The Wikipedia article on liberalism that I edited for this site can now be read from the beginning at Ex Libris: here.
Yes: Wikipedia is a liberal, anti-white online encyclopedia. I reproduced it because it shows that liberalism has old, native roots in our Neo-Christian, ethno-suicidal culture and modern zeitgeist.
Night of 13th-
14th January 1942
Deranged altruism.
I read to-day that India at present numbers three hundred and eighty-eight million inhabitants, which means an increase of fifty-five millions during the last ten years. It’s alarming. We are witnessing the same phenomenon in Russia. The women there have a child every year.
The chief reason for this increase is the reduction in mortality due to the progress made by the health services. What are our doctors thinking of? Isn’t it enough to vaccinate the whites?
You have to be completely blind to the essence of Christianity not to see that its most basic message is one of unlimited self-sacrifice. In damaging themselves to help racial aliens, whites are just taking the moral paradigms of their religion to their logical conclusion. Immigration is their cross to bear, and they are picking up that cross and following their rabbi, just as the passage I quoted [Matthew 10:34-39] exhorts them to do.
In the final analysis though, it doesn’t matter what I think, or what you think, or even what Aquinas thinks. The Pope and his Church and all of the other major branches of Christianity in the West are all for it. They are some of the biggest instigators and supporters of this genocidal influx.
By their fruits shall ye know them, indeed.
Rejection of a paradigm means basically recognizing that our parents and ancestors got their Weltanschauung and moral grammar (axiology) all wrong.
This is not the case of white nationalists. Yesterday at The Occidental Observer for example, some commenters blamed everything but Christian axiology for the deranged altruism of Pope Francis. According to them, the pope is either a “Marrano” (i.e., a crypto-Jew), a “freemason” or a “Marxist.” Other commenter opined that “Jews, Marxists, Freemasons and homosexuals are over represented within the Vatican machinery.” Another wrote: “Whites have been hypnotized by jews into committing suicide through immigration and race-mixing.” And still others agreed that: “it’s motivated by a need for approval.”
This is paranoia. These white nationalists can speculate on everything except the most parsimonious explanation: Pope Francis I is simply using St Francis as his inspiring saint! Deranged altruism à la Camp of the Saints is nothing but the Jesus message undiluted!
After more than a week I have received zero comments about my previous sticky post, “Solitude.” I give up and have just removed it from its privileged place at the top of this page. But I must say that I believe such “solitude” is related to my complete apostasy from Christianity (and my inner drive to make a difference in the real world): something that apparently racialists are unwilling to do…
Below, my comments of the ten threads about Nietzsche’s
prologue to Thus Spoke Zarathustra in a single entry:
1
Visitors will be surprised to learn that a Spanish edition has more detailed endnotes than the academic English translation of Nietzsche’s magnum opus.
This is because Spaniards are fed up of Catholicism. North Americans have a few centuries experimenting with Christianity. Spain has more than a millennium and a half, and our parents’ religion is on its last dying breaths there.
Andrés Sánchez-Pascual’s scholarly translation of Nietzsche’s books since the early 1970s became so popular that over the decades he has received hundreds of letters from his Spanish-speaking readers. The book’s edition of Así Habló Zaratustra that I purchased this month for example (I lost the old copies that I used to read sporadically in the 1970s and 80s) is its twentieth edition.
So fed up of Catholicism are Spain’s thinking classes that, again, the copies I bought of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums which introduction appears in my compilation The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, were translated to Spanish for an audience unexpectedly avid of this sort of extraordinarily scholarly material (Deschner’s maximum opus has yet to be translated to English).
Another example. Manu Rodríguez, who has had a place of high honor in this site and in The Fair Race, is also an avid reader of Sánchez-Pascual’s translations of Nietzsche. Thanks to his revaluation of Christian values, Rodríguez overcame his original prejudice against National Socialism in his later posts of La Respuesta de Europa. With the exception of non-Christian geniuses like Revilo Oliver and William Pierce, I have not seen such a metamorphosis of the mind in most of the English-speaking racialists.
2
“Could it be possible! This old saint in his woods has not yet heard the news that God is dead!”
This is one of the most quoted passages of Nietzsche’s literature. I abandoned theism long ago. Presently I don’t believe in the existence of a personal god, let alone in the existence of the Jewish god (which would be absolutely dead in the heart of any fanatic of the 14 words if the white nationalist “movement” was not all bluff). That doesn’t mean that I’m an atheist, as Hegel and other philosophers of Classic German Idealism developed a new understanding of God: panentheistic views that I am not prepared to dismiss.
The theological issues of Zarathustra’s encounter with the old hermit aside, I’d rather say something about the soliloquy in the previous post of this fictional character, something related to the very meaning of this blogsite.
The darkest hour is just before the dawn. In the endnotes about the opening soliloquy in Nietzsche’s book, Andrés Sánchez-Pascual interpreted the term Untergehen as follows: “By sinking into his decline, like the sun, Zarathustra moves to the other side. ‘Passing to the other side’ means surpassing oneself and becoming the Overman.”
This is what nationalists have failed to do, and was the message of the last pages of my compilation The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour: white nationalism as a stepping stone at the middle of a river, not as the promised land itself which is beyond the rapid waters.
That was my metaphor.
As to Nietzsche’s metaphor, we could say that today’s whites, including Christian and libertarian white nationalists, have yet to “sink themselves into their sunsets.” Some force may be with them but they’re not overmen yet; they have not surpassed themselves as Hitler’s SS men did (always keep in mind my “Where are the Syssitias?”).
The purpose of this blogsite is to prepare a few metamorphosing men, those in the process of “passing to the other side” (Übergang) from the soul’s darkest night into the coming dawn of the fair race.
3
I don’t claim to have reread the Zarathustra since my adolescent infatuation with Nietzsche. But these are surely the words that made a very powerful impression in my mind since my first reading:
“I teach you the Overman. Human being is something that must be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?
What is the ape to a human? A laughing stock or a painful embarrassment. And that is precisely what the human shall be to the Overman: a laughing stock or a painful embarrassment.
You have made your way from worm to human, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now a human is still more ape than any ape.
Behold, I teach you the Overman!
The Overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the Overman shall be the meaning of the earth!”
The passage “…and you want to be the ebb of this great flood and would even rather go back to animals than overcome humans?” nails perfectly contemporary whites.
This is exactly what they are doing to themselves—white nationalists included, so reluctant to fight (or preparing to fight by saving precious metals before the dollar crashes). As Jack Frost has asked the clueless, feminized males of The Occidental Observer more than once, “Where’s the resistance?” to the anti-white, exterminationist System. Where are the cells for would-be soldiers that treasure William Pierce’s three books as their New Tablets?
I see none of it. And many Jew-wise nationalists are themselves etnosuicidal because they simply ignore that Christianity inverted healthy values—negative values that they themselves subscribe! Cowardice similar to this in the 19th century explains why Nietzsche’s Zarathustra gives the biblical verse an antithetical sense from the original.
4
Now Zarathustra looked at the people and he was amazed. Then he spoke thus: “Mankind is a rope fastened between animal and Overman – a rope over an abyss. What is great about human beings is that they are a bridge and not a purpose: what is lovable about human beings is that they are a crossing over and a going under.”
Again, this brings in mind my metaphor of the bridge. This is what I wrote in the final essay of The Fair Race: “White nationalism is only a stone at the middle of the rapid-flowing waters of a dangerous river; a stepping stone that can help us in our endeavor to jump to the other side. I myself used that stone during my crossing from Christianity and Liberalism to National Socialism. In fact, I could even write such a spiritual odyssey in a text that might be titled ‘From St Francis to Himmler’.” But no American white nationalist today is prepared to wear a T-shirt of Herr Himmler, not even in the privacy of their homes.
“I love the great despisers, because they are the great venerators and arrows of longing for the other shore. I love those who do not first seek behind the stars for a reason to go under and be a sacrifice, who instead sacrifice themselves for the earth, so that the earth may one day become the Overman’s. I love the one who lives in order to know, and who wants to know so that one day the Overman may live. And so he wants his going under.” [sinking in his sunset according to Sánchez-Pascual]
This cannot contrast more with today’s white nationalists, so reluctant to sacrifice themselves as Rockwell did. They want it both ways: enjoy their homely comfort zones and try to “save” the race from the ongoing extermination.
5
In Ecce Homo Nietzsche wrote:
In this sense Zarathustra first calls the good “the last men”… He finds them the most harmful kind of man, because they secure their existence at the expense of truth just as they do at the expense of the future.
Do “the last men” sound like contemporary whites overwhelmed with guilt? But white nationalists are the Overman’s “last men” too. Think for example of the voices from those self-righteous, Christian and atheist nationalists who recently called a lone wolf “an evil sociopath” in Dixie, basically subscribing the meme “black lives matter.”
White- or Southern nationalism is phony, was phony and will be phony until societal collapse forces the survivors to grow a hairy pair. This is Pierce’s Diaries: “His forehead was then marked with an indelible dye, and he was turned out and could be readmitted permanently only by bringing back the head of a freshly killed Black or other non-White.”
6
Just for the record, about 150,000 copies of a specially durable wartime Zarathustra were distributed to the German troops during the First World War.
7
“A nice catch of fish Zarathustra has today! No human being did he catch, but a corpse instead!” looks like me trying to convey Nietzsche’s message to a dead race!
8
“I want to teach humans the meaning of their being, which is the Overman, the lightning from the dark cloud ‘human being’.”
For some unfathomable causes, this sentence from the previous section, Prologue §7, reminded me my identification with the art of the pre-Raphaelites and Maxfield Parrish. One of the inner realities that distances me from white nationalists is that they don’t seem to love this 14-words art (“That the beauty of…”) as much as I do.
9
“It dawned on me: I need companions, and living ones – not dead companions and corpses that I carry with me wherever I want.”
Just what happened to me during my experience in counter-jihad: after these guys didn’t want to hear about the Jewish problem it was like I had to get rid of their corpses—dead companions. But it also happened to me in white nationalism! After these guys didn’t want to hear about the Christian problem it was like I had to get rid of their corpses.
“It dawned on me: let Zarathustra speak not to the people, but instead to companions!”
Pierce did something similar after the calamity of Rockwell’s murder: instead of speaking to the masses he predicated to a smaller group of companions.
“Look at the good and the just! Whom do they hate most? The one who breaks their tablets of values, the breaker, the lawbreaker – but he is the creative one.”
Hitler was the creative one. Read his table talks.
“Companions the creative one seeks and not corpses, nor herds and believers. Fellow creators the creative one seeks, who will write new values on new tablets.”
Less than a handful visitors of this blog share the moral grammar on my New Tablets…
“Fellow creators seeks Zarathustra, fellow harvesters and fellow celebrators Zarathustra seeks: what need does he have of herds and shepherds and corpses!”
…but still no one wants to become a priest of the 14 words in a latter-day “Syssitia” (like the one Rockwell had).
“I do not want to even speak again with the people – for the last time have I spoken to a dead person.”
Occasionally I still comment at The Occidental Observer but even that has to end—the commentariat and even the authors are clueless that Christian axiology enabled the Jewish problem and the Negro problem and the Mestizo problem and even the more recent empowerment of Asia.
“I shall join the creators, the harvesters, the celebrators: I shall show them the rainbow and all the steps to the Overman.”
Hitler and Pierce showed this rainbow but who among us really follows their revaluated axiology? Most white nationalists follow the Old Tablets; atheist nationalists share also the Christian moral grammar and even the neonazis have not really broken the Tablets.
“I want to go to my goal, and I go my own way; over the hesitating and dawdling I shall leap. Thus let my going be their going under!”
This describes me…
10
And so Nietzsche’s lyric prologue ends. Below, some snippets from the Cambridge introduction by Robert B. Pippin:
Zarathustra leaves his cave to revisit the human world because he wants both to prophesy and help hasten the advent of something like a new “attempt” on the part of mankind, a post “beyond” or “over the human” (Übermensch) aspiration. Such a goal would be free of the psychological dimensions that have led the human type into a state of some crisis (made worse by the fact that most do not think a crisis has occurred or that any new attempt is necessary).
The problem, then, that Zarathustra must address, the problem of “nihilism,” is a kind of collective failure of desire…
Nietzsche clearly thinks we cannot understand such a possibility, much less be both shamed and inspired by it, except by a literary and so “living” treatment of such an existential possibility. And Nietzsche clearly thinks he has such a chance, in the current historical context of crisis, collapse, boredom, and confusion, a chance of shaming and cajoling us away from commitments that will condemn us to a “last man” or “pale atheist” sort of existence, and of inspiring a new desire, a new “tension” of the spirit…
As noted, the problem Zarathustra confronts seems to be a failure of desire; nobody wants what he is offering, and they seem to want very little other than a rather bovine version of happiness. It is that sort of failure that proves particularly difficult to address, and that cannot be corrected by thinking up a “better argument” against such a failure.
The events that are narrated are also clearly tied to the question of what it means for Zarathustra to have a teaching, to try to impart it to an audience suffering in this unusual way, suffering from complacency or dead desire. Only at the very beginning, in the Prologue, does he try to “lecture publicly,” one might say, and this is a pretty unambiguous failure.
The reminder here of the Prologue appears to indicate that Zarathustra himself had portrayed his own teaching in a comically inadequate way, preaching to the multitudes as if people could simply begin to overcome themselves by some revolutionary act of will…
He had shifted from market place preaching to conversations with disciples in Part I, and at the end of that Part I he decides to forgo even that and to go back to his cave alone.
by Jack Frost
The federal gov’t has come up with an innovation called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), explicitly designed to break up what has been called “implicit whiteness” in housing patterns. Placing negroes and mestizos into white neighborhoods is now a “duty” of state and local gov’ts that want to keep receiving federal money.
I don’t think it’s possible to reform an anti-white system by degrees. So long as the most fundamental principle of America is anti-racism, which has been the case juridically since the Civil War, and culturally for an even longer time, it will remain an anti-white country.
In theory, a political revolution could overthrow this (that’s what happened in pre-WWII Germany), but the culture of anti-racism would have to reverse itself to achieve something permanent.
It would be interesting, for example, to learn Trump’s position on AFFH. He’s a guy who says he has no problem with Affirmative Action in the workplace, so how could he object to the same thing happening in regards to housing patterns?
Of course, carried out to its logical conclusion, Affirmative Action in everything—housing patterns, breeding patterns, and in the workplace—is the same thing as eliminating the white race entirely. It’s genocide. Yet where is the opposition? A large fraction of whites actually support it, and even the same whites who will tell you they oppose it will almost to a man deny that they are racists or oppose it because they want to preserve the white race.
The truth is, almost everyone nowadays claims to be against racism, and most of these people are sincere. Even Donald Trump.
“I don’t have a racist bone in my body,” Trump exclusively told ET, defending himself against accusations of racism. “The fact that I want a strong border and the fact that I don’t want illegal immigrants pouring into this country, that doesn’t make me a racist, it means I love this country and I want to save this country.”
I have moved this post
(which will remain linked
at the sidebar’s top for a while)
to the Addenda: here.
Once more, Jack Frost hits the nail in his endeavors to educate pro-whites who ignore that Christian morality has been more a primary causative factor of white decline than Jewish subversion. At The Occidental Observer Frost has responded to a commenter:
____________________
“Well, I think that if nothing else, the Jewish infrastructure ensures that there are lots of jobs and financial incentives to going along with their program. Non-Whites will not be immune to that.”
Non-whites don’t need incentives to hate whites. This is the same error that Christian conspiracy theorist Alex Jones makes. Jones’ constant refrain is that, but for the instigation of the globalists (who promote racial antagonism in a sinister “divide and conquer” strategy, of course), the races would naturally exist in a state of harmony and universal brotherhood. Because his almost all white audience has been steeped in Christian BS their whole lives, they already “know” this to be true and so they buy it.
Beyond this though, it seems to me the whole “incentive model” is taken from animal studies and is really an explanation that explains nothing when it comes to human behavior, which is made much more complex by an ability to foresee consequences that is vastly more advanced than in other animals.
Example 1: One incentivizes a rat to run a maze by rewarding him with a food pellet. Over time, you train the rat to do this, so in a sense, it’s fair to say your incentive is the cause of his maze-running behavior.
Example 2: You are walking down the street, see an attractive woman, and you incentivize her to have sex with you by offering her $50. At this point, she has a choice. She can either take you up on it or slap your face and walk away. Clearly, if she takes the money in exchange for her services, she’s a whore. But she might have done it for free, in which case she’d be only a slut. On the other hand, maybe she’d have done it anyway, but decided to take the $50 just because you offered it and it might come in handy later. In any case, whether she takes the money or not, nothing can really be said from this about questions of causality or morality. Your offer of $50 didn’t cause her to become a whore, if that’s what she is. Conversely, if she slapped your face and walked away, your offer of $50 didn’t in any way cause her virtue. In fact, it’s quite conceivable she might actually be a whore, but thought your offer was too low.
In the same way, Jewish incentives can’t meaningfully be said to cause any white (or even non-white) actions. Unlike in animal studies, with humans there is in fact almost never any way to distinguish between voluntary cooperation and caused (i.e., incentivized) behavior.
“We cannot determine these questions without further information, but what we can determine is that such incentives sway at least some people who would not otherwise have acted in the same manner.”
That seems reasonable, but still, you are assuming what you are setting out to prove. I can reduce it to this: Because human motivations are complex, much more so than with animals, there’s no way to ever be completely sure if something is done for an incentive or for other reasons. With the rat experiment, you can show causality because if you stop giving the reward, eventually the maze-running behavior will be extinguished. With humans, it’s much more complicated. They might, and in fact, in the case of sex, doubtlessly would, find other reasons to continue the behavior even if the incentive were not offered. To tie it in a little better to Kevin MacDonald’s remark, if a white man takes a job working for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is he doing it for the money and prestige (i.e., incentive), or because he actually believes in racial and sexual equality? Or both? Or neither? From the outside, and in fact, even from the inside (one’s insight into even one’s own motivation may not be perfect) I don’t see that there’s any way to say for sure.
“In this case we know how politicians (and others) behaved in the past. We know that since the rise of Jewish power, they have come to act in a dramatically different manner. We know about the control of information and we know about the system of incentives / disincentives. It would take some serious mental gymnastics to deny the causal relationships here.”
The main problem with this narrative isn’t merely that it’s an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, but that it contradicts history. The biggest boost toward legal and social equality with the white man the negro ever received was during and in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. Whites did this on their own, in the absence of modern mass media and the modern educational techniques, and before Jews even began arriving on these shores in any great numbers. This again points up the importance of worldview, since this first step in the direction of equal “civil rights” for everyone, regardless of race, was framed and justified in terms of Christian morality. A great many of the most prominent Abolitionists were Christian religious fanatics.
“We shouldn’t forget that it is not just the incentives / punishments that are in play here, there is also the power of Jews to control the flow of information upon which individuals rely to form their own world views. This is at least as important as the incentives / punishments in my opinion.”
Worldview is in fact much more important and more powerful than a system of incentives because it is logically prior to any such system. Worldview establishes a system of value that determines what can be used as an incentive and what can’t. For example, it determines whether money or race is considered more important. Someone who truly puts race first can’t be “incentivized” with money.
It’s not clear that Jews control white worldviews though, unless you want to allow that they’ve been in control of whites for two thousand years or more. A difficult position to maintain! In any case, to eliminate Jewish influence you’d have to go all the way back to pre-Christian times.
“In fact, the subject of abolition of slavery is not even relevant to subject here.”
I think the setting of negroes on equal footing with whites by means of a war that cost hundreds of thousands of white lives is extremely relevant. What it shows is that whites are quite willing to impose racial genocide upon themselves without any help from Jews.
“It has been well established that if you can control the information that people are exposed to, you can to a large extent mold their opinions and world view.”
Your argument here is tautological. If you can control people, then you can control them. Yes, that’s true, but so what? Information about Jews is widely available. That’s not the problem. The problem, from the white point of view, is that people overwhelmingly reject both racism and anti-Semitism. They just don’t agree with you. It doesn’t necessarily indicate they’re being “controlled”. If you have ever managed to persuade anyone to see the Jewish question your way does that mean that you’re now controlling them? The question you’re not coming to terms with is, how do you distinguish between someone who simply doesn’t agree with you from someone who is being “controlled”? If the problem is only lack of information, then it should vanish as soon as you supply the missing information. But it doesn’t.
“Clearly using their control of the money and media has been used to transform the culture and the society. It has been used to mold public opinion by altering the worldview of millions of Whites (and non-Whites).”
After the Christian takeover of white civilization, the philo-Semitic, anti-racist worldview of Christianity has never been altered by Jews. There’s been no need. The program it set forth has just been carried out and refined over generations by willing participants.
“It seems a reasonable and logical assumption that if one can control these environmental factors, that one can affect the worldview of an individual or even an entire society. ”
If you can control people, then you can control them? Again, a tautology. But I’m not persuaded that anyone really controls the worldview of a whole society or can dictate a change in it. There’s such a thing as reality, after all, and instinctive drives, such as the will to live, and to procreate. Surely that must count for something. Everyone has immediate and unrestricted access to the world itself through their own senses. They can see what is going on.
“I have held positions in the past based upon my exposure to mass media that I have since repudiated when I discovered that the ‘facts’ upon which I had based those opinions were not true.”
Again, the issue you are avoiding is how to tell the difference between someone honestly disagreeing with you and their being “controlled” to disagree. Also, I have to ask, what accounts for your peculiar immunity from this seemingly omnipotent Jewish “control”? Why is such immunity not more widespread? Why doesn’t merely informing the vast majority of people of the “facts” as you see them change their minds on the Jewish question?
“This is precisely what is happening to us. We are being domesticated and if we are to do anything more than allow ourselves to be herded to our fate, we need to understand what is happening, what the processes at work are and who is driving this.”
I agree that people are being modified genetically by civilizational processes; “tamed” if you want to put it that way. But most whites see civilization as a good thing and are willing participants. If they’re wronged or damaged, rather than killing someone in a duel, they sue. If a relative is murdered, rather than starting a clan-based vendetta, they let police and the courts handle it. Just as with the use of birth control to lower the white fertility rate below replacement level, this is not something Jews are doing to white people. They are doing it to themselves.
“If control of the flow of information and a structure of incentives designed to encourage anti-White behavior are not effective, then why all the hand wringing about Jewish control of media and the monetary system?”
I hate to break it to you, but not many white people are actually worried about this, Bob. They approve of the status quo, and in fact it would be impossible to run such a vast and complicated panopticon without the approval and active participation of white people.
“In fact, why are we all wasting our time trying to provide an alternative worldview to our fellow Whites at all if our information is not going to have any effect on their worldview?”
I think you’re confusing worldview with mere political opinions. They’re not the same thing at all. That’s why trying to build a political mass movement through “education” is a waste of time, in my opinion.
All attempts at educating white people out of their Christian worldview of universal brotherhood and racial / sexual equality have failed, and I believe this is because worldviews don’t so much depend on facts as determine what is regarded as a fact. They provide the framework for interpreting reality; for saying both how the world is and how it ought to be. They aren’t political opinions, but lay the groundwork for those opinions by defining what is permissible and what isn’t.
A shared worldview among the citizenry is essential for the smooth functioning of society. That’s why the state puts such emphasis on assimilating elements within it that don’t necessarily accept the standard list of Christian values: non-violence, anti-racism, respect for authority, belief in the value of work, and of the sacredness of human life as opposed to that of animals; belief in a uniquely human free will, a just God and fair dealing, equality, sin, forgiveness, redemption, the importance of being “moral”, etc.
Even a fellow like you, who thinks he is above being “controlled”, has actually accepted it, as your denunciation of slavery showed. In the Civil War you’d have been an abolitionist, fighting against your own race! Yet imagine what chaos would reign if people rejected all of these values, or simply forgot about them! Only at that point could you say they have changed their worldview. Of course, such a change would probably make civilization as we know it today impossible.
Christianity is a very good religion if you want to build a race-neutral technological civilization, but, as history has shown, it is quite inadequate to the task of preserving race.
“It shows nothing of the kind, unless of course you buy into the propaganda that the war was waged to end slavery. This is something that we know to be untrue. We need only look at the contemporary writings of Lincoln and others who were directly involved in the decision to wage that war.”
It’s something that you think you know is untrue, for reasons that are entirely unclear to me. What about the songs the soldiers would sing before marching into battle? Read the lyrics to The Battle Hymn of the Republic some time, replete with Christian religious imagery, and the telling phrase “let us die to make men free.” Or how about that other popular ditty, John Brown’s Body:
Old John Brown’s body lies moldering in the grave,
While weep the sons of bondage
whom he ventured all to save;
But tho he lost his life while struggling for the slave,
His soul is marching on.John Brown was John the Baptist of the Christ we are to see,
Christ who of the bondmen shall the Liberator be,
And soon thruout the Sunny South the slaves shall all be free,
For his soul is marching on.
Or read Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1852 book Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which sold more copies in its day than any book except the Bible. These are facts that are very hard to explain unless abolitionism had a great deal to do with the war.
“The truth is that mistrust of Jews and belief in racial separation were the norm just a few generations ago. The average White American in the 1950’s would find nothing controversial about most of the views expressed here on The Occidental Observer. Why have they come to reject ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘racism’?”
Please think about what you are saying. The average white American man of the 1950s had just returned from crushing racist, anti-Semitic Nazi Germany, and he was mighty damn proud of himself for doing so, Bob. If anti-Semitism and racism had not already been so unpopular, there would probably not have been a war at all. Stateside, the races were still segregated compared to today, but much less so compared to slave times. There has been a slow but steady progression in integration and race mixing over time, just as always happens in any society in which two races live together. It has happened throughout history all over the world, even in places with no Jews. It’s part of the civilizational process.
“If the world was populated by philosophers and people with the time and inclination to research these things and sort them out for themselves, then your point would be valid, but it is not. Most people are busy trying to live their lives. They don’t expend extraordinary amounts of time and energy fact checking and researching ideological questions. They form their worldview based upon the culture within which they are immersed, the indoctrination they have been exposed to and the information that is spoon fed to them by the mass media.”
In that case, a well-informed fellow like you should be able to cure their ignorance very quickly, Bob. But the puzzling thing is, you can’t. All such efforts have failed, even by people far more eloquent than either of us, and even by those with far more prestige and power.
“Insofar as the domestication of Whites goes, if you think that the future we are facing is just the evolution of civilization, then you have completely misunderstood what I am saying.”
I think I’ve understood you perfectly. I just disagree with you.
“I do appreciate your contribution and your efforts certainly do cause me to think about things from different points of view. Thanks.”
Likewise, Bob. I appreciate your efforts too. Even when we disagree, they challenge me and help me tighten up my thinking.
According to Metapedia:
Racism is a term usually only used by critics. Official definitions of racism often state that the term should only be applied on the belief that some races are superior and on negative actions due to this. In practice it is often applied as a form of ad hominem on anyone believing in the existence of races or even on persons advocating restricting immigration, persons criticizing another culture or multiculturalism, persons supporting their own country/ethnicity, etc.
Nevertheless, “racism” could be a term mostly used not by our enemies but by us! Had values not been inverted by Christianity and its bastard son, liberalism, racist attitudes would be considered a great virtue, as Nietzsche saw:
Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity—the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored, against “race”: the undying chandala hatred is disguised as a religion of love.
Umwertung aller werte!
The Christian fight with Muslims was never based on race, but religion. Had the Turks or Arabs agreed to convert to Christianity, history would have taken quite a different course.
As if to demonstrate the preceding point, the Spanish monarchs did indeed expel some of their Jews, but only after trying to force them to convert. Only Jews who refused to convert to Christianity were expelled by the Alhambra decree of 1492. But the grounds were never racial, only religious.
