Categories
American civil war Kevin MacDonald Monocausalism Robert Morgan / Jack Frost

Morgan on KMD, again

Kevin MacDonald: ‘Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition…’

I’ve been flipping through this book, and it’s not as bad as I thought it was going to be. On the positive side, I’m glad to see that MacDonald is evidently of the view that the American Civil War was all about slavery. He says, for example:

Whatever the political and economic complexities that led to the Civil War, it was the Yankee moral condemnation of slavery that inspired and justified the massive carnage of closely related Anglo-Americans on behalf of slaves from Africa.

This is a controversial statement in right-wing circles, where it is common to hold that the Civil War was only a dispute over states’ rights or tariffs, and that slavery played no role at all. So kudos to MacDonald for taking a stand in the opposing camp.

On the other hand, he is still pushing the view that the cultural defeat of Darwinism in America marked a turning point in white fortunes, and for this defeat he blames the Jews, especially Franz Boas. But, to those who have been following the matter, it will come as no surprise that he completely ‘forgets’ to mention the sizeable Christian role in the defeat.

There was a considerable amount of resistance to Darwin’s ideas from Christians on both sides of the Atlantic. In England, Thomas Huxley, ‘Darwin’s bulldog’, verbally jousted with Bishop Wilberforce. In America, it culminated in the 1925 Scopes trial, the so-called Monkey Trial. Darwin’s theory was thought to be contrary to the Bible, and there had been a law passed making it illegal to teach anything other than Biblical creation stories in public schools.

Ironically enough, it was the heavily Jewish ACLU that challenged this law. This would seem to pose a problem for MacDonald’s notion that the Jews were the only force [emphasis added by Ed.—what I call ‘monocausalism’] against Darwinism, so he prefers not to discuss it. Those pesky Jews!

In their relations with whites, it’s always been heads they win, tails we lose. If they challenge Darwin’s idea, as did Boas, they’re attacking white racial solidarity. If they uphold Darwin’s idea, they’re attacking Christianity, which in MacDonald’s view has been a force for white unity. Thus it seems the abandonment of Darwinism was not entirely a Jewish project. White Christians, too, reacted in horror to Darwinism’s implications, and still do so today.

In my view, omitting a discussion of this is a serious flaw in the book.

__________

Read it all here.

Categories
American civil war Robert Morgan / Jack Frost

Quotable quote

‘Nowadays even on the so-called racist right we almost never meet anyone who will frankly state the obvious: The South fought to preserve white supremacy [during the American Civil War], and it was right to do so’. —Robert Morgan

Categories
American civil war Conservatism Robert Morgan / Jack Frost

The American Civil War

Yesterday I was leafing through For Cause and Comrades by James M. McPherson and Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of War by Charles B. Dew. But it was not what I was looking for, even though McPherson begins his book with the splendid phrase, ‘Harriet Beecher Stowe insisted that she did not write Uncle Tom’s Cabin; God did’. What I was looking for was a book that dealt with the Yankee mentality, like the Lincoln quotes that Robert Morgan has been digging up and which we have collected here. Obviously, it is easier for me to try to capture the zeitgeist of the 1930s in Spain than to capture the zeitgeist of the 1860s in the US. Nevertheless, I think Morgan is right that both Jared Taylor and Gregory Hood have misled American racialists into believing that Lincoln or the founding fathers were racists.

Among the American racial right, the one who has read the most about US history is Hunter Wallace from whom I got the data to show that Taylor, to provide a rosy picture of American racial history, had cherry-picked his cherries like the pretty girl I reproduced in this article. But that’s just a blog entry. Is there a book out there that sets out, in a more scholarly way, what Morgan has been saying, for years, in the comments section of racialist forums? Ignorant as I am on this subject, I don’t know what the exact bibliography is. Nevertheless, as an introduction to the subject I feel like reading the novel Gore Vidal wrote about Lincoln. As long-time visitors to this site will recall, I had been collecting a huge number of passages from Vidal’s novel about Emperor Julian: the most important historical novel I have ever read.

These are novels where it would be an outrage to read them on screen (PDFs of the books by the normies McPherson and Dew can be accessed on the internet). It is essential to have Vidal’s novels on paper in order to enjoy them. I must be honest on this point: the chapter on Julian in Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire bored me to tears and I couldn’t grasp any of the zeitgeister of the 4th-century c.e. Only Vidal was able to transport me to that world.

Yesterday I was saying that, despite General Franco’s victory, Spain today has subscribed to Wokism. In the totalitarian world we live in, it is impossible to find a recent novel or film that portrays historical events from our point of view. Yesterday, for example, I watched a large part of the Spanish film Mientras Dure la Guerra. I stopped it as soon as Miguel de Unamuno was shown speaking out against Día de la Raza (literally, Day of Race) and Nazi anti-Semitism.

Spaniards aren’t ready to repudiate Wokism because, as I said yesterday, totalitarian egalitarianism has its remote roots in universalist Catholicism since Constantine. And something similar could be said about Americans, who aren’t ready to see the ultimate truth about the American Civil War because they cling to a Protestantism that is also universalist and egalitarian (the aforementioned Dew, for example, ends Apostles of Disunion with an enthusiastic chapter on Obama because he was delighted that a black man had become president). Nor could Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent make an honest reading of the Yankee mentality because that would lead him to the apostasy of his Lutheranism.

In short, neither conservative Spaniards nor conservative Americans will ever understand why the European and American right always loses (and will lose, unless they get to the religious root of the matter). Although the title of this post is about the American war of secession, I would like to end it with the words that a commenter posted last year on this site about the Spanish party Vox: a party branded as fascist in both Spain and Latin America:

Vox is absolute garbage. They are anti-racist and extremely pro-Jew and Israel (it’s the holy land of the Christians). The first black man in the Spanish parliament was put there by Vox! The same is true in neighbouring Portugal, where so-called far-right parties are always trying to “prove” they’re not racists by pushing non-Whites as political candidates. They’re cuckolds (or traitors), all of them! Christians cannot be trusted as they are still infected by the inversion of values promoted by that Jewish weapon against Aryans called Christianity. “Wokeness” is just the latest mutation of Christianity. It’s just that now it doesn’t have Yahweh or Jesus: every single one of the believers is a Jesus! Everything is so fucked up now that it’s getting really hard to distinguish between enemies and retards everywhere in the West.

Syntax has been corrected. The original comment can be read here.

Categories
American civil war Robert Morgan / Jack Frost

Morgan vs. Anon

On The Unz Review, Robert Morgan said:

Anon: “The men that wrote and agreed on the words “all men are created equal” meant just that. But these same men did not view male negros as men, no more than any sane person today views male chimpanazees as men.”

Would that it were true! But, unfortunately, it is not. That negroes were regarded as men in those days is shown irrefutably by the fact that of the thirteen original states, five had already granted citizenship and the vote to negro freemen. As Supreme Court Justice Curtis wrote in his dissent to the Dred Scott decision, it is even likely that some of these negroes voted on whether or not to ratify the Constitution.

If it had been common at all to regard full-blooded negroes as non-human, then instead of a Civil War being fought over the question of their slavery, they could simply have been disposed of like a herd of infected cattle. But, perhaps fatally for the white race, it was the Christian religion and not science that shaped its conception of what was or was not human, and from Christianity’s earliest days negroes had been included in that category.

In modern times, as belief in miracles and the supernatural has given way to science, and nobody really takes Jesus seriously anymore, I think people have difficulty conceiving of how sincerely white people believed such religious nonsense back then. The above article’s author begins by quoting an historian who characterizes the Civil War as a Crusade, and that’s entirely correct. It was a religious dispute between two factions of white people, each considering the other a kind of heretic. The North’s attitude was summed up perfectly in their theme song, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, the original version of which contained the lines:

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea, With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me. As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, While God is marching on.

This religious motive of the North is confirmed, on the part of the South, by Confederate General Henry Louis Benning, who in his speech to the Virginia Convention said:

The North entertains the opinion that slavery is a sin and a crime. I mean, when I say the North, the Republican party, and that is the North; and they say that any stipulation in the Constitution or laws in favor of slavery, is an agreement with death and a covenant with hell; and that it is absolutely a religious merit to violate it [source: here].

I notice that in his latest column, Paul Craig Roberts continues to push the canard that the Civil War was fought primarily for economic reasons. But this makes as much sense as saying that the original Crusades of medieval times were fought for economic reasons, and that the Christian religion had nothing to do with it. One can find economic reasons for anything, but when all of the participants are claiming that their motives are religious, it seems to me that it’s foolish not to give that side of it proper weight.

__________

Nota bene: The commenter of The Unz Review uses the pseudonym ‘Dr. Robert Morgan’: a character who appeared in the film The Last Man on Earth, starring Vincent Price. Hence the image above, taken from a poster advertising the 1964 film.

Categories
Abraham Lincoln American civil war Hitler's Religion (book) Jewish question (JQ) Mein Kampf (book) National Socialism Richard Weikart Robert Morgan / Jack Frost

Hitler’s Religion: Chapter 6

Editor’s note: This is the first regular article after the June 8th accident: some excerpts from Richard Weikart’s chapter ‘Did Hitler derive his anti- Semitism from Christianity?’
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Hitler blamed the Jews for just about everything that he opposed: communism, capitalism, internationalism, liberalism, materialism, egalitarianism, pacifism, and, of course, Christianity. That sneaky rabbi Paul had formulated his version of Christianity, Hitler believed, on the “Jewish-Bolshevik” principles of human equality. When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, he complained that the Christian churches were not sufficiently anti-Semitic. He asked, “In the Jewish question, for example, do not both denominations [Catholic and Protestant] today take a standpoint which corresponds neither to the requirements of the nation nor to the real needs of religion?” A few paragraphs later, he remarked that Protestantism was better than Catholicism in defending the national interests of Germany, but it was still deficient, because it “combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established.” For Hitler, Christianity was essentially Jewish and thus weakened the German effort to combat the Jewish threat. He certainly did not see his anti-Semitism as congruent with the teachings and policies of the Christian churches…

Anti-Jewish animus was sometimes tempered by the Christian ethic of loving one’s neighbor and even one’s enemies. Also, Christians often opposed the biological racism that flourished in intellectual circles in the late nineteenth century. Historian Leon Poliakov remarks, “Judeo-Christian tradition was both anti-racist and anti-nationalist.” If one reads the biological racist literature of early twentieth-century Germany, one frequently finds that racist ideologues criticized the Christian churches for their racial egalitarianism.

Christian anti-Semites differed from racial anti-Semites because Christians usually did not object to the Jews as a biological entity; rather, they opposed their religion. If Jews would give up their Jewish religion and be baptized into the Christian faith, they would be accepted as full-fledged members of German society, as they often were. But the secular, racial form of anti-Semitism that flowered around 1900—and which Hitler embraced— regarded conversion and assimilation as the absolute worst things that could happen, because then Jews would intermarry with Germans. Hitler believed this would pollute the German bloodline with inferior hereditary traits. Thus, the key difference between Christian anti-Semitism and racial anti- Semitism was that the former wanted to assimilate the Jews into German society while the latter believed it was necessary to eliminate them physically from Germany. Racial anti-Semites usually did not see the churches as allies in their campaign against the Jews.

NS propaganda: “Baptism did not make him a
non-Jew” from Ernst Hiemer, Der Giftpilz (1938).

One of the leading figures in developing the racist anti-Semitism that became prominent in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was Wilhelm Marr, who coined the term anti-Semitism. Marr warned in a popular book in 1879 that the Jews were conquering the Germans in a racial war. This battle of the Germans against the Jews “was from the beginning no religious [war], it was a struggle for existence, that was waged against the foreign domination of Jewry.” Marr, a harsh critic of Christianity, depicted his theory about the racial struggle against Jews as a secular, scientific standpoint. Because he believed the Jews were a race, not a religion, he advocated segregation and discrimination, not assimilation, as the cure for the “Jewish question”… Marr’s antireligious, racist version of anti-Semitism gained many adherents at the end of the nineteenth century, especially as biological racism exploded in popularity among secular-minded intellectuals…

In the period 1919 to 1923, one of the main topics in Hitler’s speeches was the Jewish threat. In August 1920, Hitler delivered a programmatic speech in Munich on “Why Are We Anti-Semites?” Hitler depicted the Aryans or Nordic people as a race that developed in the northern parts of Europe. Because of the harsh climate, the Aryan race developed a diligent character, viewing labor as a duty to the community. Also, the tough conditions of life weeded out the weak and sickly among them, giving them greater physical stamina and contributing to the development of an inner life. The Jews, on the other hand, never developed an appreciation for labor.

In sum, Hitler said, “We see that here two great differences lie in the race: Aryanness means a moral conception of labor and through it what we hear so often today: socialism, sense of community, common welfare before self-interest—Jewry means an egoistic conception of labor and thereby mammonism and materialism, the exact opposite of socialism!”

Hitler emphasized these moral and immoral traits of Aryans and Jews were biological and hereditary. In answering the question, “Why Are We Anti- Semites?,” Hitler made clear that he opposed the Jews’ supposedly hereditary immoral qualities, especially their laziness and greed. His anti- Semitism was not based on religious considerations. To be sure, he did mention a couple of passages from the Hebrew Bible, but these were used to illustrate Jewish greed and immorality, not because he opposed their religious beliefs or practices. Not only do we find zero Christian anti- Semitic themes in this speech, but Hitler specifically distanced himself from Christianity by accusing the Jews of spreading Christianity, a theme he would take up often later, but usually in private, not in public forums…

The secularized version of anti-Christian anti-Semitism that became prominent in late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Germany was grafted onto the earlier Christian version of anti-Semitism. Centuries-old caricatures of the Jews were reinterpreted as Jewish biological traits. Further, the Christian churches in Germany and Austria continued to peddle a good deal of anti-Jewish animosity in the early twentieth century, thus giving succor to the Nazi anti-Semitic juggernaut. Both Christian anti-Semitism and anti-Christian anti-Semitism—thus, both religion and secularization—were necessary conditions for the advent of the Nazi Holocaust. The anti-Semitic message that Hitler preached, however, was far more anti-Christian than Christian.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: In this chapter I begin to glimpse the tragedy of the leading NS ideologues and their compromise with the Christian masses of Germans.

The fact is that, publicly, they could not speak out. And they themselves believed in an Aryan and fictitious Jesus because there was no research like Richard Carrier’s (see the video linked in the sticky post).

That’s why they focused so much on the JQ—the CQ was taboo in Nazi Germany, as it still is now in American white nationalism.

For example, it is common on the racial right to distort the driving force that moved the Yankees to war with southern racists, something that Robert Morgan has taken issue with a galaxy of conservative commenters on The Unz Review for some time now.

The following is his last exchange this month but, as I don’t yet know how to modify the theme code of this new incarnation of WDH (the software automatically italicises all indented quotes and turn the indented quotes brown), I won’t indent Morgan’s next quotes or those he argues with:
 

Robert Morgan: Jared Taylor is such a brazen liar I decided to make an annotated version of his remarks about Lincoln.

“Lincoln didn’t like slavery, but he didn’t like blacks, either.”

Yet Lincoln was more responsible than any other man for freeing them and turning them loose on white people. I ask you, is this the action of a man who hated blacks?

“Once they were free, he wanted them gone.”

Correction: he once or twice said he wanted them gone, but his actions prove he didn’t.

“In 1862, when you’d think he was busy fighting a war, he was worrying about how to get rid of black people.”

But not worrying very much, apparently. In his last public address before being assassinated, he called for them to be made citizens and given the vote. It should be easy to see from this facile turnabout that at heart, Lincoln was no racist, but a dyed-in-the-wool racial egalitarian.

“He appointed James Mitchell as United States Commissioner of Emigration [of negroes] to find a place, far away, where all blacks would go. Mitchell invited a delegation of blacks to the White House so Lincoln could ask them to clear out.”

And here we come to the nub of the matter. Any “plan” that relied on all the negroes volunteering to leave was not a plan at all, only a pipe dream.

“This was the first time blacks had set foot in the White House on official business and not as servants, slaves, or workmen.”

In other words, on terms of equality with whites. Another first from Jared Taylor’s hero, “Honest” Abe. I suppose it’s fitting, in a way, that a liar such as Taylor should admire Lincoln, one of the greatest and most successful liars to ever hold the American presidency. And that’s saying something!

“He told the blacks that it was only because their people were in this country that Yankees and Confederates were slaughtering each other.”

Let’s note that this is the exact opposite of what Taylor and other Civil War revisionists argue. They are quite fond of making the astonishingly stupid claim that the Civil War had NOTHING at all to do with slavery. Why, it was only an attempt to save the Union, doncha know! LOL.

“He told them he had picked out a nice place for them in Central America, and asked them to convince all other blacks to pack up and go there.”

Asked them! To convince all the other blacks to pack up and go there! LOL. Yes, very realistic! If Lincoln actually believed that had a snowball’s chance in hell of happening then he must have been even stupider than the average “white nationalist” who buys into the lie that Lincoln didn’t like negroes.

“But, somehow, it’s today’s Democrats—not Lincoln in 1862—who are ‘the real racists’.”

Jared Taylor’s comical attempt to portray the Great Emancipator as “the real racist” is an epic fail.

Sollipsist: “No matter how big you make the word NOTHING, it still fails to accurately represent the factual and historical arguments that correctly identify slavery as a catalyst rather than a first cause.”

Robert Morgan: Lincoln says it’s the ONLY cause. Again, as Taylor puts it: “He told the blacks that it was only because their people were in this country that Yankees and Confederates were slaughtering each other. ”

How’s that for “factual and historical”? So who’s lying here? JT? Lincoln? Both?

Sollipsist: “It would be progress just to get most people to the point at which they’d realize (or maybe even grudgingly admit) that economics, manufacturing concerns, and centralized political control had ANYTHING to do with sending 600,000+ people to their death.”

Robert Morgan: In The Battle Hymn of the Republic, the Union soldiers sang the line Let us die to make men free! N.b., they didn’t claim to be willing to die for manufacturing concerns, for economics, for tariffs, for centralized political control, or even to save the Union. Their cause was freeing the slaves. Without this moral cause, it’s hard to see how they would have justified the war, either to themselves or anyone else.

Categories
Robert Morgan / Jack Frost

Morgan quotes

‘The question is whether anti-racism is built into Christianity as a fundamental premise, and I think it’s clear that it is. If so, anti-nationalism and white genocide are also built in, and always were. No need for any church-capturing conspiracy to make it so. No need for any attacker to infiltrate or subvert it, as it must eventually subvert itself, containing “the seeds of its own destruction”, as MacDonald puts it in his review above’ (Source: here).

In another thread Morgan made the point of what I’ve said in ‘The Iron Throne’ this month, with very different words:

‘You can’t argue someone out of a worldview, since it is the worldview itself that sets the rules for what kind of arguments are convincing or even permissible. Hence, as we see to be the case, arguments for racism or sexism will be rejected out of hand by the vast majority of those with a Christian or post-Christian worldview’ (Source: here).

Categories
Robert Morgan / Jack Frost

Greg Johnson’s plan

by Robert Morgan

Greg Johnson evidently wants to undo and reverse the trend toward globalization, since mixing and trans-locating populations is part of that. Like flying to the moon by flapping your arms, it’s deceptively simple in concept, yet equally impossible. All we need to do, he says, is provide each people with a homeland and then get them to voluntarily move there.

But the devil is in the details. What do you do if they refuse to go? Violence is off the table, according to Greg. So now what? Even if some agree, who pays for relocating them? What about foreign ownership of another nation’s real estate or corporations? The foreigners and racial aliens may not want to sell. Shall we then “make them an offer they can’t refuse”? That would be a good way to start a war, but Johnson says all of this must happen peacefully. How?

And what about white ownership of vital, scarce resources in foreign countries that are crucial to our own self interest? Shall we permit that only to ourselves? Somehow I doubt other countries or races would think that is fair. This list of questions could be extended indefinitely, because a global economy truly is a Gordian knot, with everything intricately tied together in such a way as to be impossible to unravel.

It would take, in essence, a cultural and financial revolution; something that would change human nature as it has been since civilization began. People would have to value preserving race over their own individual success and pleasure. Not just pay it lip service, but actually suffer a great deal to achieve it. Further, they’d have to admit that they’ve been fools all along to think that races could actually get along together.

Psychologically, it would be impossible. For whites, the Christian religion as it currently is interpreted by more than 99.9% of Christians would have to be tossed out along with its cultural residue, for Christianity has triumphed in the West to such an extent that even most atheists nowadays subscribe to Christian moral tenets such as the so-called brotherhood of man. Besides, if race is now the highest value, how could the worship of the racial Other proceed?

Call me a pessimist, but I don’t see any of this happening. It would be easier to crash technological civilization completely than to attempt to revise it along these lines. Johnson’s plan of peaceful separation just won’t work.

Categories
Robert Morgan / Jack Frost

Comfortable panopticon

Something can be learned after my rants of yesterday. Perhaps commenter Spahn Ranch (aka, Jack Frost) hit the nail with these words:

As you may recall, Hunter was loosely based on the career of serial killer Joseph Paul Franklin. The fact that Franklin is neither revered nor imitated in WN circles (and indeed, is hardly remembered at all) is proof that they aren’t serious.

The sad truth is that a large fraction of the right consists of badgelickers who worship the police and recoil instinctively from lawbreakers like Franklin, Manson, Roof, Breivik, and the rest. Such people are very proud that it’s whites who obey the law, which embodies the rules of the civilization whites have built, and they disparage lawbreaking as nigger-like behavior.
“Why whites did nothing?” you ask. Because the inmates are very proud of their prison, which they have built themselves, brick by brick. It’s a panopticon in which they double as guards, keeping each other in line. Even on the right, they value this prison/civilization more than their own racial life.

Also from yesterday’s comments, just see who are living outside the panopticon:

Jack:

I am going to confess something that I had not said on the internet.

When I lived in Manchester in 1999, I met a short pardo from Puerto Rico who traveled with an American passport. He used to boast about his adventures to abduct and rape American girls within the US itself; and that sometimes he had to kill them because they were screaming. He fled to the UK to avoid being caught in the US after so many offenses.

I had a problem in the UK and he even lent me a hundred pounds to purchase my plane ticket. But before that, he told me about his plans to rob a jewelry store in London, and I even accompanied him to a secret place in Manchester where real men bought guns.

I am telling you this just to let you know that even within a single year of experience in your country I met people that are capable to fight like real men, even when this guy deserves immediate termination for what he did with white women.
This is a world for those who are willing to risk their lives, not for the fags so common in white nationalism. Remember, if whites would be behaving like ISIS instead of complaining about them, the West would be in a much better shape right now.

I must clarify that this guy was never my friend. I lived in the YWCA of Whalley Range and had to share the kitchen and TV room with this pardo. Nor was a friend of this guy:

I have met worse than the Puerto Rican!

Back in 1985, I had as a roommate in San Rafael, California, USA, a former soldier from El Salvador. He boasted stories of his killings, and even assassinations (as a paid assassin after the war). He also told me how he had watched, when combating the guerrilla fighters in El Salvador, other soldiers skinning alive a guerrilla fighter, and another plucking out another fighter’s eye with a spoon.

When you treat people of the Third World directly you meet quite an interesting fauna, believe me…

The bourgeois WNsts don’t realize that they live in a greenhouse like orchids reading essays about Batman on Counter-Currents: a greenhouse’s glass that’s about to be shattered and they’ll have to deal with the wild vegetation outside.

I have had experience with wild veg. Do they?

But the crux is what Spahn Ranch says: white nationalists are not to be taken seriously. They want to mix water and oil: law-abiding and racial preservation. Remember the recent quote by Linder: What makes a difference is one side uses lies and violence, the other side “keeps it legal.”

Categories
Robert Morgan / Jack Frost

WN.2 gone with the wind too

Hunter Wallace has penned another article, “Alex Linder and White Nationalism 1.0” where he writes about Linder: “…his stance on Christianity, the awful things he has said about Sam Francis and Jared Taylor and exterminationism. We will never agree on those issues.”

On exterminationism and the subject of Francis and Taylor perhaps we will speak in the next episode of the WDH Radio Show. For the moment I limit myself to say that here we have reproduced the comments that a Jack Frost used to post on The Occidental Observer when trying to communicate with the commentators and authors that the Christian problem encompasses the Jewish problem.

Result? Frost’s very sharp comments did not make any substantial dent in the conservatives commenting on TOO. (Since white nationalists do not form a party similar to Golden Dawn in America, it could be said that they are de facto conservatives).

Nor have the articles of other authors which we have reproduced on Christianity made any dent in the mind of a Christian. The fact that mestization increased dramatically since the founding of Constantinople, as the requirement to live in that city was to be a Christian and not the Latin ethnicity, does not make in them any dent at all. When Wallace says “We will never agree on those issues” when referring to the universalist religion of his parents it is clear that his position is religious. Arguments do not count. And what we have said of Constantinople can also be said of what the Spanish and Portuguese did from the 16th century precisely because of Christian universalism.

The inability to apostatize from the religion of their parents is what has stopped Southern nationalists from understanding what is happening now with their tore down statues, together with their inability to question capitalism as Hajo Liaucius rightly saw on this site.

Categories
Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (book) Robert Morgan / Jack Frost

White nationalist loons

Anti-Semitic white nationalism, insofar as it has failed to break away from Judeo-Christianity, is schizophrenic. Just see these pages quoting Jack Frost, a commenter who tried to discuss with the naïve nationalists at The Occidental Observer:

https://westsdarkesthour.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/frost.pdf

I stole those pages from the 2017 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, the subject of my previous entry. Frost’s PDF, pages 226ff within The Fair Race, has to be understood within the context of the fourth section of the book:

Part IV Ethno-suicide: Christian ethics

From the editor’s desk: Two ways of looking at history 179
On the Galileans – Emperor Julian 188
Desertion from our ancestors Manu Rodríguez 191
The Antichrist – Friedrich Nietzsche 199
Criminal history of Christianity – Karlheinz Deschner 204
Detritus of a rejected mythology – Revilo Oliver 214
Table talks – Adolf Hitler 216
A civil religion – Tomislav Sunic 221
Arrows and comments – Jack Frost 226

In the above-linked PDF I added bold type to some sentences that appear un-bolded in the printed version of The Fair Race.

The PDF contains exchanges between Frost and Kevin MacDonald, and Frost and a monocausal commenter at MacDonald’s webzine. If you have already read those texts, at least reread my emphasized bold-typed sentences and tell me if the Alt Right, in any of its American manifestations, is not schizoid compared to the real thing: National Socialism.

In this entry I’ll limit myself to quote a few lines from Frost’s PDF: “That’s how we get these loons who claim to be white advocates, who are more upset about the loss of nine negroes than they are about poor Mr. Roof, who, taking his manifesto at face value, has sacrificed his own life for his race.”

Incidentally, the printed book of The Fair Race was having trouble because I added high-quality images above the 300 dpi limit. I fixed the problem but if your order doesn’t fly please let me know, either here or by email.

Thank you!