there will be enoug decent White Men left standing to one day slaughter White traitorous swine on mass. Most Whites deserve no better. The present immoral, irresponsible, decadent Western civilization needs to be swept away and a new Hitlerian civilization of iron built on its ruins!
But try to explain that to the BNP people we met last year outside London, which spoke in the streets about Christianity and democracy as great things. On both sides of the Atlantic racialists are and will be (until the crash) totally immersed in Christian meta-ethics. I am so tired to reply to angry Christians trying to troll some of the threads that I banned one of these trolls. Even Kevin MacDonald is blind about the damage that Christianity caused to the West. Only Hitler, Himmler, Bormann and other Nazis, and Wm. Pierce and Ben Klassen in the US, saw the light. WNsm is a lost cause because they simply cannot see that the megalodon of Christianity is larger than the white shark of Judaism.
Re “The huge difference between Hitler and Pierce, and white nationalists, is that virtually all of them cannot break away from the grip of Christian axiology, atheists included.”
Nor from their Amerikan identity, Pierce included (who, like most Murkan WNs, was simply a screeching patriotard beneath the racialist posturing). WN is fail because it has stemmed from the Murkan psyche. Nothing good and decent can stem from the Murkan psyche; it encompasses an ontology that is wretched and rotten. Once this massive blind spot is not only spotted, but accepted, then a realistic Ethno Nationalism may get underway.
Pierce gave up Christian axiology for sure, but yes: in his novel he put Americans as leading the West’s holy racial war. What will happen in real history I dunno…
Dr. Pierce lived in America and due to the physical limitations imposed upon dissident print media at the time, he wrote for Americans as well. Why this makes him a “patriotard” is beyond me. Maybe he wasn’t a Canadian with an inferiority complex directed at his southern racial neighbors?
“I learned from professors…”
Somebody find me a brick wall so I can bang my head against it.
Is not morality passed down in the genes?
a : The Romans did not produce genetically flawed children
b : Rome fell due to immorality
Then morality is not genetically passed down. If so, Rome would have not fallen due to immorality and decadence.
In which case, what makes the ancient Romans genetically superior to anyone else? If it was only their physical traits that was superior [ “unflawed” ] that doesn’t seem to be much good in the long run. In the final analysis of Rome, the “genetically unflawed” Romans did the same exact things the useless Christians in America are doing today in the USA — opening up the USA to the whole world. So maybe it’s not Christianity that is the problem after all, but something else — maybe it’s just in the genes after all — however flawed or unflawed the genes may be.
I don’t mean to be a pain in the neck. I’m just trying to think logically, using logic based on the premises.
You didn’t read Evropa Soberana’s article on the Romans. Did you? Or Pierce’s take on why the Romans fell. Or Kemp’s text linked in this thread. We have not said that Christianity is the culprit. The mess started way before, in times of the traitor of the Old Republic: Julius Caesar (a shame that I have his name).
This comment by Jack Frost isn’t very insightful because he pretty much takes the same approach the “New Atheists” do when discussing the merits of religion. For example, Christopher Hitchens simply defines “religion” as something bad, so even though Stalin was an atheist, he wanted to be worshiped, and that makes his bloody reign “religious.” Or if someone does good because of religion, then we shouldn’t credit religion, because people can do the good without religion. So it’s argument by definition. Even though Sweden and most of Europe are less Christian now than ever before, just blame Christianity because if something is happening to the white race that is bad it is because of Christianity. Likewise, even though it’s true that Europeans, when they were devout Christians, fought the Muslims and expelled Jews, that really has nothing to do with Christianity. This isn’t an effective way to understand an issue, or even a good way to understand history; it’s a way to impose logical categories on history that simply satisfy an ideological predilection.
When Dr. MacDonald states that Jews attempt to subvert Western values he doesn’t just mean Christian values, though Christianity has certainly upheld those values, but also things like the virtues of monogamy, the patriarchal family, according a certain dignity to woman etc. Is the rise of a porn-culture and twerking implicit in the Christianity? Is gay marriage? Is feminism? Is the degradation of art? Definitely something more is happening that cannot be explained by the West’s historical commitment to Christianity, and failing to see this is a huge blind spot.
We don’t only blame Christianity. Open the PDF of The Fair Race at the sidebar’s top and look for “witches’ brew”.
The comments by Mr. Frost referenced Christianity as the source of the White man’s woes, and that simply isn’t historically defensible. I’ve read the section about the “witches brew,” and am not convinced. When you start throwing in so many different ingredients — humanism, individualism, capitalism, materialism, — I start to get suspicious. While all these “isms” are playing a role in destroying the West, I can’t see them all as fundamental; I imagine some, if not all, are just symptoms of a deeper problem.
Which deeper problem? If that’s your working hypothesis you have to state clearly which problem we are talking about.
The condition I’m talking about is the general malaise of the West. Do you really think that the whole “witches’ brew” of isms — capitalism, individualism, egalitarianism, materialism — consists of distinct hermetically-sealed phenomena, each different from the other? I doubt it. We can toss in all sorts of isms — feminism, Cultural Marxism, transgenerism, multiculturalism, and on and on. These are not separate phenomena, windowless ideological monads, each moving independently of the other and yet, at the same time, deconstructing the civilization of the West. They are all derivative of a deeper, and more singular, problem.
This is sort of strawman because I’ve never mentioned “
egalitarianism” [see below] and “all sorts of isms—feminism, Cultural Marxism, transgenerism, multiculturalism” in the brew’s ingredients.
Yeah, you did.
“Individualism, universalism, weak ethnocentrism (“hardwired” characteristics in the White psyche since prehistoric times) + egalitarianism, liberalism, capitalism (cultural “software” after the Revolution which ironically strengthened Christian axiology) + the Jewish culture of critique in the 20th century = a truly lethal brew for the White peoples.”
You are still mistaken: I never mentioned “feminism, Cultural Marxism, transgenerism, multiculturalism” in the brew’s formula. (Only the egalitarian ingredient is mentioned—my mistake.)
I was not claiming that you included those other isms — Cultural Marxism, feminism, etc. — but only that we can go on citing isms ad infinitum and it’s not going to help us understand the problem any better. Those against the current liberal order — whether they’re generic conservatives, White Nationalists or whatever — always have a giant grab bag of isms to choose from. But have you noticed that all these ism can almost be used interchangeably? That’s because they are, in a way, saying the same thing; or they are all reflective of a more singular cause.
Even your analogy of the “witches’ brew” betrays its inadequacy. If the problem is a “witches’ brew” then the problem isn’t all the ingredients the witch puts in the brew; the problem is the witch that concocts the brew. So who — or what — is the witch the stirs the brew? So now we’re back to monocausalism.
Witches is plural, not singular.
Capitalism, Christianity and individualist traits (in MacDonald’s sense, the latter is even genetic) are huge ingredients. No single “witch” is capable to concoct such potion.
Who are you by the way? Have you posted here or elsewhere with another penname?
“Capitalism” and “Christianity” are terms that are simply too broad in scope to have any significance in helping to understand the decline of the West. Joe Sobran’s analogy of the Hive seems more apt because although you have people who embrace very different ideas — the various isms we can cite — they all seem to work toward the same goal, and in harmony.
To answer your question, though, no, I’ve not posted here before or under any other name. I have been following the White Nationalist movement for some time, and probably know more about its recent history than most. I first stumbled onto William Pierce as a college Freshman — this was about a year before he died — and though I didn’t take to his message, I thought his broadcasts were too intelligent and interesting to ignore. At the time I was still a die-hard American patriot, so his support of Nazi Germany rubbed me the wrong way, but he did captivate me enough for me to listen to every broadcast he did, read both his books, and I even began posting some of his flyers across the university campus. (They were promptly torn down.) National Alliance also started a news broadcast with Victor [I don’t remember his last name] and I began corresponding with him and helped him write some of the commentary. After William Pierce died I lost interest in the Alliance. Billy Roper wasn’t an effective replacement or leader, and though I did listen to Kevin Strom’s broadcasts, they are were noticeably inferior to Pierce’s.
Linder’s VNN was picking up steam at this time, and I wrote an article or two for his website, but it quickly went downhill after he lost funding from his rich mega-donor, and he and Bill White imploded over the shopwhite website. Initially, Bill White showed some promise, but he was infected with too much megalomania, made some bad decisions, started an outfit of worthless costume Nazis, and ended up in prison. (Yes, he was setup and railroaded just like Matt Hale.) That’s the problem in the United States. If you start an organization, and it begins to show signs of success, then you’re immediately infested with federal informants, and the government is going to try to set you up, even if the charges are bogus.
I’m sure I’ve read at least 90% of the literature the White Nationalist movement considers to be Holy Writ. I read Kemp’s History of the White Race when it was just a website you could read for free in simple html. format. Also Griffin’s bio on Pierce Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds; Ben Klassen’s books, Revilo Oliver’s etc.
I don’t think White Nationalism or any movement that seeks to protect the interests of Whites has a future in the United States. The legal and cultural environment is simply to hostile. That’s why I’m interested in trying to expand the ideas of White Nationalism outside of traditionally White nations — the United States and Europe — and into Latin America. Whites in Latin America may have a keener sense of racial reality, and may not be as dispossessed politically. But your comments seem to suggest otherwise, so maybe we’re doomed.
Just wait for the collapse of the dollar to regain hope. Last year in Scotland an Irish woman told me that Britons and Scots are not rebelling because they’re in “happy mode”. After the convergence of catastrophes this is what will happen:
· Happy mode
· Angry mode
· Combat mode (merely defending your house from feral niggers)
If the government goes full anti-white, like in Pierce’s 1st novel, then we will have our day:
· Killing mode,
just as the characters of The Turner Diaries.
I am certain of the first three; but my crystal ball cannot yet see the fourth. I keep crossing my fingers though. The whole process will last decades to unfold…
I did read a few articles about Argentina and most of the people — about 90% — identify as white, and the rest as either mestizo or some other race. So it seems Argentina does have at least a modicum of white consciousness and, I believe, that even its immigration policy favors Italian and other European immigrants. I’ve not been there, so I don’t have any direct experience, but it seems the so-called Mediterranean peoples are not quite as beaten down as the Anglo-Nordic nations. Also, a recent news article stated that northern Italians are refusing to accept any more migrants. I doubt you would ever hear this from a Swede or Anglo.
I am always curious why so many White Nationalists think that the only thing that will save us is an economic catastrophe. If Whites cannot be racially conscious in good times, then how are they going to be racially conscious in bad times? There is no reason the government would become more anti-White, and I’m sure that our government has so many contingency plans in place that it will be able to maintain some kind of control even while America’s economic ship sinks. The wealthy in America are already insulating themselves from the rest of us, and if millions of Whites suddenly fall on hard times, then they are going to look to the wealthy, to the plutocrats who run the country, for a way out, and not to someone who’s rallying for White power.
Only a catastrophe can save us because whites have become degenerates (even WNsts I would say) as depicted in Pierce’s 2nd novel.
Regarding Argentines, their claim that 90% are whites is well-known, and is bunk. In the latest Football Cup most of the Argentina team members were mestizoids, as well as the fans at the stadiums from that country. Latin America is a complete goner, far far more than the US and Canada. Why they claim to be white you may ask. Read the section about the “Ibero and the mestizo” in my book Extermination.
I don’t doubt that the 90% figure is too high, but let’s not throw our hands up in despair and write off Latin America completely. Even if Argentina is only 50% white, of even less, then that is still millions of whites worth saving.
I remember listening to William Pierce on the eve of America’s invasion of Afghanistan and he pointed out that White nationalists should be concerned because there are still pockets of White people (Aryans) living in Afghanistan. So if William Pierce is concerned about America’s bombers obliterating Whites in Afghanistan, then surely we can be concerned about Latin America.
The story of the West is a battle between those who love their fathers and those who hate their fathers, and the battle is being won, for now, by those who hate their fathers.
The West now is driven by hatred of the father, and thus, hatred of the family, hatred of men, feminism, hatred of discipline (of the father and from the father); hence the restless individualism, hatred of customs, traditions etc.
“I’m MY own man/woman/sodomite/pervert/miscgenator, and the rest of you must accept me without judgment! Or else!”
Hence the incessant cannibalism of all that is good and true.
It will take a seismic shift to fix this – either a massive tech advance (robots throwing millions out of work), or a massive economic collapse (that men and the father become needed again).