Recently I quoted Francis Parker Yockey: ‘The Jewish-American entity is Jewish as respects its head, American as respects its body… It will not surrender, since the very existence of Jewry is at stake, and the whole United States and its population is there to secure the existence of Jewry’.
My fundamental difference with white nationalism is the diagnosis of Aryan decline. White nationalists blame Jewry. Like Yockey, who was not a white nationalist, I say that it is the Americans who empower Jewry.
If white nationalists really wanted to get rid of the Jews, they would give up Jesus. Everything else is a non-starter. In other words, seek ye first the rejection of your enemy’s god and his ‘righteousness’, and the white ethno-state shall be added unto you.
But American white nationalists are extremely confused. As an example, see what Christian RamzPaul said today.
23 replies on “Confused nationalists”
I didn’t go to Ramzpaul’s video but right off the bat I say we can have the best of both worlds by saying we are cultural Christians only. That way you show an identification with your own people while ignoring the nonsense in the religious dogma.
‘Cultural Christians’ is what I call neo-Christians: people that often turn as toxic as common Xtians.
(In reply to Samia)Does that mean you’ll only bow down on one knee to the jews?
No. It means I still have to live within a family that wishes to observe some Christian holidays and I don’t have to behave like a total assh*le toward them at these times. I am happy to go along with these things. I like the Christmas tree and the presents and even Easter. I don’t scream and have fits because we exchange presents and sometimes receive a Christmas card with a nativity scene. I hang such cards up with the rest of them that say “Happy Holidays!”
Inside, I reject the Christian propaganda, but there are a few situations where I can politely behave like a Christian in others’ presence. Capisce? And why would anyone here care if I do this? Is it all so black and white, so all or nothing, to you? Am I as bad as neocons or antifa because of my occasional concession to family life and tradition?
Your usage of “cultural Christian” diminishes your credibility since the phrase is practically an oxymoron. The Church has always systematically opposed culture, with the exception of a few Popes and Jesuits. “Christian humanist” would be closer to what you’re trying to convey, but then the secular humanists long preceded the Christian variety (the Church Father Augustine admitted as much) so it’d better to say “humanistic Christians”.
I rather believe that Samia uses ‘cultural Christian’ as Richard Spencer used it describing himself when cornered by a TV interviewer some years ago. It’s a tricky term, as the black interviewer told Spencer when he used to be invited to MSM.
>Inside, I reject the Christian propaganda, but there are a few situations where I can politely behave like a Christian in others’ presence.
Is this to avoid offending people’s “honour” or to have it both ways? I suppose the former reason would justify it. If you were invited to a king’s banquet and asked to raise a toast and drink to his health, even if you personally abstain from wine, would you go along with the gesture to avoid making a scene among his guests?
>Is it all so black and white, so all or nothing, to you?
Well that’s how it should be. Even Jesus emphasized it (Luke 11:23). Neutrals side with the enemy. No man can serve two masters (Luke 16:13). It’s sheer naivety to attempt a religious reform through a political party, which is what Christians are attempting to do by claiming Hitler as a Christian.
>Am I as bad as neocons or antifa because of my occasional concession to family life and tradition?
Nothing wrong with a few concessions, but overt gestures towards Christianity is undesirable (such as their attitude towards abortion. They are completely in the wrong on this position, but the Church is not disposed to give a place to their secular counterparts here).
Hitler had no problem with celebrating Christmas, one of the few occasions he disagreed with Bormann.
From a tactical perspective blaming a supposedly all-powerful enemy for all ills demoralizes your side while absolving you of responsibility. If white men didn’t cling to the moral value system of the enemy and to all of the enfeebling garbage that upholds the consumer economy, they wouldn’t be such easy and willing pawns for the jews to use and abuse.
Stupid Murkuns empower jews in exchange for easy bank loans, bread and circuses and a starring role in the global freak show.
I will venture to guess that only 10 percent of WN’s will abandon their christian delusion once the collapse is in full swing. The rest won’t be able to shed their cognitive dissonance and will spend the remainder of their days in denial – whilst keeping the donation charade going of course.
Can’t stomach RamZPaul. He is the epitome of a low testoterone WN!
I think you’re right,the delusion is incredibly widespread. Its VERY bad in Russia as well. Russia Insider’s articles & comments are overwhelmingly pro christ cucking. So disappointed by my fellow Americans. We have a Batty article preaching revival of christ cuckoldry today. A few months ago he was openly negative about it,but AA has been preaching about how all us who are woke about the JQ “…must get right with christ….”
I can’t help but wonder if he is not serious…he has openly admitted neoliberalism is secularized christ cucking (just a month or so ago,not trying to go dig for it tho,but he def did). Hitler had to pretend to be pro christ cucking. And no, I don’t think even American nationalists should resort to that unless an Aryan revival fails.
I think if you took a bunch of Aryans & firmly yet compassionately helped them get back on their feet & also taught them our peoples myths & our glories it would be unstoppable. You could create something…
The documentary “Rome: Power & Glory” is excellent, for example. It’s on YT. You have any clue just how few white men know much of anything about The Grandeur That Was Rome??
Especially Americans! That documentary series is not perfect, they interviewed a few loser cuckolds & it twisted truth (about race), however they did nonetheless outline & glamorize the Grandeur of Rome, all while clearly assigning blame of her ruin largely to christ cuckoldry. It even outlined how most of the early Aryan Roman converts were women. I spammed that at the Stormer…butthurt cucks.
@PsychelonB
Thanks for the information about the documentary.
It is quite comprehensive, so I will find the time for it eventually. But could you point me to the number in the series where they talked about Aryan women converting before the men?
I find this particularly interesting, as my own country (one of the few who did not accept Christianity without a civil war) probably encountered the same pattern around the year 1000.
Surely, none of you has read The Fair Race?
Either in the ancient world or today: if the fair sex is empowered, civilization falls.
Cesar, I haven’t finished The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour,yet…
@Bjorn,the part you asked about is part 5…”Cult of Order.” Within that episode, I believe they first dive into it starting at 30 mins.
The whole series is worth watching. If all Aryan men were educated about Antiquity it’d awaken something within.
It has ten parts. Those quotes come from Part I.
I’m not interested in seeing RamzPaul’s video but I have heard the stupid things he’s said about Christianity in the past.
Such as: “Christianity unites us.” Yes, this is why there have been hundreds of different Christian denominations, all squabbling that their interpretation of some Jewish fever dream is the right one.
The most annoying aspect about Christians is that they say these obviously stupid things that can be refuted if they engaged in five seconds of logic, or knew anything about rudimentary history.
As a final note: the only time Christians have been united is when they were slaughtering indigenous Europeans.
>If white nationalists really wanted to get rid of the Jews, they would give up Jesus.
Here is where I disagree with C.T. The liberals and secular atheists gave up Jesus, but still maintain the Christian conception of right. Whereas Hitler dropped or reinterpreted almost everything in Christianity, but retained his notions of an Aryan Christ.
Personally I cannot get on board with the support for Richard C. Carrier. I much prefer someone like Tim O’Neill (see History for Atheists) or Nathan Johnstone. There’s a lot of good critique on the New Atheist phenomenon out there.
The white nationalist sect must give up this notion that counter-tribalism is the best response to the Jewish encroach. The Jewish unity is fundamentally based on instinct: common interest/threat. Once they prevail over their perceived foe, they turn on each other. The white nationalists and Christians err in assuming their shared history and civilization with Europeans will be enough for this conflict.
While I was digging up quotes from FDR’s associates, I stumbled across a quote from Henry A. Wallace where he described Churchill’s conception of unity, which is reminiscent of white nationalism, but Churchill disclaimed that it was a racial concept. This is important since it shows that unity based on common history/civilization is superficial, reactionary, belongs to a dying epoch.
Otto Strasser likewise claimed that a common historical background and civilization (which he identified with Christianity) was sufficient for European solidarity. Otto was erroneous on a number of points and is almost a perfect match for Hitler’s description of a subversive.
White nationalists overlook that some nations (i.e. British, Swiss), despite being victims themselves, prefer living under those conditions. I have only seen an increasing turn to spirituality in America, which is identical to the conditions seen in Weimar Germany.
In these days secular humanists like Carrier are more ‘neo-Christian’ from the axiological POV than traditional Xtians. But that doesn’t mean that it’s okay that Nick Fuentes & Co. cling like children to their crucified rabbi. Sounds like gross doublethink to me…
@Janus
Your comment here seems to go a bit all over the place. You’re no doubt well read, but you seem to just list the shortcomings of any white attempt of a unity and a common front. You bring in a lot of different thoughts, but let me just ponder on one of them:
“The white nationalists and Christians err in assuming their shared history and civilization with Europeans will be enough for this conflict.”
But it is an essential part of it, no? Or if you want to argue even further, you could say that if you encompass enough into “history and civilisation” and use it to your advantage, it may be enough to pick up and run with? Assuming that it triggers a deep rooted moral change in the average white man, which I believe it could?
I am a Scandinavian, as you may guess, and my encounter with everyday people (which are very confirmative in this part of the world) have told me that one of the few leeways available into a different moral compass, is the appeal to history, more specifically old viking ideals. They were ridiculed in our schools, but you would be surprised how many still find that they have merit.
>In these days secular humanists like Carrier are more ‘neo-Christian’ from the axiological POV than traditional Xtians.
My main issue with Carrier is that he seems hellbent on diminishing the authenticity of the Table Talk, which is a humanistic book and crucial to Hitler’s rehabilitation. Tim O’ Neill seems better off to me, even if he can be toxic towards his commenters. See his assessment of Hitler’s religion under “The Great Myths 7: Hitler’s Pope”, which lacks the deliberate bias one finds in Carrier’s works (Carrier tries to pin him as a non-Catholic Christian). O’ Neill also has plenty of critique for Carrier, I highly recommend inspecting his website.
>But that doesn’t mean that it’s okay that Nick Fuentes & Co. cling like children to their crucified rabbi.
If they’re behaving like children, then obviously one must gradually wean them off of it. It’d be wrong to tell them from the onset “Santa doesn’t exist”, decent parents should wait for their children to come of age.
The timing for a Christian’s emancipation might depend on the duration and extent he spends his time in proselytizing. The ones who take up teaching are less likely to come around to reason. For them, it’s a matter of the appropriate amount of time passing by until “time is up”. The book of Ecclesiastes, which has an eclectic origin and is full of contradictory notions, highlights in chapter 3, verse 6 that there is a: “time to search and a time to give up as lost; a time to keep and a time to throw away”.
Animals devour each other for a purpose, for an animal to devour a human being (they are obviously not on the same evolutionary path) brings undesirable consequences. Until this injustice has been balanced out, humans will continue to eat meat, but once the appropriate time has passed by, they’ll lose their taste for meat, however much they sugarcoat it with seasoning.
This is the significance of Hitler’s declaration that mankind would embrace vegetarianism in the future. This is in accord with Anaximander’s theory.
@BjornThorsonn
>You’re no doubt well read, but you seem to just list the shortcomings of any white attempt of a unity and a common front.
I’m admittedly at a racial disadvantage here, a German could develop these ideas into a higher synthesis. But their political instability, tendency to assimilate into their host nations, bad historical sense, and inclination for philosophical mysticism and romanticism is a huge obstacle for them to overcome.
Nonetheless, I’ve factored in why some people prefer counter-tribalism, similar to why some people prefer joining a church despite it’s shortcomings. It confers onto them a sense of community and some stability. But that’ll not be enough.
>But it is an essential part of it, no?
A “sense of history” is not essential for the struggle. More specifically, it’s not really suited for either the intelligentsia or the masses, only for the leader of a nation. The intelligentsia has more important subjects to deal with than to get helplessly bogged down in revisionist controversies. The broad mass of people, if they be artistic enough, ought to occupy itself with art and music and develop a “sense for beauty”.
>Or if you want to argue even further, you could say that if you encompass enough into “history and civilisation” and use it to your advantage, it may be enough to pick up and run with?
That depends on which histories/civilizations you choose to explore. Ancient Greek history (Sparta, pre-Socratic) should be sufficient, but most people seem to prefer Rome and post-Roman history. Rome was neither a bearer of culture nor founded on a racial constitution. Sparta was the only state in antiquity which was founded on a racial constitution.
>Assuming that it triggers a deep rooted moral change in the average white man, which I believe it could?
History cannot dictate a conception of right.
>I am a Scandinavian, as you may guess, and my encounter with everyday people (which are very confirmative in this part of the world) have told me that one of the few leeways available into a different moral compass, is the appeal to history, more specifically old viking ideals. They were ridiculed in our schools, but you would be surprised how many still find that they have merit.
I’m aware of the vikings and their possible merits, but Elysium is nonetheless elucidated better than Valhalla. The latter placed emphasis on the fate of warriors, but the former wasn’t just about warriors, it was an abode for men of science, religious reformers, great statesmen, poets and musicians. It signaled that creativity was not limited to the ventures of art and music.
It is not only Fuentes. Every Christian in the movement is a liability.
Carrier is a nasty liberal like thousands of university liberals. But that doesn’t mean that his Jesus ahistoricity theory is wrong.
Have you read the texts about Rome in The Fair Race?
Nowadays christmas are a roman-jewish degeneration, we celebrated in a good way, our chances and war, the love for our family, now christmas are a group of consumerism and perverted parties, the people just buy and spend money, drink and the new year instead being a way to restore the life is like a day where the grand part of people just say or think ohhh im becoming old, we must restore our life the day you want, if you are a mess you got to restore your life now
I do indeed “get it”. I get the need for positive eugenics; a genuine Lebensborn programme, but harsher, far more Darwinist. A brutal Hollywood Nazism rather than German National Socialism in approach to eugenics is probably required. I have never wavered from 9 or 10 on Mauricio’s scale. Your blog, your rules; however, try to avoid the usual “you still don’t get it!” comment closing. Maybe you just miss the point sometimes. Nonetheless, yours remains the best and most insightful blog out there.