I am sorry, but when a commenter calls ‘Jew’ another commenter on this site with no proof of his Jewish background, he or she has to be banned. (Usually, this happens when he who cries ‘Jew!’ is losing an argument in the comments section.)
Although I find offensive the American flag that shows up sometimes in the studio’s background and disagree with Gariépy that Molyneux is honest, with a diametrically opposed character to mine (I’m a creature of boiling hate) Gariépy pulverised Molyneux in his most recent show. Gariépy has demonstrated that Molyneux’s most recent video on the Jewish question, that I briefly discussed yesterday, is full of strawmen.
After 1:10 to 1:18 it is very interesting to learn how Gariépy became interested in the JQ. Those who don’t have the time to see the whole show must at least watch those few minutes.
Unfortunately, at 1:24 atheist Gariépy reveals himself as a secular neo-Christian. If he already woke up in the JQ, he still has to go a long way to wake up in the CQ. (Later he says that he has people to ban hate speech in the comments section.)
After 2:31, almost at the end of the show, Gariépy believes Molyneux that the latter has no Jewish blood: a claim Molyneux made precisely in the video Gariépy is taking issue with. Well, I’m not so sure…
Further to my claim that ‘Wallace’s and Johnson’s love is murdering the white race’.
After minute 28 Richard Spencer, in the show The Public Space #201, said that Robert Bowers ‘should be punished for this crime…’ Eight minutes later he said, ‘We absolutely condemn them’ (Bowers and Dylann Roof). Spencer is right that Roof and Bowers committed mistakes from the point of view of harming the movement. But that’s not the point of this post.
While talking about a hypothetical ethnic cleansing after minute 134, Spencer mocked the novel of William Pierce of ‘kill all these people… Turner Diaries… We are going to live through this slaughterhouse… It will be only us… That is both absolutely absurd and completely undesirable. I think our movement does need to recognise other people morally speaking; that they are going to have their place under the sun…’
Spencer is not a post-Nietzschean. He has not read my Day of Wrath. Like Hunter, Greg and thousands of other identitarians, Spencer is a neo-Christian. Stalin’s (((willing executioners))) killed about 60 million. In narcosis while diving, the most dangerous symptom is the impairment of judgement. How many millions more will they have to kill outside Russia to wake up Christians and neo-Christians from their axiological narcosis?
At 4:05 of this YouTube clip President Trump said regarding Bowers et al: ‘Those seeking their [the Jews] destruction, we will seek their [great emphasis in the president’s voice] destruction!’ No head of any Western nation had made such a remarkable statement before!
Dear American racists:
Wake up. Uncle Sam is the wickedest creature that has emerged in modern history.
Do you honestly believe that, if whites had not embraced Judeo-Christianity since Constantine, they would be suffering now from the most extreme form of ethno-suicidal philo-Semitism?
When will you start awakening by taking seriously the masthead of this site?
Don’t you see that, compared to Evropa Soberana’s essay (and Tom Goodrich’s book), everything you see on other pro-white forums is almost irrelevant?
Today Greg Johnson wrote about Robert Bowers:
This was a terrible act: immoral, illegal, and politically damaging to white interests. I hope Bowers receives a fair trial and just punishment…
Again, no in-depth article on this site. But post-Nietzscheans are welcome to offer their comments below. Suffice it to say that Hunter Wallace, whom I mentioned in the previous post, commented today on Greggy’s article. A Christian hetero and a secular Neo-Christian homo: they are on the same page axiologically.
Wallace’s and Johnson’s love is murdering the white race.
You see now why this site focuses on axiology and the transvaluation of all Xtian and Neo-Xtian values?
In a chronologically-ordered New Testament, Romans is the seventh book. It is considered St Paul’s magnum opus and, for the Christians who follow the steps of St Augustine and Luther, the most important piece of theology of the New Testament.
I cannot blame St Paul for the doctrine of eternal torture, that he did not invent. But I do blame his Catholic followers that, after Origen, rejected as heresy the notion that hell would not be eternal.
After the Reformation the Protestants took Paul’s sola fide formulation in Romans to rationalise their extremely wicked idea of eternal damnation, where the good deeds of the individual are useless and what counts is blind faith in (((Jesus))). Martin Luther certainly took such wicked premise to its extreme theological formulation, as I argue in my essay ‘On Erasmus’.
I am most curious how Lutherans like Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent could respond to what we have been saying in this site, especially the translations of Deschner’s work, Evropa Soberana’s essay on Rome and Judea and Catherine Nixey’s book about the destruction of the classical world by the Christians? How can racist Christians reconcile their worship of the god of the Jews with Aryan preservation is a mystery for me.
Stefan Molyneux has reacted on the massacre of Jews by Robert Bowers.
By the sixth minute, he mentioned Hitler shaking his head in disapproval. From the 7:20 minute on, he gave many statistics about the Jewish community in the diaspora and in Israel (the statistics are irrelevant to those who understand the Jewish problem). From minute 20 he began to talk about anti-Semitism and confessed ‘I had a Jewish step-grandmother’.
At no time did he address the Jewish problem, which on this site I have defined in a nutshell (Jews are never over-represented in organisations or movements that represent the interests of the white majority, only in those that weaken that majority).
Molyneux’s extreme dishonesty is obvious. He has uploaded thousands of videos and invited many intellectuals… but cleverly eludes every intellectual conscious of the Jewish problem. Not only does he fail to invite a Jew-wise blogger. He does not even debate with the most elemental writing of, say, Kevin MacDonald. Molyneux could, without inviting the professor, answer what MacDonald says only in the preface of his best-known book: an essay that summarizes his life’s work. But the dishonest Molyneux fails to do it…
Nor does he mention, even in passing, the webzine that best explains the Jewish problem, The Occidental Observer. At minute 28:47 Molyneux exclaimed: ‘Blaming Jews I do not see it! In fact I see the opposite’ in the sense that he sees the Jews as a positive influence for the West. He says that the Dark Ages had more to do with Islam than with Judaism, which makes him an ignorant (cf. the masthead of this site, ‘Rome vs. Judea; Judea vs. Rome’).
From minute 34 Molyneux launched such a passionate speech against gentile hatred of Jews that it makes me think he has Jewish blood; he almost cries. He ends by saying ‘We must reason with each other. Reason. Evidence’—but he violates exactly these words because of what I’ve said above!
Molyneux ends his clip with teary eyes. He reminded me that at some time in his life he represented works by Shakespeare. His YouTube show is more theatre than substantial ‘philosophy’.
He’s obviously trying to do a psyop trick on us.
There is something that can trigger the (dormant) murderous spirit of the Aryan: the smell of human blood. I remember that when Bush Jr. invaded Iraq, for the first time on the Internet the hits stopped being the degenerating porn sites. Those who talked about the war got the first place.
What would happen to the Aryan psyche if my prophecy against the American dollar is fulfilled, leading to social chaos in the big cities? Yes: freedom of expression in the country of the First Amendment is constrained by law. The absolute limit seems to be the Brandenburg Law that allows the American to talk about the revolution—as long as it is an academic subject; never to incite an immediate act of violence.
Under that constraint, I ask English-speaking natives to write a novel inspired by the novels of Pierce, who died at the beginning of the century, and Covington who died this year. But unlike them the novel that I have in mind would be a sort of FAQs on how to lead a realistic revolution in our times.
It seems obvious to me that in that work of fiction the idea would be to win the first battle: to silence the media. All anchors would be threatened by the revolutionary command: ‘A single anti-white message that comes from your lips implies the death penalty for you, or your loved ones…’
The fictional work—which I cannot write because my native language is Spanish—could begin with the story that, in the near future, there are not many revolutionaries and such a civil war cannot be born. However, with the passage of time the Alt-Right movement would grow exponentially while the policies of anti-white genocide in South Africa, North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand increase. In our hypothetical novel the moment would come when only the hardest core of such an expanding movement would be of the calibre of a Bowers. With two thousand tough guys the freedom fighters would begin to silence, through sheer terror, the MSM…
That would be the guiding principle of the novel that would have to be sold by a medium alien to Amazon or Lulu insofar as, although a purely fictional work does not violate the Brandenburg Law, the Silicon Valley and some corporations do violate your First Amendment rights.
Julian presiding at a conference of Sectarians
(Edward Armitage, 1875)
Just inside the wall of the city, I left my driver. Then like one who has gone to sleep over a book of history, I stepped into the past. I stood now on that ancient highway—known simply as The Road—which leads from gate to agora to acropolis beyond. I was now in history. In the present I was part of the past and, simultaneously, part of what is to come. Time opened his arms to me and in his serene embrace I saw the matter whole: a circle without beginning or end.
To the left of the gate was a fountain in which I washed the dust from my face and beard. Then I proceeded along The Road to the agora. I am told that Rome is infinitely more impressive than Athens. I don’t know. I have never visited Rome. But I do know that Athens looks the way a city ought to look but seldom does. It is even better planned than Pergamon, at least at its centre. Porticoes gleam in the bright sun. The intense blue sky sets off the red tile roofs and makes the faded paint of columns seem to glow.
The Athenian agora is a large rectangular area enclosed by long porticoes of great antiquity. The one on the right is dedicated to Zeus; the one on the left is of more recent date, the gift of a young king of Pergamon who studied here. In the centre of the agora is the tall building of the University, first built by Agrippa in the time of Augustus. The original building—used as a music hall—collapsed mysteriously in the last century. I find the architecture pretentious, even in its present somewhat de-Romanized version. But pretentious or not, this building was my centre in Athens. For here the most distinguished philosophers lecture. Here I listened three times weekly to the great Prohaeresius, of whom more later.
Behind the University are two porticoes parallel to one another, the last being at the foot of the acropolis. To one’s right, on a hill above the agora, is a small temple to Hephaestos surrounded by gardens gone to seed. Below this hill are the administrative buildings of Athens, the Archives, the Round House where the fifty governors of Athens meet—this last is a peculiar-looking structure with a steep roof which the Athenians, who give everything and everyone a nickname, call “the umbrella”. There used to be many silver statues in the Round House but the Goths stole them in the last century.
Few people were abroad as the sun rose to noon. A faint breeze stirred the dust on the old pitted paving. Several important-looking men, togas draped ineptly about plump bodies, hurried towards the Bouletrion. They had the self-absorbed air of politicians everywhere. Yet these men were the political heirs of Pericles and Demosthenes. I tried to remember that as I watched them hurry about their business.
Then I stepped into the cool shade of the Painted Portico. For an instant my eyes were dazzled, the result of sudden dimness. Not for some time was I able to make out the famous painting of the Battle of Marathon which covers the entire long wall of the portico. But as my eyes grew used to the shade, I saw that the painting was indeed the marvel the world says it is. One can follow the battle’s course by walking the length of the portico. Above the painting hang the round shields of the Persians, captured that day. The shields have been covered with pitch to preserve them.
Looking at those relics of a battle fought eight hundred years before, I was much moved. Those young men and their slaves—yes, for the first time in history slaves fought beside their masters—together saved the world. More important, they fought of their own free will, unlike our soldiers, who are either conscripts or mercenaries. Even in times of peril, our people will not fight to protect their country. Money, not honour, is now the source of Roman power. When the money goes, the state will go. That is why Hellenism must be restored, to instil again in man that sense of his own worth which made civilization possible, and won the day at Marathon.
No comments from me here (remember that last month this site was suspended for more than a day). But you are welcome to comment below or see the updates at The Daily Stormer (here).
Postscript of 5:50 pm:
One thing is certain, those who make peaceful revolution impossible are making violent revolution inevitable. As an
anti-libertarian I may disagree with YouTube vlogger Styxhexenhammer666, but today he hits the nail.