web analytics

Category: Conservatism

Categories
Conservatism Homosexuality Mainstream media Sexual "liberation"

Linder on Johnson: a retort

Excerpted from VNN Forum. Alex Linder is responding to Greg Johnson’s “The gay marriage controversy.” Indented paragraphs come from Johnson’s June 28, 2013 essay:


Both the promoters and opponents of homosexual marriage share a common false premise: that the legalization of homosexual marriage overthrows “heteronormativity,” i.e., the idea that heterosexuality is normal and other forms of sexuality are not. But the idea that changing marriage laws can change heteronormativity is simply false.

Actually, no one says that. Leftists see queer marriage as one important campaign in a giant ongoing war.

What do I mean when I say that homosexual behavior is abnormal? I don’t mean that it is unnatural, since its exists in nature. It is even found in many species besides man.

Most of the so-called examples of homosexual behavior disappear on closer examination.

I don’t mean that it is a sin, i.e., something that displeases God. The idea of sin pretty much paralyzes the ability to think rationally about morals.

For me, the issue of abnormality all boils down to homosexuality being a non-reproductive, recreational form of sex. And if everyone had non-reproductive, recreational sex all the time, the human race would perish. Heterosexual behavior is normal, because only heterosexual sex can perpetuate our species, provided conception is not blocked by birth control.

So the real issue is not even homosexual versus heterosexual, but reproductive versus non-reproductive sex. That’s all there is to it.

Um, no. Homosexual behavior is inherently morbid, heterosexual behavior is not. Queer behavior is on a par along with drug / alcohol abuse and other anti-social behavior. Whether a taste is inborn or developed, it’s socially destructive and should be looked down on, and certainly never given any kind of legal status. What Johnson doesn’t observe that’s most significant today is that (1) homos today, unlike in all prior history, can find one other easily; (2) queers have a global support network thanks to political backing and media / communications technology.

This results in queers being able to form what the left calls communities—basically, pockets of morbidity. In these death cultures new and quite dangerous diseases are created and existing diseases are exacerbated. Thanks to jewish political clout, these diseases are untied, in the public mind, from the homosexual behavior that spawned and spread them, and actually, such chutzpah!, blamed on the surrounding squares. It’s not Gaetan Dugas, an extremely promiscuous queer, who’s responsible for spreading Queer-Related Immune Deficiency (Q-RID), it’s Ronald Reagan, the ninety-year-old president, who’s responsible for spreading AIDS (“Acquired” [LOL] Immune Deficiency Syndrome). How was it acquired? Well, doc, I sucked 500 dicks in 400 days.

Heterosexuals engaged in normal activity don’t know whether their sex will result in offspring, so the division between productive and non-reproductive sex is not so simply made. We do know that every act of anal sex between homosexuals is inherently morbid—diseased. Big, big difference.

Homosexual behaviors and tastes are older than the human race, but the idea of homosexuality as an identity is a rather recent phenomenon. People with exclusively homosexual tastes are a tiny minority in any society, no matter how permissive and decadent. Thus it stands to reason that no society has ever ceased to exist because the tiny homosexual minority doesn’t reproduce. Societies decline demographically when the heterosexual majority doesn’t reproduce, primarily due to birth control.

Birth control is not the reason societies decline. Birth control is merely something people use to avoid pregnancy, not the cause of the desire to avoid pregnancy.

Thus if non-reproductive sex is a problem because it does not perpetuate the human race, the bulk of the blame falls on selfish, hedonistic straight people.

I mean, this is like arguing with a fundamentalist instead of a human because it’s easier. That’s one step above a strawman, I suppose, but there’s little else to commend it. Yes. You’re correct. The human race never is, has been, or will be in danger of dying off because of fag activity. No serious man ever so contended. 1% of the population can’t have that effect—unless it be through spreading lethal disease, which is not entirely out of the question, considering Q-RID and the various drug-resistant strains homo behavior has created or exacerbated.

The basic problem with Johnson’s article is there’s no acknowledgement of the Frankfurt School. We know that jews aim to destroy the white race. We know that their top experts see the best way to do this is by using the official vectors (government, schools, media) to promote a General Loosening. The creation and the glorification of the homosexual identity are part of this. But only a part. Deviant sex, drug use, self-worship (self-esteem)—whatever it is, the jewish goal is to get the goy focused with himself, his stupid, worthless feelings and opinions, thereby taking his eyes off the world and its unbending factual reality.

If you do what the jews advise, soon enough you will have so many personal problems you’re unfit to participate in politics. Which is the intent. The promotion of homosexuality is simply part of this. In Aryan society, queer behavior is the proclivity of a tiny, weird minority. A minority that is generally laughed about privately but left alone. Even those engaged in it hide the fact, since it never occurs to them, any more than to the normals, that their tastes are healthy or deserving of some kind of public acknowledgement, let alone respect or legal stature.

In a jew-controlled society, the queers are encouraged to think of their deviance as healthy, normal and natural. Even more than that—as a positive good. Something to take pride in. Something to celebrate. Something to hold parades for. A term is coined to disparage anyone who shakes his head at the world turned upside down. He’s now a “homophobe.” If he dares laugh or make objection to the new scheme of things, he finds himself publicly ridiculed, without a job, and very likely cut off from his scared friends and family.

The political use of homosexual behavior is what matters. Queer marriage is simply another milestone in the promotion and normalization of deviance in order to facilitate destruction. By itself it doesn’t mean all that much, except that a few more resources are shifted away from normal people to diseased / deranged people. But from the resource-shifting point of view, queer “marriage” is trivial, given our open borders and anti-white tax and welfare policies. The main thing is that the concept of marriage and family are further degraded, since the law is on the side of the degradation. This produces confusion in people, as is the intent. Confusion leads people to make bad choices.

Proponents of marriage for homosexuals think that heteronormativity is simply a social construct, a convention that can be changed through legislation, education, and relentless media brainwashing. But heteronormativity is based in nature, not in convention. Sexual reproduction has existed before human beings formed languages and conventions. Indeed, sexual reproduction existed before mankind evolved. The birds and the bees do it too. So heteronormativity is not a social construct and cannot be changed by society. It can only be covered up, lied about, and ignored—at society’s peril.

The queers believe, some of them honestly, that they have changed the public’s mind. They believe they have, through their gritty marches and public activism since Stonewall, converted people to thinking their side is morally right. Just as the negroes did. The truth is that, just as with the so-called civil rights movement, the public was simply browbeaten by a hateful media into accepting a new order accomplished anti-democratically by judicial edict. People’s minds haven’t been changed. They’ve just seen a thousand times there’s a price to be paid for speaking up. Disagree with The Cult on race, you’re aracist. Disagree with The Cult on sexual behavior, you’re a homophobe.

Both these, and other, labels can get you sued, fired, ostracized—even murdered. Who wants that? So the people keep their heads down, and content themselves with expressing any doubt in private, or not at all. Meanwhile, the 1% minority, along with the 2% minority that owns the mass media, preens and chortles over its great victory. The community, they say, supports “gay” rights. The community has changed its mind. It had a moral awakening. It decided to get on the right side of history. But homosexual behavior will never be anything but ludicrous and disgusting to the majority of the population. The public has been successfully intimidated out of expressing open criticism of deviant sexual behavior, but its basic views have not changed.

It is easy to understand why homosexual marriage proponents believe they are overturning heteronormativity. It is harder to understand why the opponents of homosexual marriage make the same claims, since presumably they think that heteronormativity is based on nature or divine will, neither of which can be altered by man, even by the US Supreme Court. Yet the opponents of heterosexual marriage claim that legally defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is the key to preserving the institutions of marriage and family life.

The point isn’t what they can build, it’s what they can destroy. And we have the who and the why. They say it themselves. Yet you refuse to acknowledge this. Your essay could have been written by James A. Dobson (Focus on the Family) or any other conservative fundraising hack.

This makes no sense for two reasons.

First, if heteronormativity is based in nature or divine commandment, not in law, then it cannot be changed by changing laws. (Human laws can, of course, strengthen natural laws by adding additional punishments and incentives to follow nature.)

Leftists are cultists. They are not interested in reality, since reality shows them to be liars and weirdoes. Their solution to nature disagreeing with them is speech codes and laws. This won’t change anything fundamental, but it will keep the air- and mind-waves free of anything that would make them cry. And that is good enough. See Paula Deen.

Second, the institutions of marriage and family life have been pretty much destroyed already. But during the whole period that marriage and family life have been decaying, homosexuals have not been allowed to marry, and marriage has been defined as a union of a man and a woman. In other words, marriage and family life have declined with their heteronormativity entirely intact. Therefore, heterosexuals bear the primary blame for the decline of marriage and the family.

No, heterosexuals have nothing to do with it. The elite setting the agenda bear all the responsibility. They have passed the easy divorce laws. They copied the Soviet family laws in their guidelines for settling child disputes. The agenda is anti-white. Deliberately so. This is not a matter of debate. You can’t have stable families in a nation with a gigantic government touching every area of life and extracting huge taxes to pay for it all. No one has any time or energy left to fuck, let alone fuck productively. Throw in a popular culture that is nothing but 24/7 streaming garbage about hotness, masturbation, homosexuality, getting drunk / wasted / high and mass sports—nothing’s left. You’re either working, sleeping, or thinking about fucking. Well, the legal / media communist jews know exactly what they are doing. Destroying families. Destroying men.

Destroying the very ideas of manliness, womanliness, or families. The very use of family without an article is subversive, and deliberately so, even though many who use it that way—i.e., “the importance of family”—don’t grasp the fact. Barbara Bush, for example, or I could cite other conservatives, do this. A family is anything, who are we to say? It’s certainly not a man, his wife, and his children. They’re all independent agents, who might temporarily combine, if it suits their interests. Well, that’s true for the Strong Women and children. Not for the men. They’re only a group if they’re queers. As family men, they have no rights. They have duties only. To pay their deadbeat dad bills when the court orders. To worship the chictator. And humbly to admit how goofy, doofy and clumsy they are. Just watch any sitcom or commercial if you need an example.

Since homosexuals are a tiny minority, and only a tiny minority of that minority wish to marry in any case, I think that homosexual marriage opponents owe us an explanation as to how, exactly, such a small group of people could mess up marriage any more than straight people already have.

Johnson doesn’t grasp what’s going on. The point of the queer marriage drive is to destroy the family. Destroy enough families, you’ve destroyed society; not to give queers the right to marriage. Something most queers don’t want, since anonymous, promiscuous sex is the heart of their culture, if you want to call it that.

The point is to disempower any legal or social structure that defends anything “patriarchal,” as the feminists and jews call it. These are people at war, or pretending to be at war (jews), with the biological nature of men and women. They denounce the observation that men and women do differ sexually and biologically as “essentialism,” and it is one of their high crimes. Funnily enough, they’re all about this essentialism when it comes to queers. It’s not homosexual behavior, not a choice, it’s an identity. It’s who they are. They are essentialists when it comes to queers, but not when it comes to men and women, or races.

If one really wanted to defend marriage and strengthen the family, one should do the following.

1. End no-fault divorce

2. Criminalize adultery

3. Criminalize alienation of affections

4. End child support for unwed mothers

5. Establish a legal presumption that unwed mothers are unfit mothers, so that giving up illegitimate children for adoption is the norm

6. End adoption by unmarried individuals

7. Institute positive incentives for high-quality individuals to marry and have families

8. Institute tax incentives for people to marry/disincentives to stay single

These policies would significantly strengthen the bonds of marriage and family life. And the burdens and benefits of these measures would fall on the heterosexual population, where they belong.

Mostly good things, but the point is to find out who is behind the pushing of homosexuality and why, and to what end. Homosexuals did not persuade the majority they were right. The people running the media did that. And it wasn’t persuasion of anything beyond “you’d better shut up or we’ll mock and ridicule you and get you fired.”

But none of our pro-family politicians and moral crusaders shows any interest in such measures. And that, to me, is the sign that the whole anti-homosexual marriage campaign is just another phony Right-wing con job: (1) scapegoating homosexuals for the mess that heterosexuals have made of marriage and the family, (2) and channeling the discontent, energy, idealism, and money of a certain segment of the Right (albeit a pretty hopeless segment, from my point of view) into just another dead end, a battle that, even if it were won, would do nothing to halt the demographic decline of our race.

Much like the Jared Taylor he verbally fellates, Johnson’s main concern here is to see that homosexuals aren’t blamed. I repeat—that is main concern. You can figure out why.

With Taylor, of course, it’s jews. As the public face of a White NAACP, funded and directed by jews, Taylor’s job—above all else—is to see that the awakening / burgeoning white identity movement does not blame the jews who put us in the position we’re now in. Instead, we must ever and always blame our own grandparents! You know how they directed the nation’s politics in between slaughtering hogs and growing muskmelons.

Johnson’s engaged in “blame whitey” by another means, which is particularly ironic in light of his “right-wing con job.” The Mormon church in Utah was behind most of the California campaign, as the left gleefully and hatefully exposed, and there is no reason to think they were kidding. Hell, their side won. How often do right-wing con jobs actually win? It was the left-wing court that reversed the popular vote. Which is par for the course. Exactly what we see on race. And illegal aliens. See California’s, again, Prop. 187. It’s a tiny elite setting the agenda. Let’s not blame generic heterosexuals for the imposition of a tiny-elite agenda. It isn’t far. It isn’t accurate.

I used to think that these mainstream Right-wingers were merely stupid and / or deluded. A lot of the rank and file are. But they are generally far better than their leadership. The ones on top are so consistently wrong-headed and ineffectual that it is hard to resist the conclusion that they are agents of the enemy, working to misdirect and dissipate Right-wing dissent lest it give rise to a genuine populism that would threaten the hegemony of our ruling coalition of Jews and raceless, rootless plutocrats. I think that the purpose of their campaigns may be to run out the clock until whites are a minority and there is no hope of change within the present system.

Who is he kidding? Everyone has known this for 100 years. I’ve quoted Joe Sobran a thousand times, and Greg Johnson has read it. “It was all a game; a way of making a living”—Joe Sobran on professional conservatism. They’re raising money from the rural hinds and bourgeois Fox watchers. The real agenda is set by jews. The superficial stuff, there’s a degree of freedom. The serious stuff, the racial stuff—the conservatives are exactly the same as the liberals. Racism is evil, squawk. Racism is the worst thing in the world. Hitler is the worst man ever. The Nazis were the ultimate bad guys. Churchill is the best. man. ever.

The only political issue that matters is whether the white race will continue to exist on this planet in 200 years. White Americans are increasingly aware of, and alarmed by, our demographic decline. But frank appeals to white racial interests are still taboo on the American Right. Instead, the mainstream Right at best offers us race-neutral proxies for racial interests (opposition to “illegal” immigration, libertarian individualism, etc.) and at worst promotes distractions (opposing gay marriage and flag burning, or promoting school prayer) or outright demographic suicide (opposing abortion). Thus I think that White Nationalism will never move forward until the mainstream Right is thoroughly defeated and discredited. I just hope that, by that time, it is not too late to save our race.

Good to see Greggy has finally come around to my position. Before, and remember he was bragging about defeating me in argument over this point, he was all about influencing existing elites. Now he’s all Linder-squawking “we must defeat the conservatives and Republicans.” Maybe he offered Pat Buchanan a blowjob and was rebuffed in a way he felt unmannerly. It’s really hard to say. Although it’s easy—and fun!—to speculate.

Like I said, and you can read it in Strategy forum, attack the conservatives. Quit appeasing them. Quit pretending they’re on our side. Our side is basically everyone who’s not a feminist, sex deviant, non-white—anyone who is normal. Any normal white man or woman.

That is who White nationalism represents, potentially. We fight for white normals with the other groups—the jew-left, and the jew-right. The jew-left relies on its sheer power, rather than its persuasive ability. Its ideas are, after all, directly opposed to the ideas and interests of the average white man. But it can use public schools and mass media and political authority to mislead him as to this fact. The right is more attractive to this average man because its ideas are either right or less obviously wrong. What’s not obvious is what you have to listen to me to learn, or take decades discovering—even where the professional right is right it doesn’t mean it. It won’t fight over anything essential. Starting with race. And pretty much ending there too. Because if you don’t believe that racial difference exist and matter then you’re too dumb to figure in politics beyond serving as someone’s fodder. And if you are smart enough to see that they do, yet you still won’t lead or fight, you’re likewise irrelevant.

So the right has written itself out of the equation, from the Realpolitik perspective. But it still exists as powerful media and political machine. It’s just that its agenda is not what it seems. Rather than protecting and advancing certain principles, even if imperfectly, it has instead changed into a simple money-making scheme. What’s advanced and defended are individual careers, not peoples (races) or positions. Republicans and conservatives are mouthers. They don’t mean. White nationalism is the only school that can mean it. But most people aren’t even aware that it exists. Except in Greece!

Glad to see you joining the fight, Greggy. The next step in your intellectual maturation is to quit pretending the “alternative” or “radical traditionalist” or non-respectable conservatives are any different from the regular ones. I’ll check back in 2018.

I have argued that homosexual marriage is an unimportant issue from the point of view of white demographics. The most important thing to do to increase white fertility and improve white parenting is to strengthen marriage and decrease non-reproductive sex among heterosexuals. I have also argued that the gay marriage issue is being promoted by the phony Right as a distraction from far more important issues. But I am not going to deal with the merits of demerits of homosexual marriage as a policy, because I need to devote more reading and thought to the matter. I do, however, want to end this piece by at least raising the possibility of a society that combines “heteronormativity” with tolerance.

The right didn’t pick that fight, the left did. The professional right accurately saw it as a way to raise money. It’s the leftist media setting the agenda, after all. I love how you continue to think you can just pick and choose your fights rather than fighting on all fronts at all times. And if you disagree, remember it’s your ilk who doesn’t want to force the enemy into a head and call that head jews. Which, after all, fits. Is accurate. There is no term, certainly, more accurate than jews, and only Englishmen who will be thrown in prison if they say otherwise say otherwise.

The only real way to maintain high standards is to recognize that people will fall short of them in some ways. That means a certain amount of latitude and tolerance. A society that cannot tolerate deviation from its norms will inevitably lower its standards to make it easier for more people to comply. And the end of that process is complete nihilism, for if integrity to one’s values is the highest value, in the end, it will be one’s only value. For the easiest way to insure perfect integrity and to make hypocrisy impossible is to value nothing but being oneself at the present moment, i.e., to collapse any difference between the real and the ideal, to affirm that whatever happens to be real at any given moment is the ideal. In short, the only way to always practice what one preaches is to preach nothing but one practices. And that boils down to doing whatever one feels like from moment to moment, a kind of groundless self-affirmation which is pretty much the moral and cultural dead end toward which liberalism is leading.

This wouldn’t be a problem in a society without a gigantic government involved in every detail of personal life. Who do you think is promoting queerness? Government and media. It’s not coming from the grassroots. It’s a top-down phenomenon. People support homosexuality and talk like it’s a good thing out of conformity or fear. Not because they actually like and support.

Most of them honestly don’t even know what faggotry truly is, since, after all, they aren’t fags. Where are they going to learn the truth about faggotry? From sex education? From fag depictions on prime-time tv? From the newspapers? From politicians? The whole thing is a giant charade, proof only of the power of the tiny minority setting the national agenda. Put the nation on a stable racial basis, reduce the role of central government to collective racial defense, watch the homosexual issue (issue is jewspeak for problem) disappear.

Why can’t we have a society in which parents of homosexual children say, “We’re sorry that you are not going to give us grandchildren. It is a misfortune. But we still love you as our flesh and blood, and we know you will still be a good son to us, a good brother to your siblings, and a good uncle to your nieces and nephews”? Why can’t we have a society in which homosexuals accept that they fall short of the norm, rather than tearing down norms merely to feel good about themselves? Why can’t we have a society in which homosexuals are grateful to the heterosexuals who gave them life and glad that others are carrying on their families and their race as a whole? I believe that there are already quite a few people who think this way. But their voices are not being heard.

It’s more subtle than that: whatever good homosexuals can do, and there is much, can be done best if they are objects of average-man hatred and ridicule. Homosexuals flourish, in their various talents, when their actors are locked in the closet. Keep it on the down low, as the niggers say. That’s how you do it. Have your bars. Have your places. But not publicly acknowledged. Accept some cop busts. Accept executions where you show any interest in those under eighteen. If you want to go public, then you ought to be charged for the diseases you create and spread with your behavior. And once those are acknowledged, it’s a very tiny step to the case that anyone with these proclivities is so dangerous that he ought simply to be executed as a botch that potentially threatens public health.

Categories
Conservatism Heinrich Himmler Homosexuality Kali Yuga Real men

Lefty River

Or:

On the Supreme Court & homo marriage


This is my response to Mr. Deutsch’s comment in the previous post:

Yes: at midnight I glanced thru it and the one that Matt Parrott wrote on Sebastian Ronin, and also Andrew Hamilton’s take on the Nazi film “Victory of Faith,” so I didn’t pay special attention to Greg Johnson’s article on homo marriage. He doesn’t want to say that the Supreme Court decision is a marker of how corrupt, evil and degenerate Western culture has become. He even uses Newspeak words like “gay” that I would never dare to use.

Let me put it this way:

Since the 1960s the whole Western culture, and I mean the whole Western culture including so-called conservatives, started to shift to the Left.

lefty river

Imagine a river that took a very wrong turn to the Left. Those who fancy themselves “white nationalists” are deceiving themselves, for in some way or other they are navigating that river too.

In the previous entry that features the painting about the Horatii family I stated that I would like to be a revolutionary, and that most “white nationalists” are mere reactionaries. But sometimes they’re not even genuine reactionaries who want to change the course of the river toward the Right: they simply navigate the Lefty River as many other liberals and conservatives do.

I even stopped listening to Harold Covington’s revolutionary radio shows when he introduced two women as co-speakers. You can imagine how diluted Hitler’s voice would have appeared in the 1930s had he added the voices of women during his inflammatory speeches… In other words, nowadays even revolutionaries are, in some ways, navigating that Lefty River.

To be perfectly honest, I feel uncomfortable with the female voices in the “white nationalist” blogosphere. There are some subjects (cf. the entry “Lycanthropy” in this blog) about which you cannot speak out with brutal honesty if a cute Little Red Riding Hood, however intelligent or committed to the 14 words, is present. I actually believe that a genuine white or ethno-nationalist movement should be a Boys only Club, with Little Reds in a completely separate location, as in National Socialist Germany.

Going back to Greg Johnson’s article on the recent Supreme Court ruling. I don’t see it as a specific Johnson problem. I see the big picture from above, like a pic on the river taken from the air. What Johnson did is fairly common in the “white nationalist” movement. In this Lefty River that every nationalist navigates in some ways, may I remind you that Robert Stark and Tom Sunic didn’t ask tough questions to James O’Meara during their respective interviews of this homosexualist.

No, you cannot deliver a speech like the one that Himmler delivered about faggotry if Little Reds or non-Lycanthrope males are present. Their Aryan female pity completely overwhelms their sense of morality and not even “nationalists” would tolerate sending the fags to the concentration camps. In our Empire of Yin, as Takuan Seiyo called today’s West, even pro-white activists—think of the site Alternative Right—have become so feminized, that their sense of pity is undistinguishable from that of our Fair Ladies. Compared to Commander Rockwell all of them are, in one way or another, navigating the Lefty River, increasingly distancing themselves from the Yang side of the Aryan psyche.

That’s why, as implied in my previous entries, our only hope is the convergence of currency and energy catastrophes that will wipe out both the current anti-white System and the feminized males in the movement.

My pedagogy is hard. What is weak must be hammered away. In my fortresses of the Teutonic Order a young generation will grow up before which the world will tremble. I want the young to be violent, domineering, undismayed, cruel. The young must be all these things. They must be able to bear pain. There must be nothing weak or gentle about them. The free, splendid beast of prey must once again flash from their eyes. I want my young people strong and beautiful.

That way I can create something new.

—H.V.

Categories
Christendom Conservatism Videos

Heimbach

“I hate Hitler” —Matt Heimbach

At the recent Council of Conservative Citizens Matt Heimbach talked about “Christian principles,” the impossibility to expel “a hundred million of non-whites” from the US either using “nuclear weapons or neutron bombs” and that “that’s not desirable either—as a Christian… we identitarians… our faith in Jesus Christ…”

In spite of all that, since Heimbach seems to put race first he may be considered in my category of “Christians that I do respect.” However, at Occidental Dissent an apparently non-Christian commenter opined about his speech:

Heimbach seems to think we can achieve this peacefully. Yeah, that’s a nice pipe dream.

Secession caused a war, as well as the German racial ethnostate. We lost both times, and that more than anything has defined our current situation.

Minus the system failing or some kind of worldwide cataclysmic event, I don’t see much hope on the horizon, unfortunately.

He seems to want to partition the US instead of conquering it and removing all non-Whites, because that’s not feasible and it’s too violent. Well how the hell does he think even partitioning and removing non-Whites that live in the area he wants is going to happen?

We face violent opposition even at the local level, Heimbach knows this himself. Even having a civil discussion with these people is difficult. How many times are these types of conferences cancelled because the location was threatened and bullied into refusing the event.

Later on the same thread, a Christian commenter added:

Matthew Heimbach proposes a quaint and peaceful ethno-state for white people somewhere within the confines of the north American continent. Nothing the Federal government could not crush in less than a week. Unless there is some kind of “Fight Club” permeating every level of our government, you are really asking for a genocide. No, Dorothy, you can’t click your heels three times and get back to Kansas. I am still amazed that Southerners like Matt just don’t get how foolish his proposition is.

However, I did like his comment that the solution to 1984 is the Spain of 1936. Unfortunately, we are living in 2013 Amerika. The scales have been tipped too far to the left. The cult of equality has blinded the well-meaning. We have been sucker-punched and will have to stand trial for defending ourselves like George Zimmerman.

It is a shame if Matt “hates Hitler”. Either his emotion has gotten the better of him or he is pandering to the left. Never hate, especially that which you do not know. If he ever studied the man Hitler, he would not “hate” him but he might learn something from him.

I would recommend Heimbach to read the articles under the heading “On the need to undemonize Hitler” at the sidebar of this blog.

Categories
Conservatism

AltRight: El sabor de mierda

Mc-and-Obama-Kiss-JewAss

I’ll move this entry: here.

Categories
Axiology Conservatism Constantine Constantinople Eschatology Hermann (Arminius) Jesus Swastika Tom Sunic William Pierce

After AD: Before and after the Führer

In the thread on Judeo reductionism, Roger commented today:

Think of the fall of Byzantium. This may have been seen as a great calamity for Europe but on reflection, this helped concentrate power in western Europe and reinvigorated it. Likewise, the utter destruction of America may be the best thing for the White Man… but obviously anyone within those territories will have differing views.

Great point on the need of the fall of Constantinople (which, incidentally, was already too mongrelized ethnically by the time when Mehmed’s cannons made a huge hole on its walls).

I have observed, in the three and a half years that I have been active over white nationalist boards, that quite a few nationalists are infinitely more immature than the leaders of the National Socialist regime insofar as religion is concerned. Even long before the Nazis America was larger and more prosperous economically but more primitive spiritually (just compare German to American music). Genuine spirituality cannot be measured through the American way. Believing in traditional religion or new age nonsense is not enlightening but psychological dissociation.

If homo Americanus is indeed homo Judaicus as Tomislav Sunić maintains, the only way that Americans and Canadians change their so-called spiritual ways is that Murka burns after the dollar crashes and all of their worldwide hegemony be lost. In this New World Order scenario the German people will have a last chance to reclaim their (presently) murdered self-esteem, as a blogger of Germanic origin stated in the post that I have linked the most, “The Red Giant.”

After what the Anglo-Saxons did in the 1940s the only way that these people could possibly atone for their sins is to get rid of the Anno Domini calendar, the one that betokens the birth of “Jesus”—a Latinized, post-Exilic modification of the Hebrew Yĕhōšuă, (Joshua)—as a model for Aryans. In fact, they must get rid of the Jewish god altogether and, instead, base history on the death of Hitler—not on the day when he was born—: a genuine human, all too human model for the white peoples. Only thus will the crime that the Allied forces perpetrated in the century when we were born be remembered for posterity. Books like Hellstorm must be expanded a thousandfold by future scholars in landmark works, just as the Gulag Archipelago functioned like a stake through the hearts of deranged French leftists when I was much younger.

I know that on this issue I am alone among the white nationalists of this continent, which are still stuck in Judeo-Christian values. Today, for example, I received an e-mail that Greg Johnson delivered to all subscribers of Counter-Currents’ newsletter that mentioned Matt Parrott. Although Greg is supposedly an anti-Christian and Matt an Orthodox Christian, axiologically these two Americans are almost exactly on the same page. Greg for one claims to be a fascist in his webzine but he de facto functions like a conservative, as I have pointed out in what is perhaps the most emblematic post of WDH. After the death of William Luther Pierce no American nationalist that I know has transvaluated Christian values back to Aryan values, at least not in such a direct and unabashed way as Pierce did.

My philosophy results from my brutal honesty: Don’t take seriously this politically-correct, new generation of American white nationalists. They don’t feel the same hatred towards the New Constantinople that Pierce felt. As long as, unlike him, they don’t bring Nietzschean axiology to its ultimate consequences, they will continue to function as reactionary conservatives instead of genuine revolutionaries.

Pace the American New rightists, the New Constantinople will fall soon. The commenter Deutscher recently linked at another WDH thread an article that pointed out that it is common that dying empires unravel with unholy speed: a single year for Portugal, two years for the Soviet Union, eight years for France, eleven years for the Ottomans, seventeen years for Great Britain… I predict that the United States will fall in about the same time that the other empire that eventually liberated the blacks fell: Portugal. After all, Austrian economists predict that the collapse of the American dollar will unfold very, very rapidly, with hyperinflation leading to the collapse of all of the US government’s power. (If you don’t believe it and want to discuss the issues, please do it in a thread that has received zero comments: here.)

The good news is that imperial decline tends to have a remarkably demoralizing impact on a society especially after economic privation.

Only decades after the coming eschaton and the ensuing chaos and cure for humility for North Americans could a revaluation of all Judeo-Christian values be manifested by means of replacing the Gregorian calendar by the new one. Only such a cultural shock will convey the westerners in general and the North Americans in particular the eschatological sign that the Christian era, which inadvertently had been responsible for the Judaization of the West after Luther, is over. Like the author of “The Red Giant” I believe that the age of all those centuries since the founder of Constantinople handed over the Roman Empire to his bishops is coming to an end. In the new era no more white children will be taught of the feats of Moses and David and Yĕhōšuă (“Jesus”). Instead, they will be taught the doings of Vercingetorix and Hermann and Hitler—even when these Aryans died most tragically while defending their people.

Covington in uniform

Novelist Harold Covington in uniform

For that reason alone, yesterday I added excerpts of a novel that conveys the feeling of what a future Nationalist Socialist Republic would look in the American Northwest, just in case that the Anglo-Saxons do indeed atone for their mortal sins.

In the following days I will be adding more and more excerpted chapters. Enjoy the coming entries or, still better, obtain a hard copy of a novel where the Swastika will be used in the uniforms of the Seattle and Portland military and police.

Ex Gladio Libertas!
Anno Hitleris 68

Categories
Conservatism Eschatology

Amazon comments on Mark Steyn’s book

MS

Steyn begins by showing us the writing on the wall, using the story of Belshazzar’s feast as a framework to show us that we are broke. Not just in financial difficulties or right up against it, but way past a mere spendthrift nation and into a level of debt that will not only bankrupt the world, but generations to come.

Chapter one shows us images of America past and compares it with America present and compares that with late Rome. Rome was built slowly, but fell quickly. America may be in for the same nightmare.

Chapter two shows us what the true American Dream was, demonstrates how we have traded in our patrimony for some magic beans and some Fool’s Gold. Chapter three demonstrates how close we are to the sickness of Greece right here in America. Much closer than anyone admits and Obama’s policies are drawing us and the whole world closer to that abyss. Chapter four takes us through the cultural decay the role the present all-consuming fetish with Diversity has played in making America weak and incapable of response to our present difficulties. He uses the images of Eloi and Morlocks to show the cultural split between American elites and Americans who actually produce. And how the Americans who still do are condemned, mocked, and are being nanny-stated into becoming passive and government approved Eloi.

What a terrific book. I hope you get a copy and read it. And then tell all your friends about it so they can also hear the warning. And get some laughs as they think about the nightmare we truly face. I know it sounds odd. But we don’t just cry at funerals. Sometimes we have to laugh, too.

Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Saline, MI

♣

In November of 2010, bestselling author and radio personality Mark Steyn gave a speech in London, Ontario, Canada entitled “Head for the Hills: Why Everything in Your World is Doomed.” While comical, Steyn put forth a very negative outlook for the West that addressed a lot of the major demographic challenges facing Western nations.

After America: Get Ready for Armageddon (the much anticipated sequel to America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It) focuses almost exclusively on the United States. The country that once shone as the beacon of wealth and freedom to the world lost its way, and Steyn doesn’t pretend that patriotism and belief in American exceptionalism alone can fix the problems plaguing the nation.

Drawing from some of the greatest thinkers of the past and present in his book, Steyn brings home lessons that people should have learned through history, particularly the recent history of Europe’s economic and cultural crash, as well as many anecdotes and chapters in ancient history. Most shocking was Steyn’s use of classic novels to illustrate his points. The shock comes not from an author using fiction to make his case for the decline of America, but that what’s happening in the present day is so unprecedented: plot lines previously thought of as bizarre fantasy have become reality.

Make no mistake: in the author’s eyes, the United States is not facing a decline—the decline is already happening, and has been since mid century. What’s next for America is a fall, a plummet, and the result is not pretty.

♣

His argument is straightforward, and familiar to anyone paying attention to the debt crisis. He claims that America has gone from a nation of producers to a nation of borrowers, as he puts it, “from a nation of aircraft carriers to a nation of debt carriers.” Steyn notes that our debt service alone could fund China’s military—even if China quadrupled its military budget.

He sums up the situation with one great Steynism after another, my favorite: “We’ve spent too much of tomorrow today—to the point where we’ve run out of tomorrow.”

♣

This is probably the only recent book that will have you rolling on the floor with laughter while discussing such a depressing subject (the last such book was Steyn’s America Alone). Steyn takes a hard look at the position of the U.S. today financially, politically and in terms of national security and analyzes these with his deep insight and hilarious writing style. As Steyn would probably say himself: “it’s the end of the world as we know it, but I feel fine.”

♣

PC is the chains that keep the Eloi silent. Government hand outs are what keep the Eloi bound. It works amazingly well. Mark’s goes on to show how absolutely dreadful the Federal and State governments of the USA has become.

Personally I don’t think the USA will just up and go away like old Rome. Instead it will eventually fade into an overworked, overtaxed, and over governed society with indifferent citizens. The person who has correctly predicted the future of the USA was Robert Bork in his book Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline.

♣

His previous book America Alone was about the decline of the western world sans USA. After America is about the impending decline of the United States due to massive spending and growing debt. Steyn warns that fall of the USA will be a catastrophe for the whole world and it will be a nasty thing.

♣

The hot topic lately in Washington is the astronomical debt of the U.S. Government. But Steyn demonstrates that the questions of government debt, overspending, and likely national decline are fundamentally moral questions…

♣

Western civilization, Steyn writes, “is a synthesis—a multicultural synthesis, if you like: Athenian democracy, Roman law, the Hebrew Bible, dispersed by London to every corner of the globe.” In many ways, America is the culmination of this glorious heritage. Unfortunately, America now more closely resembles the newer, degenerated versions of these once-great geopolitical states (Rome, Athens, Britain and Jerusalem) than their celebrated pasts, which so mightily contributed to the founding of our country.

Steyn states what everyone knows but is afraid to say: The welfare state of Europe and, to a slightly lesser degree, America, is simply unsustainable. “When you’re spending four trillion dollars but only raising two trillion in revenue, you’ve no intention of paying it off, and the rest of the world knows it.” The Obama administration, upon taking office, took the average Bush deficit from 2001-2008 and doubled it—all the way to 2020.

America’s debt has other consequences besides just the obvious ones. In 2010, half of our debt was owned by foreigners, and most of that was held by the Chinese. Steyn continues:

“What does that mean? In 2010, the U.S. spent about $663 billion on its military, China about $78 billion. If the People’s Republic carries on buying American debt at the rate it has in recent times, then within a few years U.S. interest payments on that debt will be covering the entire cost of the Chinese armed forces.”

Yikes! And all that, Steyn mentions, while China is undergoing, according to alarming Pentagon reports, a “massive military build-up.” In other words, we are paying what might be our most dangerous enemy to build-up and maintain its military. Can someone say insane?

♣

This is a direct quote from the flyleaf of the book: “What will a world without American leadership look like? It won’t be pretty—not for you and not for your children. America’s decline won’t be gradual, like an aging Europe sipping espresso at a cafe until extinction (and the odd Greek or Islamist riot). No, America’s decline will be a wrenching affair marked by violence and possibly secession.”

♣

Unlike the situation with Europe though, when America collapses there will be no great Western Civ nation to carry the banner and support Western Civ’s ideals in the world.

Don’t read this book if you don’t want to be severely depressed. In fact, I’d most likely recommend this one to lefties. Since they don’t use their brains anyway, and will never absorb any of the truth to bear the burdens of being an adult knowing adult things. They’ll be too busy frothing at the mouth, angry at Steyn for using Obama’s name in a book talking about America’s decline.

♣

Neither Limbaugh nor Steyn have advanced, or even college, degrees. Yet each has more insight, intelligence, honesty and humor each weekday than most Harvard graduates muster in a lifetime. What if they had gone to Harvard? We can never know, but I’m glad they didn’t.

♣

Truth hurts and can also be depressing. Is the reader more ready for Armageddon having read the book? If “ready” means to be not surprised and awake and conscious while facing reality, the read is worth it. If “ready” means spiritually at peace, look elsewhere.

♣

This is a very fine authorship of issues confronting the Western nation economies. Although the title and content certainly focus on America, the overall impact of decades of badly managed fiscal policies has finally caught up with America especially. And what goes wrong here will also go wrong with all other nations linked to the dollar or euro.

The coming Armageddon is an appropriate phrase for the repositioning of western economies into a pattern of insignificance globally speaking. The eventual reality for America is the weakening of our global influence to a level where we cannot do anything more than struggle with a 3rd world level of significance. The fiscal debt and loss of influence will place America in a position of meaningless power.

♣

Mark Steyn is a true patriot that is not afraid to tell the truth and deserves to be read, heard, and recognized as a brave warrior in American politics. The people of America must wake up to the eventual destruction that is propelling us to the brink of cataclysmic uncertainty if we don’t get out of our comfort zone from the distraction of entertainment until it is too late…

♣

A wonderful book. Steyn somehow is able to be very funny on a topic that is disturbing and depressing. The book is not very well organized. It’s a torrent of data about contemporary America, all of it pointing toward an imminent collapse, all of it well documented.

♣

Any English teacher seeking writing samples to illustrate figures of speech—from alliteration to understatement—would find an abundant source here. Steyn is a word artist.

Some (of many) coinages: armageddonouttahere, conformicrats, Eurosclerosis. He turns common phrases upside down and inside out and presents ideas in new, and usually comic, ways. Steyn always provides a fresh perspective on issues, ideas you don’t find anywhere else. And even ideas you have heard before are presented in novel ways.

♣

America Alone warned us; we continue to slide into an abyss of our own making. After America is Mr. Steyn’s red alert. With typical brilliance and humor he paints a picture of a great nation in its death throes.

♣

Mark Steyn, well known radio host and author of previous bestsellers, writes a sobering 350 pages of anecdotes and statistics showing a bleak future for America and the world.

This type of book is becoming more common and more mainstream, unfortunately. Not too long ago, anyone that saw such a dark future would have been called an extremist wacko. Nobody says that anymore. Perhaps the first down-rating of America’s financial picture convince you, perhaps our endless wars and casualties, perhaps our inability to prevent illegal immigration, perhaps our failing cities and states. What Steyn does well is put all of these kinds of trend together in an understandable whole, backed up by extensive documentation.

In addition to the 350 pages, we get 50 pages of footnotes. Steyn’s research is impeccable. The book consists of chapters on economics, culture, demographics and has frequent excerpts from current essays and news reports. Steyn writes clearly and uses humor effectively, but does not resort to simple primal screaming in print.

♣

I figured out long ago that the United States seems intent on committing suicide by government so Mr. Steyn’s message was well received by me.

♣

I just finished Stanley Goldman’s How Civilizations Die. These are both must read books.

♣

In his previous book, America Alone, Steyn argued from a demographics perspective that the Islamic world was taking over the West and that the U.S. was the only nation in the West with a birthrate that didn’t portend a hopeless national death spiral. In After America, Steyn looks at the world through the lens of economics and he determines that the U.S. has joined the rest of the West in a self-destroying debt spiral, one which will result in a short shift of power to countries like China and Russia.

Since Steyn published America Alone, a lot has happened. Obama was voted in by a star-struck, celebrity worshipping, fiscally suicidal U.S. majority who believes that Obama’s personal charisma can underwrite an eternal and bottomless credit line with China and other (often hostile) foreign creditors. But unlike most party-line republicans, Steyn recognizes that, while Obama has done much to worsen and hasten the U.S. fiscal death spiral, he is not the real problem. In fact, the best America could hope for from a majority of republican politicians and presidential candidates would be to slow the car from 90 to 70 miles per hour as it speeds toward the cliff.

♣

My Adorable Husband kicked me out of bed for reading this book—I was laughing out loud at the perfect phrasing and framing of the issues. It was disturbing his sleep.

♣

This book reads like a long Mark Steyn column. Steyn is a great composer of one-liners that induce both thought and laughter. The sarcasm and cynicism that drips through the pages also points to greater sad truths about the civilizational torpor of the West and the sad state of who we have become as a nation.

♣

I finally stopped reading this book for my own mental health. After going through emotions such as anger, then fear, then depression, I was wondering what Mr. Steyn would offer as a solution rather than depressing us all to kingdom come.

♣

If only to further annoy your friends who shun you at cocktail parties as a relentless purveyor of doom and gloom, read After America and burnish your perceptions and arguments. You may at least become more entertaining if not more popular.

♣

A doomsday book ought not to be this much fun to read. Steyn’s wit, erudition, and style are second to none in today’s polemical political punditry, and in his latest book he’s been combining them and using them to the max.

♣

Steyn has a gift for taking a very depressing topic—the decompression of America from superpower to Greece—and making it entertaining and informative. He documents how an entitlement culture has bred dependency and how, in the face of a debt crisis, the government we elected has opted for… wait for it… more spending and regulations!

♣

If you want to get past the noise coming from the media and understand the magnitude of the turd flying towards the fan, this is the book for you. Incisive, witty, thoughtful laying out of the mess we are in and the even nastier one we are heading into. Don’t expect partisanship. Steyn understands that there is plenty of blame to go around and a lack of seriousness on both sides. Even though Steyn doesn’t endorse any politician, after reading this book I wistfully dreamed of a Ron Paul presidency.

♣

Steyn is witty and funny though there is nothing funny about what’s going on in the world as America withdraws and takes its place with those Western nations that dominated a century and then went to sleep: Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Great Britain and now us.

♣

Describes the severity of our financial and cultural problems as the United States nears its end. Essentially, the point is that Americans are dependents of government, the government is run by pseudo-intellectual twits, and there is no possible way our economy can survive the debt crisis.

However, I must dock one star because the author keeps suggesting that some of this might be avoidable. That is hopelessly optimistic. 2012 was the last chance, and America blew it. The Obama administration is now talking about minting trillion dollar coins. Republican “spending cuts” are not only rejected by the Democrats, but are so pathetically miniscule that they wouldn’t do diddly-squat even if implemented. The question now is what to do with your savings… gold? land? ammo? We’ll find out soon.

♣

Outlines a very accurate analysis of our national future. Chronicles how we’re destroying our economy, giving away our freedoms, stripping our national defense and making the future of the world a much less free and much more dangerous and poverty stricken place for everyone.

Unfortunately, if you’re getting government assistance, you probably don’t care.

Categories
Axiology Conservatism Democracy Egalitarianism Enlightenment Evil Individualism Liberalism Universalism

Egalitarianism is evil

Or:

Equality, the immovable object that stands in our way


Now that I am following Tom Sunic in that an egalitarian mindset is behind the empowerment of the Jews, the article “Moral Barriers to White Survival” by Alex Kurtagic published in American Renaissance (reproduced below) makes much sense, in spite of the fact that Kurtagic has been very reluctant to blame Christian axiology directly. He rightfully blames Enlightenment values though, but does not go as far as the European New Right which seems to perceive the root of our woes in our parents’ religion.

Kurtagic

Many race realists are frustrated by liberal resistance to empirical truths. They would like to think that any rational person will study the facts, reflect upon them, and modify his beliefs accordingly—not immediately, of course, nor without a healthy measure of skepticism, but surely over time. Yet, as I have often said, in discussions of race and race relations “the facts” are not as important as we would like to think, because when choosing sides on this topic people are motivated primarily by non-factual considerations. In this essay I will explore the reasons why liberalism, though rooted in the scientific revolution and coming from the rationalist and empiricist intellectual traditions, has proven so impervious to the science of race.

Any facts or arguments that are brought into a discussion about race and race relations are nearly always subordinated to social considerations. Some of these are the need to be liked by family and friends; the desire to be liked by those one likes and admires and by whom one wants to be liked and admired; the need for social status; and ethnic identification. These considerations, because they are important sources of essential human needs, may cause the same set of data to be interpreted by people in radically different ways, including ways that fly in the face of evidence and make no objective sense.

We have an obvious example in the liberal/Left’s assertion that race has no biological basis, when the senses tell us otherwise and there is even race-specific medicine. A liberal/Leftist is committed to a moral system that deems equality an absolute moral good, and in a Western society, his status, particularly among whites, depends on his being considered morally righteous. Therefore, he will readily accept convenient data but dismiss inconvenient data or make it conform to his requirements. Those who accept this convenient data are embraced by whites in Western societies as morally sound, while those who accept inconvenient data are marginalized as moral defectives.

Such bias is not exclusive to liberalism or the Left; it is everywhere. What changes according to ethnic identification and cultural context is the value assigned to a morality based on universal abstract principles: For whites in the West this is very important, for other groups, in the West and elsewhere, it is less so, as their moral systems tend to be particularist and ethnocentric rather than universalist—the good is what is good for them.

In Western societies, whites who hold unconventional views, even views that fall outside liberal morality, are not exempt from such bias either.


Critique of pure empiricism

Race realists are a product of modernity and Enlightenment philosophy. They realize that humans are motivated by moral and ethical sentiments rather than reason, but, at the same time, they act as if knowledge, understood as empirical evidence processed by reason, ought to be the basis for morality. In this sense they are the diametrical opposite of their opponents, for whom what ought to be determines what is.

Put in more simple terms, race realists forget that knowledge does not come into being in a moral vacuum. On the contrary, knowledge is sought and acquired by individuals committed, a priori, to a given moral code, and this knowledge is interpreted, disseminated, and then used in accordance with a moral code.

Liberal morality

The dominant moral system in the West is liberal morality. To understand this system we need to understand the structure of liberalism.

In liberalism, the historical subject is the individual. The individual is the measure of all things. The idea behind liberalism is to “liberate” the individual from anything that is external or transcendent to him, such as faith, tradition, and authority. The transcendent implies hierarchy: subordination of the individual to something higher. Absent this higher something, one is left only with the individual, and without faith, tradition, or higher authority, an individual becomes like any other individual. Thus, equality.

When individuals are equal, they have an equal claim to a slice of the pie. Thus the ideal type of government becomes democracy, in its most radical form. Concurrently, where there is equality, what applies to one individual applies to all equally, everywhere and always. This means universalism.

The abandonment of the transcendent leads to a worldview that is entirely secular, rational, and material. The way to happiness then becomes material increase, pursued by rational means. This results in production, consumption, and economics. It becomes necessary to produce and to find ways to maximize production. Individualism, equality, democracy, universalism, secularism, rationalism, materialism, and economism constitute the foundations of liberal morality.

Not all of these values have equal importance. Two of them—liberty and equality—are privileged above the others, and have produced two strands of liberalism in modern times. The strand that favors equality incorporates the Marxist critiques of liberalism formulated during the 19th and 20th centuries; this is the dominant strand of liberalism today.

The strand that favors liberty is closer to Classical Liberalism, and its purest expression is libertarianism; this represents an important oppositional view within liberalism. It is important to note, however, that both strands regard equality as an absolute moral good. In liberalism, in both its dominant form and its main oppositional form, the moral goodness of equality is taken for granted and stands beyond discussion or criticism. Liberal morality considers the questioning of the goodness of equality a serious moral defect.

Liberal morality therefore deems race realism an evil because race realism asserts the essential inequality of man. In this way liberal morality puts race realism outside the realm of acceptable discourse, and race realists outside the realm of civilized society.

Critiques of liberalism and its effects

During the 19th and 20th centuries, liberalism was subjected to critiques, from both the Left (Marxism) and the Right (Fascism/National Socialism). Liberalism, Marxism, and Fascism/National Socialism are the three primary ideologies of modernity. Fascism and National Socialism were defeated by Marxism and liberalism in 1945, and Marxism was defeated by liberalism in 1989. Of the three ideologies of modernity, only liberalism survives.

Fascism and National Socialism fell into discredit after the war and, due to their being inegalitarian ideologies, became shorthand for evil. Marxism was partially absorbed by modern liberalism because of its egalitarian morality, thus tipping modern liberalism even more heavily toward egalitarianism. As a result, modern liberalism is distinct from classical liberalism.

The triumph of liberalism has, in turn, made it invisible. Russian theorist Alexander Dugin claims that it has long since ceased to be political, and has gone on to become a taken-for-granted practice. We have certainly seen liberals branding critiques of liberalism as “ideological” without any sense that their own worldview is ideological.

Opposition of liberty and equality within liberalism

The triumph of liberalism, and the triumph of equality within liberalism, has meant that now, even liberty is subordinated to the requirements of equality. As communism and the multicultural experiment have demonstrated, liberty and equality are incompatible, so the ever-greater pursuit of equality results in the ever-greater erosion of liberty. A commitment to radical equality results in the proliferation of laws, state surveillance, police enforcement, prosecutions, incarcerations—and bureaucracies to administrate all of the above, and higher taxes to pay for all of it.

This is nowadays always justified with the argument that unlimited freedom leaves the field open to “fascism” (i.e., inequality), and that liberty must be curtailed in order to protect, guarantee, and maximize equality. We end up with a circular argument, then, whereby equality is good because it increases equality.



Immovable object?

Therefore, the single biggest impediment to the cause of Western man in the West is not lack of knowledge about race, but lack of a moral justification for valuing whiteness and everything it entails. Obviously, to value whiteness gives it a special status, which means inequality. In liberal morality, it is not acceptable to recognize whiteness, because it is a category that exists above the individual, and the individual is supposed to be the measure of all things, a tabula rasa, equivalent and interchangeable with any other individual.

In addition, modern liberalism incorporates a Marxist historiography in which whites are an oppressor class and people of color an oppressed class. This is explicitly the historiography of the postcolonial theory that is taught in Western universities, which privileges the voices of the colored “oppressed.” These voices subject whiteness and the West to radical deconstruction and criticism. Whiteness is, in fact, allowed recognition only when it is linked to oppression; in any other context, a black person has the specificity of his blackness, but a white person has the unspecificity of being simply a human, who is no different from or more special than anyone else.

Thus, belief in the moral goodness of equality is the seemingly immovable object that stands in the way. If politics is the art of the possible, then any campaign predicated on values outside the perimeter of what is morally acceptable—i.e. outside liberal morality—will not be politically possible.

The cause for Western man requires a fundamental shift in consciousness that would begin with a thorough discrediting of the notion that equality is a moral good. Until this has been achieved, ethnic politics privileging whiteness in the West will go nowhere, and it will remain easy for the liberals to shut down debate with the simple expression of outrage and name-calling.

Time horizons

Critics of this view may object that while it may be true that a change of politics will require a change of moral system, the time necessary to achieve this is too long and no longer available to us.

This objection assumes that challenging liberal morality is an entirely new project that must begin from zero. In fact, liberal morality, like all ideological moral systems, is merely a transient phenomenon, whose present dominance conceals the long tradition it once successfully challenged. Since ancient times and until the more recent part of the modern era, Westerners have considered quality more important than equality. Consequently, there is a vast philosophical canon to draw from, recover, reinterpret, and adapt to the modern world. Indeed, this has been the project of the European New Right, and The Fourth Political Theory, by Dugin, is an important contribution to this effort that outlines possibilities for a way forward, though any fourth political theory towards a post-liberal West would necessarily need to be home-grown and have a uniquely Western formulation.

The objection also partakes, inadvertently, in liberal cosmology, which conceives historical processes as linear progressions. In fact, as communism demonstrated, when power changes hands, the transition is not incremental but abrupt, with dissent gestating almost invisibly at first, under the surface, before growing exponentially, achieving critical mass, and producing a sudden change in state. This is also the way transformations occur in nature and the universe.

Liberal morality will eventually collapse. The question in the West is whether it will give way to another, autochthonous morality or to the morality of our conquerors. If the former, historians of the future will probably not see us as a rupture, but as yet another reinvention of European man within his wider metacultural tradition; they are likely to see liberalism as a political-moral-philosophical paradigm that came and went, the way others had come and gone before. Historians of the future may mark the periods of history differently from us, and by tracing the origins of our ideas, may decide that this reinvention was the culmination of a process that had begun centuries before.

Conservative commentators, such as Pat Buchanan, blame the multicultural society in the West on the Frankfurt School of Social Research and other such Freudo-Marxist subversion, and place the watershed moment of social transformation in the 1960s. Mr. Buchanan is, however, a liberal, albeit of a more classical or archaic sort than his critics, who are also liberals. We can trace the origins of the multicultural society much further back, to the Enlightenment, of which the United States (but not the colonies out of which it was organised) is an expression. European New Right intellectuals and historians trace it farther back still, to Christian metaphysics, which sees all men created in God’s image, with salvation available to all.

The question in the West is how much territory we will lose before we can successfully discredit liberal morality. Curtailing those losses will require the artificial precipitation within liberalism of a moral and intellectual crisis that puts current morality on the defensive, generates doubt and loss of confidence in its principles, and leads eventually to panic, overreaction, and loss of credibility. The speed at which this can be achieved depends on complex factors, not to mention a measure of good fortune, but modern technology enables us to communicate and disseminate ideas more rapidly, more widely, and more cheaply than ever before.

Theory into practice

In any movement there are five planes of operation: the intellectual, the strategic, the organisational, the activist, and the man in the street. The first four are the movement proper and the latter is its target, which can be divided into three categories: the committed, who cannot be persuaded either for or against; the persuadable, who are the primary target for recruitment; and the conformist, who is apolitical and will follow whomever looks like a winner.

The activist will be useless, even counter-productive, unless his message and his arguments are informed by a sound, appropriate, and articulable moral theory; unless he is organised to operate credibly and effectively; and unless his organisation has strategies that can translate abstract theory into a pragmatic, results-oriented program of action.

The discrediting of liberal morality will need to be a process that begins with theoretical tracts and ends with protests, sit-ins, strikes, boycotts, and a pattern of establishment compromises and capitulation. The general theory will need to find its way into an endless barrage of narrowly defined, single-issue, winnable campaigns. It will be up to each individual to decide his preferred tactic and field of operation, based on his own strengths, weaknesses, experience, and areas of expertise. In this sense the opportunities are endless.

In the battle for the West the main obstacle in the Anglo-American world has been its aversion to theory. Anglo-Saxon man is pragmatic by nature, not given to philosophical speculation. He prefers to deal in the concrete and the factual. This problem is compounded by the fact that the United States—the world’s dominant power—is an Enlightenment project, whose founding documents were formulated by classical liberals in accordance with their philosophy. United States institutions may have fallen into the hands of hostile elites, but the liberal values of liberty, equality, democracy, and progress remain strong, and are, in fact, exploited by these elites to advance their interests. Theory is important. A way around this is to focus on morality, because Anglo-Saxon man is deeply preoccupied with morality.

The breakthrough will have been achieved when homo equalis is filled with deep feelings of shame when he is confronted with his own beliefs.

Caveats

The destruction of liberal morality will cause the collapse of liberalism. However, the collapse of liberalism will not necessarily mean that the individual values that comprise it will henceforth all be beyond the pale. It may be that not all of liberalism is bad and some of its constituent parts can be repurposed within a different set of value relations. If so, they will not be recognized as part of liberalism.

Also, while theory is important, this does not mean that everyone reading this should become a theoretician. For the Marxist, his theory is everything, but the anti-racist thugs who disrupt conferences and other events, while a product of Marxism, are unlikely to have ever read Marx, for they can hardly read their own names.

Final words

Ultimately, the problem of race realism is reducible to a single idea: that it is not the facts, but how people feel about the facts. The barriers that have limited or prevented the communicability of our proposition will only start to fall away when the value of whiteness can be expressed in righteous tones.


___________________________



See also “The liberal axiom,”
which could be used as a corollary to Kurtagic’s piece.

Categories
Conservatism Painting Real men

Alex Linder vs. Hunter Wallace

Editor’s note: The following exchange between Alex Linder and Brad Griffin (a.k.a. Hunter Wallace) has been excerpted from a long thread on Vanguard News Network forum:

Brad Griffin said…

I don’t believe that Jews are 100% to blame for our situation. I believe there are many factors involved and that reducing it to the Jewish Question is simply an oversimplification of a complex process.

Do Jews share a lot of the blame? Of course.

The reigning mythology on WN [white nationalist] internet forum is that Yankees and Jews are somehow opposed to each other, but in the real world they are best friends and political allies and line up on the same side against the South in every national election.

The Jews and Yankees are both in the driver’s seat. They are the senior partners in the Democratic Party. They are allies, not enemies. It is only on the internet where the tiny minority of Northern WNs insist that Yankees and Jews are not on the same side.

I want to create a Southern ethnostate.

In the “Republic of Dixie,” Southern Whites would evolve into a European-style ethnic group, the “Dixians.” The new Southern ethnostate would be based on all the ingredients of a successful European nation: a common ethnicity, a common culture, a common religion, and a common history.

America was a failure because it was a “White Republic” based on race and republicanism. That’s why it ultimately disintegrated. We won’t make the same mistake again.

As we move “Forward” with Obama toward raising the debt ceiling and the inevitable California federal bailout, Texas is destined to lead the way toward Southern secession.

The North won’t resist Southern secession either. Progressives aren’t going to wage war against the South to preserve the Union. They will be left with unbridled control of the remainder of the United States.

100 years ago, there wasn’t a Jewish Question in the South. For the most part, Jews like Judah Benjamin were reconciled to the South’s racial traditions. There were even Jewish members of the original Ku Klux Klan.

Insofar as there was a problem with glorifying and promoting blacks over Whites, Yankees were 100% of the problem.

No one in the Confederacy wrote about the Jewish Question because the racial and cultural threat to the South wasn’t seen as coming from that quarter. Instead, it was the Northeastern Yankee “Black Republicans” like John Brown and William Lloyd Garrison who were out to destroy the Southern of way of life.

As always, the Yankees lined up and voted overwhelmingly for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The White Republic died in 1865.

The Jews started moving here en masse in the 1880s and 1890s. The White Republic died because Yankees couldn’t stop demonizing the South over slavery. They couldn’t stop themselves from minding our business and taking the side of the blacks.

It happened again in the 1960s.


Alex Linder said…

“Main Jewish Cause” is accurate. “Single Jewish Cause” is a strawman.

VNN focused on jews for two reasons:

1) they are the powers that be, in 2012

2) they are the ones no one talks about

VNN has always mentioned the lesser causes of our racial decline, foremost of which is the jebus cult, which you conspicuously omit to blame at OD [Occidental Dissent]. Without abolitionism, no civil war. Without christianity, no abolitionism.

I have asked to no answer why the Catholic church is far more hostile to nazism than to communism.

Racial and christian worldviews are competitive, not complementary. Race offers a different and superior basis for society, and the church does not want white man to figure that out, as it briefly was under Hitler. The church prefers communism, because as bad as it is, it is temporary, since it runs against basic human nature, and will eventual disappear. Communism is such a repulsive and malignant jewish baby that even the ugly mexican baby of catholicism is appealing beside it. The key understanding is that there is nothing in the jebus cult that has any problem with the white race (or the South, for that matter) disappearing off the face of the earth. If there’s no doctrinal support for whites as whites, the doctrine is bad for us.

Originally Posted by Lew, for Alex:

What, exactly, do you hope to accomplish by attacking Christianity the way that you do? Who is your audience for these criticisms?

Audience is thinking adults. I hope to reduce respect for the cult in general by demonstrating its impotence and delusionality, the jew-obsequiousness of its leaders, and the functional anti-Whiteness of its doctrines. I would like to see the cult disappear among the white race. Christianity is criticized by jews for the wrong reasons, leading unthinking white men to think it must be basically good, just as WN foolishly assume same of Pat Buchanan because jews criticize him. Not so. The cult is a terrible thing—for reasons seldom given. I give those reasons, and I indicate how a race-firster were wise to treat the church, based on real-world evidence.

If a person is a WNist pagan or an atheist (like me), the person doesn’t need convincing Christian theology poses problems for racialists. If a person is a generic Christian, or a Christian with racial sympathies, and they do in fact exist, it doesn’t seem likely your critique will convince them to do anything different.

A christian with racial sympathies is confused and divided of mind, and needs the contradiction brought out so that he can decide which master to serve. And, by the way, as much ego as I use, I certainly don’t expect adult males to bow before me and proclaim me their leader; I expect the power and form of my delivery to put a little doubt behind their facade. And they can think it over privately away and safe from my mocking, which is, yes, quite vicious and harsh.

Related: why is attacking Christianity important when Jews hold much of the real power in society, and to the extent white gentiles hold significant power in society, they are almost all secular liberal egalitarians who reject Christianity?

Those secular liberal egalitarians are almost all christians, in fact. It’s important to attack christianity and conservatism because they are competitors for the minds and support we need for our cause. WN, coming from a Southern conservative background, have not understood this. This is why they freely mix these things. But that’s not what will work. We must distinguish and elevate our racial cause by attacking conservatives as our enemy, as I advocate in my essay elsewhere. Not by mixing with it and drowning ourself in it. We must be intolerant in order to rise, in order to gain the strength to defeat the main enemy—not mushy.

Smoothing over differences doesn’t work. It’s effeminacy. It allows our enemy, jews, to infiltrate and subvert us. It allows our enemy conservatives to steal our men and arguments and fundraising—without ever supporting our positions publicly (perfectly parallel to a girl you would fuck but not introduce to your parents). It creates a gauzy haziness that leaves just WTF we are unclear in the public mind, hence boring and shruggable.

Clarity, distinctions, principles, edges—all these things that are foreign to folks who think that everyone except the principled assholes like me can get along fine under a big tent. Macdonald is politically clueless. Greg Johnson is $$$-interested, and cuts his behavior by his prospects. Our new buddy Jethro [Brad Griffin] inhabits personalities like a hermit crab shells. These don’t get the job done. What does is shown by Golden Dawn, in Greece of all goddam places:

• real men under real names (99% of WN fall off)
• real men not afraid to name the jew and buck jew taboos (100% of conservatives)
• real men not afraid to fight in the street
• real men who spend their time and money helping their people in thousand ways, providing all kinds of services for free, out of love and duty and responsibility

Our situation, in America, is not as desperate as in Greece. So people aren’t looking so much for our leadership. But if they were tomorrow, we wouldn’t have anything prepared. And that’s to our shame, and for the reasons I indicate—we are unwilling to define who we are, and figure out the principles we will back under our real names with our real lives.

This is not a game, just because we treat it like one.

Whites prove by their behavior they support our basic position: they, South and North, want to live among other whites. And not be discriminated against because of their race. And not have the borders left open, and citizenship held cheap. And they want sexual normality, and just ordinary decency on tv, so you can actually watching something in the day or evening that you don’t cringe every fucking five seconds if your parents or grandparents are in the room.

Every fucking one of you knows exactly what I mean. This is the shit-kultur that jews have built—and we let them. And your goddam jesus dick suckers have had 2,000 years to get your shit in order, and you have fucking failed. You are a big plate of stewed cats anuses to me, perhaps tasty to some imagination-free slant-eyed third-shift Kia employee, but unfit for human consumption. Get the fuck out of the way, you fucking jebus nuthuggers. WE will clean up culture; you sad fags aren’t woman enough for the job. I figuratively piss on the grave of your imaginary jewish science-fiction hero.

Just listen to the tone of the MacDonald, Johnson and Parrott conversation. The first two are professionally deformed, per the French expression. Incapable of inciting passion in people by nature of the discipline their background has required of them. Parrott I think has an inkling.

I wish you fags who presume to doubt me would read the Golden Dawn thread, and watch some of the videos.

That’s what’s going on in WN. It’s not some 90-yo jerkoff speaking in coded language to old ladies, it’s young men raising arms, flags, chants—roofs, as da niggers say. Figure it out. Jesus Christ, I am so fucking tired of being a remedial common sense teacher I could puke.


Brad Griffin said…

Here in the South, the Southern Baptist Convention was the last mainstream institution in the entire country to fall into line with the anti-white mainstream culture. They didn’t figure out that “racism” was a sin until the mid-1990s.

Linder conveniently ignores the fact “racism” was coined by European and Jewish atheists. He ignores the fact that the Soviet Union—which was officially atheist—pushed “racism” into the mainstream through its tentacles in world communism.

He ignores the fact that it was the secular universities, not the churches, where this nonsense got started in America. It was secular intellectuals like John Dewey who fell the hardest for it in the 1930s and 1940s and who made “racism” taboo in the aftermath of the Second World War.

After “anti-racism” had triumphed in the universities and among the intelligentsia in the 1930s and 1940s, then other mainstream institutions began to fall in line with the new consensus. Every single mainstream institution has been infected by this disease and the churches were among the most resistant but for some reason Linder blames the churches instead of the secular intellectuals who spearheaded the movement.

Here’s a reality check for Alex:

(1) You will never guess which state was the first to legalize gay marriage. It was Vermont which is the most secular, the most atheist, the least religious, and one of the least conservative states in America.

(2) The Jesus nuthuggers have gotten out of the way in the Northeast. They have gotten out of the way in Britain and Scandinavia. They certainly aren’t standing in the way in San Francisco.

And the result? It is precisely those places where cultural degeneracy has been taken to its greatest extreme. It is precisely those places where cultural degeneracy is called “progress,” not “worse is better.”

Does anyone know of an atheist country that is “pro-White”? The Soviet Union was officially atheist. Vermont is the least religious state in America. San Francisco is one of the least religious cities.

Alex is always picking on the British: in 2012, the British are thoroughly de-Christianized; in 1912, Britain was thoroughly Christian. Has the decline of Christ-Lunacy in the UK or Sweden or Norway over the past century produced a more racialist society? Is there anyone here who is excited about the prospects of racialism winning a mass following in San Francisco or Vermont?

Religion is a barrier that makes the Jew an outsider.

Alex Linder said…

One movement arose to restore white supremacy over a continent; the church opposed. I’m not sure what else you need to know. The top prelate in Greece has also condemned Golden Dawn in Greece.

The church, like the anti-white NWO socialists that spawned from it, is universalist, and universalism is inherently anti-white.

Brad Griffin said…

How so?

The church approved of slavery for centuries. The church approved of racialism for centuries.

Is there any historian who argues that Disraeli was anti-White? Every historian that I know of argues that Britain became more racialist after the 1850s.

Alex Linder said…

It became less elitist. In his novels he [Disraeli] wrote that blood is everything, and the world is ruled by a tiny minority behind the scenes, and in both instances he meant jews. Britain was already well into universalist fantasies at that point, and guess where those fantasies originated? In the sicko christ cult.

Christianity is liberalism. Or, as Spengler put it, christianity is the grandmother of bolshevism. Without christ-insanity, you wouldn’t have the progressive, secularist, communist garbage—the latter is simply an evolution of the former. They are both anti-white, and no different than the Republicans are from the Democrats.

Brad Griffin said…

That’s a stretch.

There is nothing in the Bible about natural rights. There is some talk in the Bible about equality in a purely spiritual otherworldly sense, but there is also talk about genocide and blood and soil and homophobia and patriarchy. The Bible explicitly endorses slavery.

The first thing that Jacobins did in France, who were inspired by the Enlightenment, was to behead King Louis XVI and overthrow the Gregorian Calendar and demonize the Church.

“Liberty” is the most important liberal value. Ron Paul is a liberal. Libertarianism is a species of liberalism.

Alex Linder said…

Originally posted by Griffin:

Ironically, it was also Oliver Cromwell who came up with the idea of the British as a superior “White” master race. There wasn’t much talk of “white supremacy” in Britain or Western Europe before Cromwell’s time.

Per E. Michael Jones, protestantism has always been very closely tied to jews. All these sub-cults imagine they are the real new jews. They’re idiots. Dangerous idiots.

The point is, British men came up with this idea of forcing everyone into their system. Everyone wants to be us. Everyone is jealous of us. One size fits all.

That’s why sane men have long observed, if it’s British or chrisitan, it’s usually a pretty lousy thing, and we don’t want it. Look at these creeps have made of the world, working hand in glove with the jew.

The only way out was indicated by NS, and the church you defend specifically, overtly and repeatedly denounced.

Christianity is the author of Europe’s decline. When the church goes, the racial animal will rebound. And that, I fervently hope, is what we are seeing harbinger of in Greece. From my lips to god’s ear that it will be the same in the US when the time comes.

Mississippi christian conservatism—nigger, please. You don’t produce Hitlers down there, you produce Shep Smiths.

Brad Griffin said…

Well, Christianity is pretty much dead in Britain and Scandinavia, and behold the result.

Alex Linder said…

Originally posted by Griffin:

Surely, you meant to say German supremacy, right?

No, not supremacy, merely leadership. Millions of Europeans understood what Hitler was doing, and felt it was needed and worth fighting for, even though they were not Germans.

Our point here is the church you’re defending did everything it could to destroy Hitler and undermine him. So for you to pose the idea the church is a defender of Europe’s racial health is unhistorical and ridiculous. Quote:

The church approved of slavery for centuries. The church approved of racialism for centuries. Salvation in the next world doesn’t imply racial equality in this world.

Slavery isn’t a pro-White institution. Whites have been enslaved many times. By jews and other muds.

The church’s universalism makes it anti-White. The fact it has not a single expressly pro-white doctrine or dogma makes it inherently anti-white.

The fact is that from day one, what was new and original about the church was that it was for everybody—it cut across all racial and social lines. This is why I tell you that christianity is liberalism. When these progressives go off against the christians, it’s exactly like Republicans doing battle with democrats. A big sham. They agree on basics, and they’re both against white racial solidarity. They both envision a new world order. One will bring about pan-mixian nirvana by digging wells, fixing cleft palates and adoption; the other will bring it about by speech codes and hate crimes laws and drone bombings. They pursue the same agenda by different means and emphases.

The white cause is wholly different.

Brad Griffin said…

I’m not seeing this great opposition between Christianity and “the white cause” in the South considering how Christianity and racialism coexisted here for over three centuries.

Alex Linder said…

That’s because you mistake mere contemporaneity or correlation for causation, like most of your mental inferiors.

[Quoting Griffin:]

The Church dominated European culture when all this talk about “whiteness” got started in the first place.

The church never spoke a word in racial defense of Europe. The church is international. There are more non-white christians than white christians. In light of that fact, it is ridiculous to say the church is a pro-white institution. It’s a universalist delusion factory. One of the three ugly desert sisters, as has been said.

Brad Griffin said…

Fifty years after he first started doing work for the magazine, Norman Rockwell was tired of doing the same sweet views of America for the Saturday Evening Post in the early 1960s. The great illustrator was increasingly influenced by his close friends and loved ones to look at some of the problems that was afflicting American society. Rockwell had formed close friendships with Erik Erickson and Robert Coles, psychiatrists specializing in the treatment of children and both were advocates of the civil rights movement.

His most profound influence was his third wife, Mary L. “Molly” Punderson, who was an ardent liberal and who urged him in new directions. On December 14, 1963, Rockwell did his last cover for the Saturday Evening Post and he began working for Look magazine. Look magazine finally gave Norman Rockwell the opportunity to express his social concerns.

Rockwell’s first painting was The Problem We All Live With, one of his greatest paintings.

rockwellThis painting depicts Ruby Bridges, the little girl who integrated the New Orleans school system in 1960, being escorted to her class by federal marshals in the face of hostile crowds. It’s a simple picture, the disembodied figures of 4 stiff suited men and the vulnerable yet defiant figure of a school age African American girl marching lockstep. To the right is a tomato staining a wall, obviously thrown at the girl but just missing. My eyes focus on the girl and her immaculate white, a contrast to the graffiti stained wall in the background. As a painting it’s a wonder with its composition conveying Rockwell’s message in a few simple figures.

An even greater departure from Rockwell’s usual sweet America paintings is Southern Justice, painted in 1963. Rockwell did a finished painting, but the editors published Rockwell’s color study instead, and I think his color study conveys the terror of the scene more successfully.

It depicts the deaths of three Civil Rights workers who were killed for their efforts to register African American voters. It is done in a monochrome sienna color, and it is a horrifying vision of racism. A look of it can be seen here.

Rockwell’s most optimistic view of the civil rights movement was Negro in the Suburbs, painted in 1967. It depicts an African American family moving into a white suburban neighborhood. The African American children look over by the kids in the neighborhood, with all the children sharing a love of baseball, America’s game. This painting can be found in this gallery.

In that painting, Norman Rockwell depicts an ideal, all-American, high trust, happily integrated neighborhood, which is the polar opposite of the integrated neighborhoods that actually exist.

You could turn on CNN or The Weather Channel or watch any movie in Black Run America (BRA) and you will find the same sort of disingenuous nonsense that Norman Rockwell was peddling in the 1960s.

Alex Linder said…

All I see is how easily christian motifs of the sliced savior turn into “civil rights” morality plays and paintings.

Categories
Conservatism Hate Real men

Alex Linder said…



“By all means, people are free to waste another 100 years speaking in their indoor voice, raising their niggling finger, and prefacing everything they say with disclaimers. But if you want change, you have to create a national angry groundswell willing to slur and kill and sup on the blood of its enemies, and you don’t get there by appealing to selfish bourgeois cowards…

“We gotta be gross large powerful and scary as all fuck, like a great white shark maw coming up out of the water at the slick black jewmud-seal. We need fiery leaders who can orate and organize. And we need ass-kickers who can stomp all who get between our speakers and the ears and eyes of our people.

We get that, we will win.”

Categories
American civil war Audios Blacks Conservatism Emigration / immigration Mainstream media

“Once Obama amnesties those wetbacks…”

Rarely do I follow the news in this blog. But the recent Supreme Court decisions against Arizona and for ObamaCare—the Old United States no longer exists: those decisions were the final nail in the coffin—remind me Harold Covington’s scolding of coward conservatives:


Note of May 12, 2015: The thoughtpolice at YouTube censored this clip.