Christianity turns the good soft things—love, mercy, forgivenness—into weapons of terror.
There is more residual White racial consciousness in Dixie today than the Federal Republic of Germany.
Fascinating quotations from an exchange between Alex Linder and Hunter Wallace, and from a chapter in Arthur Kemp’s history of the white race, in my two appendices to WDH—both about Christianity.
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.
This 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.
At The Occidental Observer (TOO) a commenter wrote:
Here’s an idea: what if our problem is not our sense of fairness or individualism or egalitarianism, but moral fanaticism? This is something I’ve been thinking about lately: the idea that Whites are moral fanatics. More so than other races, we desire to be “good” no matter what the consequences are.
I replied that, though I have quoted the following passage several times, I will continue to quote it to convey the idea that the moral grammar that has been killing us has unconscious roots in Christian ethics.
A Swede that is now retired from the boards wrote in a counter-jihad blog:
With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice. In Secular Christianity [i.e., liberalism] each person has to be like Jesus himself, doing self-sacrifice, since there’s no other way to realize Christian ethics. On top of that, with the Industrial Revolution and the surplus it created in our societies, we came to the point where all the good deeds of Christian ethics could finally be executed by giving off our surplus to all the poor and weak foreign people around the world: food, Western medicine, and other aid.
We should remember that our progressivist paradigm, which is always going left, is based on Christian ethics. [my emphasis] And Christian ethics means the inversion of values. So it’s the weak that is considered good, while the strong is considered evil.
Since I was a Christian, actually an admirer of St Francis in my Catholic years, I think I’ve developed a psychological knack to decipher the progressivist paradigm that has infected the West. Every time I look at example after example of deranged altruism throughout the West, especially toward the non privileged races, I cannot separate it from my own biography, when I admired the poor saint of Assisi’s acting out his emotional issues through eccentricities that, presently, could only be labeled as self-harming.
Remember my comment about Wuthering Heights in a TOO thread about crazy Swedes? The eccentricities of the Fraticelli, so well depicted in Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose, were barely tolerated by the Church in the 13th and 14th centuries precisely because, if accepted by the mainstream, this inversion of values inspired directly on the gospel would destroy Europe. (St Francis himself aged and died prematurely as a result of his extreme mortification of the flesh.) Alas, once secular Christianity was established after the French Revolution and each westerner had to be like St Francis himself, doing self-sacrifice, moral fanaticism ran amok among the deists and the atheists starting with the fateful emancipation of the Jew by the same gentiles who had sanctioned anti-Semitism in Christendom.
It is my belief that, presently, we are suffering from a secular form of runaway Franciscanism throughout the entire West.
A Nietzschean revaluation of all values back to saner times is what whites need. Since what we now need is the scorched-Earth scenario, I am tempted to write a book that shows my spiritual odyssey under the provocative title From St Francis to Himmler. But, paraphrasing the gospel, who would be able to hear such hard word?
“Most Anti-Whites are basically religious ideologues, having replaced self-flagellation and lifelong chastity with Anti-White activism and Political Correctness.”
Note of September 2017: The following article originally appeared in the Addenda:
I agree with Kevin MacDonald’s central thesis in his Culture of Critique, which Preface I have reproduced recently in this site. But only to a certain extent…
MacDonald’s ideas seem to have inspired those who maintain the single Jewish-cause hypothesis for White weakness and their eventual demise as a people.
Let’s use an example from Majority Rights, which discusses the preservation of Western culture and the ethnic genetic interests of people of European ancestry.
While at first thought the fact that Jews have higher IQs than most Whites appears to assign plausibility to the hypothesis that their psyops have converted Whites, as James Bowery put it, into “extended phenotypes” of the tribe—like crickets infected with gordian worms committing suicide—, how would monocausalists explain that throughout the latest thirteen centuries the “worm” (i.e., the Jew) has been unable to infect the minds of people of even lower IQs, the Muslims? The fact is that they have never behaved like suicidal crickets (“What is good for the worms?”) in their nations.
In contrast to the monocausalists’ psychological reductionism my hypothesis is that, in addition to the Jewish problem, there are other factors for Western malaise.
Take a look at Arthur Kemp’s study, which I have been excerpting recently. Although he is conscious of the Jewish problem, it shocked me to learn in Kemp’s book that the same suicidal tendencies among Whites that we see today have happened since the very first civilizations in Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt, and always because of White greed: easy work through the slavery or second-class status of Semites, Nubians and Arabs in the lands conquered by peoples of Indo-European origin. The same thing happened in Greece, Rome, and, later, in the American subcontinent conquered by the Iberians.
MacDonald is no promoter of the single cause hypothesis. On the contrary, I find it fascinating that some of MacDonald’s sentences in his Trilogy hint that Whites have some unique hardware characteristics such as individualism and universalism that, historically, have weakened their ethno-centric defenses.
I believe that, together with the egalitarian software that I call the Christian/Secular Christian problem (liberalism run amok after the French Revolution) and the One Ring of greed and power (economics over race), these factors constitute part of the ingredients of the formula that’s killing us—plus the Jewish ingredient.
From this point of view the Jewish problem would be a very strong catalyst that has accelerated the process in the last centuries since the emancipation of Jewry, but certainly not the only active ingredient in the brew.
Individualism, universalism, weak ethnocentrism (“hardwired” characteristics in the White psyche since prehistoric times) + egalitarianism, liberalism, capitalism (cultural “software” after the Revolution which ironically strengthened Christian axiology) + the Jewish culture of critique in the 20th century = a truly lethal brew for the White peoples.
I say Witches’ brew in the title because it seems that the etiology of our woes is a little more complex than what the average Judeo reductionist believes. (For a more academic presentation of these ideas, see: here.)
Excerpted from Tom Sunic’s
recent article at The Occidental Observer:
We often confuse the causes of non-European immigration with its effects. We hunt after a wrong scapegoat. Let us try to clarify it…
The blame for non-European immigration and the decomposition of the European peoples must not be solely borne by the immigrants. It is in the interest of the local capitalists to get a million-strong reserve army of cheap labor to Europe and to the U.S.; in turn, they can lower the wages of their domestic workers. Furthermore, non-European immigrants have little social consciousness, a weak sense of the trade union adherence and practically no sense for the European destiny. Therefore, they can be better manipulated by the local capitalists. One should consider therefore the globalists, the plutocrats and the financial “superclass” as the main enemy of the European peoples. A German stockbroker, or a Croatian or a Russian ex-communist speculator turned now into a capitalist shark, does not care where his nation is—as long as he can rake in big money.
We are all witnessing a reemergence of the silent holy alliance today—an alliance between the ex-Commissar and the Merchant, i.e. the marriage between the left-winger and big business. The European Left is in favor of mass immigration, given that the exotic picture of the non-European immigrant represents for it now the ersatz symbol of its long gone proletariat. For the capitalist, it is beneficial to bring people from the Third World into Europe, because they can best serve the interests of anonymous capital. The capitalist strives towards the removal of his people, because his people are too expensive for his business transactions. A leftist “antifa” wants to erase his people because it will always remind him of the rising “fascist beast.”
But the Church also bears a heavy responsibility for the decomposing situation of the European nations, especially with its ecumenical parlance of “help thy neighbor.” Americans, Europeans and White Christians are nowadays more concerned about the welfare of non-European peoples than the welfare of their own. A rich Qatari, or an oil sheik from Saudi Arabia could not care less are about the young unemployed and destitute masses in Moldova, or the working poor in France of Spain. He does not feel much inclined to help his own kind in Palestine in the first place, let alone give a thought to the suffering of the millions of the unemployed in Europe. The influential American Cardinal, Timothy Dolan, also known “as the American Pope” openly preaches in the American media the necessity of the open borders and openly advocates the protection of illegal immigrants in the USA.
Therefore it is wrong to blame only stateless plutocrats, ethnic lobbies, or starry eyed leftists in their decomposition endeavors of the European peoples. Regarding the destructive equality doctrine by Christian savants, I’ will not discuss it here. I’ll refer you to my papers and books.
♣
From Hunter Wallace’s September 28, 2012 “OD’s Indictment”
In preparation for writing OD’s [Occidental Dissent] first book, Shattering The Golden Circle: The Failure of Free Society in Dixie, Haiti, and the Caribbean, I have spent months intensely researching the rise and fall of slavery in the Caribbean and American South.
I’ve been trying to understand why slavery was destroyed and why approximately four million free negroes were turned loose on our society.
I don’t have to tell you that the consequences of the abolition of slavery have haunted us to the present day. I’m getting to the stage where I am starting to draw some firm conclusions about how and why this happened:
(1) First, New World slavery was overthrown during “the long nineteenth century” from 1770 to 1890.
(2) Second, the decline of the West is not due to a Jewish conspiracy, although Jews have thrived as an effect of the moral decay, especially in the twentieth century. It is not due to any inherent biological predisposition on the part of Whites to embrace racial and cultural suicide either.
(3) Third, I am convinced that the decisive years in pushing the West down the present road to suicide are 1750 to 1850.
(4) Fourth, the culprit is a moral, religious, and ideological revolution in worldview during this period that led to the creation of secular and religious versions of humanitarianism that have progressively undermined the foundations of our civilization.
(5) Finally, the twin doctrines that are to blame for our decline, which brought about this critical shift in moral outlook, are the Enlightenment’s ideology of liberal republicanism and the spread of evangelical Christianity.
This is the ultimate source of the “black cloud” that hangs over our civilization. Discuss.
Note: I will also speculate that industrial capitalism created a middle class that was peculiarly receptive to this worldview – the perfect triumphalist bourgeois ideology – and that the spread of liberal democracy gradually empowered this class in the West which used its newfound power to “progressively” act out its utopian fantasies.
Why did the South and the Caribbean deviate so strongly from this general direction in the nineteenth century? In the South and the Caribbean there was a third cultural pole, race-based plantation slavery, which created a stronger cultural immune system.
Excerpted from the 21st article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:
The Vikings’ fighting spirit had been sapped by Christianity, but an even larger factor in their demise was their inability to keep in check their quarrels among themselves, combine their forces against outsiders, and thus match the growing power of kings in more unified lands than their own. Excessive individualism took its final toll.
Ever since the close of the Viking Age men in whose veins Viking blood still runs have dreamed of the freedom and the challenge and the glory of those bygone days. Perhaps nowhere is this better expressed than in a stanza from an anonymous Anglo-Saxon poem, The Wanderer:
What has become of the steed?
What has become of the warrior?
What has become of the seats of banquet?
Where are the joys of the hall?
Oh, for the bright cup!
Oh, for the mail-clad warrior!
Oh, for the glory of the prince!
How that time has passed away
And grown dark under the cover of night,
As if it had never been.
Semites and Vikings: No Love Lost
One would expect to find a spiritual difference between a race bred a hundred generations in the marketplace, where survival depended primarily on a glib tongue and an eye for a bargain, and a race shaped by the killing winters of the North, accustomed to combat and hardship. This difference—the difference between the Jewish spirit and the White spirit—is manifested in the world around us in a thousand ways.
Perhaps nowhere has the contrast between the natural, healthy, adventurous spirit of our race and the spirit of the Jew been more sharply drawn, however, than in a couple of recent issues of the student newspaper published on the Los Angeles campus of California State College. In the first issue was printed a poem by Dr. Peter Peel, who teaches history there. The second issue contained a response to the poem from a Jew at the same college.
Here is the poem, which was titled Goetterdaemmerung:
When Spring lightly touches
With hand green and golden
The mountains and fjords,
Then shouts the sea rover,
“A-viking! A-viking!”
The hammers are busy
On weapon and harness.
Then flashes the broad blade
In every sea hamlet.
The dragon ships, thirsty
For bounding blue water,
Leap down to the seashore.
And Olaf of Norway
And Erik of Gotland
And Thorwald the Mighty,
Whose grandsire was Wotan,
Stand fast on the poop deck
With golden hair streaming,
With spear brightly glinting,
With eye fierce and blazing,
Sail out on the swan’s bath—
The grey widow-maker—
For England or Iceland,
Byzantium, Vinland,
Far land or ancient
And ripe for the plunder,
The burning of roof-trees,
The seizing of women,
The tooting of treasure,
The flowing of red blood,
And wine for the victors.
Ah, whence fled those great days,
The days of our fathers,
The days of the valiant,
Of gods and of heroes,
Or fair maids and foul dwarfs,
And lindworms and dragons,
Of Beowulf, Dietrich,
Strong Harald, grim Hagen,
Wolfhart and Siegfried,
The greathearts, the mighty?
Yea loathsome today is
The seed of their strong loins—
The petty, the small, the clod and
the crawler.
The music has gone from the souls of our people.
The thunder has vanished away with Valhalla.
Now meekness and weakness
And womanly virtues
Have shackled, degraded
And shamefully softened
The sons of our fathers,
The sons of the mighty.
And now have we traded
The lightning of storm gods,
The arms of Valkyries,
The halls of Valhalla,
The kiss of wish maidens,
For wings and a nightshirt,
A harp and a halo,
A psalmbook and psalter?
Oh, no, my Lord Bishop!
Hark, grey Galilean,
The Wolf Age is coming,
The great fimbul winter,
When all sick things perish.
A few days after this poem appeared, the following letter [by R.A. Klein] headed “Bloodthirsty Sickness,” showed up on the editorial page of the student newspaper. The poem about the Vikings in the Nov. 25 issue by Peter H. Pee had real soul and beauty—the soul and the beauty of the bloodthirsty.
Let it speak for itself. [Klein wrote:]
“With golden hair streaming, With spear brightly glinting, With eye fierce and blazing… And ripe for the plunder, The burning of roof-trees, The seizing of women, The looting of treasure, The flowing of red blood, And wine for the victors.”
Murder! rape! loot, plunder blood and wine—the wanton destruction of the productive by bloodthirsty savages. And what do these vicious predator-warriors denounce?
“Now meekness and weakness And womanly virtues Have shackled, degraded And shamefully softened The sons of our fathers, The sons of the mighty.”
Yes, how could one be more degraded in the eyes of these savages than to become like those inferior creatures called women.
Beware you women, blacks, Latins and other lesser creatures. The Blond Beast “With golden hair streaming” and warm, red blood dripping from his mighty sword shall rise again. Beware you weak and sick of all races for “The Wolf Age is coming… When all sick things perish.”
Meanwhile, I wait for the day when this bloodthirsty sickness of the Blond Beast shall perish forever from the face of the earth.
Excerpted from the 21st article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:
Karl’s savagery reached a peak in the tenth year of the evangelism: in 782, at Verden on the Aller, with the blessing of the Church, he had 4,500 Saxon nobles beheaded. Twelve years later, in 794, he introduced a policy under which every third Saxon was uprooted from his land and forced to resettle among Franks or other Christianized tribes.
Fairly early in this campaign, in 777, one of the most prominent of the Saxon chieftains, Widukind, took shelter among the Danes and appealed to their king, Sigfred, for assistance against the Franks. Although the Danes were wary of becoming involved in a full-scale war against the formidable Karl, they and the other Northern peoples were put on their guard, and they became increasingly indignant over the Frankish suppression of the Saxons’ religion.
Karl’s brutal campaign against the Saxons undoubtedly helped raise a certain consciousness in the North of the spiritual and cultural differences which separated Scandinavia from those lands which had fallen under the yoke of the Christian Church.
Special Treatment
One manifestation of this consciousness was the erection of the Danevirke, an extensive system of defensive earthworks across the neck of the Danish peninsula, begun in 808.
Another was the special treatment which the Vikings customarily meted out to the Christian monks and priests who fell into their hands. The monasteries and churches, with their troves of treasure mulcted from superstitious citizens seeking to buy their way into heaven, were tempting targets to the raiders from the North anyway, but the element of revenge must have made them even more tempting, and it was for good reason that throughout the ninth century the daily prayer of every pious cleric was: A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine! (“From the fury of the Northmen deliver us, Lord!”).
Genetic Effects of Monkery
Another interesting eugenic contrast between North and South is provided by the Christian practice of clerical celibacy. Although there were many periods during the Middle Ages in which violations were commonplace, as early as the fourth century the Church began insisting on total celibacy for the higher clergy. With the growing incidence of monasticism after the sixth century, a greatly increased portion of the population of Christian Europe was subjected to the rule of celibacy.
In the Middle Ages the clerical life was not, as is often the case today, simply a refuge for those who could succeed at nothing else; it was usually the only route to scholarship—and often the only route to literacy as well—and it attracted many able and intelligent men, whose genes were then lost to their race. For a thousand years, until the Reformation, there was a selective draining away of Christian Europe’s intellectual vitality.
A Mighty Hive
The high birthrate among the most active and energetic elements of the population in the Northern countries led to land-hunger and the drive for external conquests. In the words of 17th-century English statesman and writer Sir William Temple: “Each of these countries was like a mighty hive, which, by the vigor of propagation and health of climate, growing too full of people, threw out some new swarm at certain periods of time that took wing and sought out some new abode, expelling or subduing the old inhabitants and seating themselves in their rooms.” This state of affairs also held long before the Viking Age, of course.
In addition to the generalized effects of a high birthrate, two other consequences of polygyny which bore on the rise of Viking as a way of life were the large numbers of second, third, fourth, and later sons in the families of Norse landholders—sons left without inheritance and without land, unless they could wrest it away from someone else—and a shortage of women.
The most popular way to solve the latter problem was to go on a raid and carry off women from Ireland, England, or France, although there was also a heavy traffic in Slav slave girls from the Rus realms. The Hrafnsmál tells of life in Harald Fairhair’s court: “Glorious is their way of life, those warriors who play chess in Harald’s court. They are made rich with money and fine swords, with metal of Hunaland and girls from the east.”
Victory at Hafrsfjord
The political consolidation which began taking place in Scandinavia in the ninth century served as an especially strong impetus to Viking colonizers. As mentioned earlier, the Vikings were extremely individualistic, extremely resentful of any encroachments on their freedom of action. After Harald Fairhair won a great sea victory at Hafrsfjord over the Viking chieftains of western Norway in 872, many of them left Norway with their households and their followers and settled in Iceland and the smaller islands of the North Atlantic rather than submit to Harald’s rule.
A century later, political consolidation having been achieved, Scandinavian monarchs began to realize the policy advantages in bringing their people into the same religious camp as their neighbors to the south. The first to take the step was Denmark’s Harald Bluetooth, son of King Gorm the Old. In 965, 15 years after Gorm’s death, Harald allowed himself to be baptized, and then he undertook the forcible conversion of the rest of the Danes: a move which did not sit well with many and led to further emigration and turmoil in the North. It also led eventually to Harald’s deposition and banishment.
The Viking Way to Immortality
The heroic ethos, the core of the Viking attitude toward life, of which the high value placed on fidelity is but one aspect, is probably stated best in the oft-repeated lines from Grettir’s saga:
Cattle die, and kinsmen die,
And so one dies oneself.
One thing I know that never dies:
The fame of a dead man’s deeds.
To the Viking immortality was not gained by being baptized, going to Mass every Sunday, and being openhanded when the collection plate came around; the only way he knew to overcome the annihilation which awaits every man in the grave was to live his life in such a way that other men would remember him and esteem his memory. The individual consciousness must die, but the consciousness of the community, the tribe, and the race lives on; and, to the extent that the individual has entered that collective consciousness, he becomes immortal.
The Last Viking
The coming of Christianity to the Viking world eventually meant the end of that world, but it did not change the Viking ethos immediately, as is evidenced by the life of a man who was certainly one of the most remarkable of all the Vikings, and the last of the truly great ones: Harald Sigurdsson, who, after he became king of Norway, was also known as Harald Hardraada (Hard Ruler) and Harald the Ruthless.
His deeds are the subject of one of the most fascinating of the Viking sagas (King Harald’s Saga), which we would be inclined to dismiss as an unusually imaginative work of heroic fiction, were it not solidly confirmed by the historical record.
Christian Terror
Olaf, like Denmark’s Harald Bluetooth before him, was deposed and chased out of his country after attempting to impose Christianity on his countrymen against their will. For two years Olaf had waged a campaign of Christian terror, burning the farms of all Norwegians who would not bow to the Church of Rome. Many of the stubborn traditionalists who fell into his hands he maimed or blinded.
Finally his subjects revolted, and he was forced to flee to Russia. When he returned with an army, including his half-brother Harald, in 1030 he was defeated and killed, and the wounded, 15- year-old Harald became a fugitive.
Olaf, despised by the Norwegians, was immediately made a saint by the Church, and today he is the patron saint of Norwegian Christians.
Excerpted from the 21st article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:
Called many names—Danes, Geats, Norsemen, Rus, Swedes, Varangers—they are best known to us by the name which is also used to characterize both the age in which they flourished and the way of life of many of them: Vikings. Like two great waves of raiders, conquerors, and colonizers before them, the Goths and the Anglo-Saxons, they came from the Nordic heartland: southern Sweden and Norway, the Danish peninsula, the adjoining portion of northern Germany, and the nearby North Sea and Baltic islands.
Essence of Whiteness
They are of special interest to us in our endeavor to understand who we are, not so much because most of us have Viking forebears (although a great many people with immediate roots in Ireland, Scotland, England, and northwestern France, as well as in Scandinavia, do), but because they give us a clearer, more detailed picture of that pure essence of Indo-Europeanism of Whiteness—which is the common heritage of all of us, whether our recent ancestors were Germans, Celts, Balts, or Slavs, than we can obtain from a study of any other European people.
German in language like the Goths and the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings retained other aspects of Germanic culture which those earlier emigrants from the Nordic heartland had already lost by the dawn of the Viking Age. In particular, the Vikings held to their Indo-European religion and worldview longer than any of the other Germanic peoples. They also remained hardier, fiercer in battle, and more venturesome than those who had been softened by the more civilized living to the south.
Best and Worst in Our Race
The Vikings not only serve us as an especially useful epitome of Whiteness at a time when our survival demands a renewal of the best of our old values and strengths, but they also provide us with a clear reminder of the danger inherent in one of our most lethal weaknesses: excessive individualism and lack of racial solidarity. A study of the Vikings acquaints us with both the best and the worst (or, in this age, the least affordable) of the characteristics of our race.
No Viking Democrats
The men who inhabited this region were necessarily self-reliant, tenacious, energetic, and resourceful. No anemic democrats these: the terrain was not suited to the placid, ant-heap mentality of lesser races to the south; it bred men with strong wills and stronger egos, a natural warrior aristocracy.
Cultural Unity
The isolation by terrain and climate of many Viking communities did not prevent the Vikings from having a remarkable unity of culture, language, and spirit but it certainly did not encourage political unity. Viking individualism seemed to be inimical to a sense of racial solidarity. While more subjective races to the south were often drawn together by the perceived need for mutual support in the face of a hostile world, Vikings were much more inclined to face the world as individuals.
Their loyalty and sense of community seldom extended beyond the fighting band to which they belonged or, at most, to that limited region of Norway or Denmark or whatever which they considered “home”. And they would as gladly—or almost as gladly—hew down the Vikings of a rival band as a monastery full of trembling priests in some southern land. Within the band, however, the Viking ethos demanded a solidarity as uncompromising as that of the other Germanic peoples of their time.
Ralph the Walker
Just as in England and Ireland, however, Vikings who at first came only to seize women and gold later came to seize land as well. This process reached its climax early in the 10th century when a Viking band wrested away from the West Franks a substantial piece of territory in northwestern France, south of the lower Seine.
First White American
A few years later another Greenland Viking, Thorfinn Karlsefni, made a determined effort to establish a permanent Viking presence in America. He fitted out three longships and recruited 160 men and women to accompany him on the westward voyage. They built a community in North America which they called Straumfjord, and in 1004 Thorfinn’s wife Gudrid bore him a son, Snorri, there: the first native White American.
Unrelenting attacks by Indians made life very difficult for Thorfinn’s American colonists, however, and after three years they abandoned their settlement and returned to Greenland.
Had the Vikings’ weapons been technologically superior to the bows and arrows of the [Amerinds]—as Columbus’ firearms were—then White history in America would have begun 500 years sooner than it did. As it was, the individual superiority of the Viking warriors in battle could not make up for the enormous numerical advantage enjoyed by the hordes of Red men who opposed them.
Purest Cultural Heritage
Today these North Atlantic islands, of which Iceland with its quarter-million inhabitants is the most significant, preserve the Viking cultural heritage in its purest form. The modern Icelandic and Faroese languages are nearly identical to the Old Norse spoken by the Vikings, while English and the other Germanic languages have undergone great changes during the last 1,000 years. In folkways as well, many Viking traits have been preserved in the islands, especially in Iceland and the Faroes. There has even been a return to the Viking religion by some Icelanders in recent years.
No Minorities
Iceland is outstanding in another respect as well: alone among the White nations of the world it does not bear the curse of non-White minorities; it has no Blacks, no Jews, no Vietnamese, no Mexicans. Iceland has not been invaded for the last 1,000 years, except during the Second World War, when the country was occupied by American troops. The bulk of the foreigners withdrew after the war, and Icelanders insisted that future U.S. troops sent to man the air base which the United States was allowed to maintain on the island include no non-Whites.
The greatest debt that the White race owes to Icelanders is for their preservation of the Norse literary heritage: the Viking sagas. While church officials in other European countries were rounding up and burning all the pre-Christian books they could lay their hands on during the Middle Ages, Icelandic scholars were busy writing down the sagas which still existed only in oral form and transcribing, annotating, and expanding those which had been put into writing earlier.
Genocidal Evangelism
Beginning in 772, a year after he became sole king of the Franks upon the death of his brother Carloman, Karl, later known to the French as Charlemagne, son of Pepin the Short and grandson of Karl the Hammer, waged a 32-year campaign of genocidal evangelism against the Saxons. The campaign began with Karl’s destruction of the Irminsul, or World Pillar, the Saxon equivalent of the Norse World Ash, Yggdrasil, located in the Saxons’ most sacred grove, at Eresburg (on the site of the present Marburg), and it became bloodier, crueler, and more intolerant as it wore on.
In 774, at Quierzy, Karl issued a proclamation that he would kill every Saxon who refused to accept the sweet yoke of Jesus. Henceforth a contingent of Christian priests accompanied the Frankish army on its expeditions against the Saxons, and in every Saxon village those who refused to be baptized by the priests were slaughtered on the spot.
Even if we omit what male Spaniards did with their genes in the Americas with countless Indian women and imported blacks, the sad history of Spain, racially a melting pot of Mediterranean Iberians, Phoenicians, Nordish Celts, Romans, Nordish Goths, Jews, and Moors, is a textbook case of white decline as the result of both ethno-suicide—Christianity—and Semitic genocide.
♣
Excerpted from the 19th article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:
Although King Wamba [a Visigothic king from 672 to 680] was a strong ruler, who successfully put down a Basque rebellion and maintained his frontiers against his Frankish neighbors to the north and Arab pirates raiding by sea from the south, prosperity had already begun taking its toll of Gothic vigor. It was Wamba’s immediate predecessor, Recesuinto, who, at the insistence of the Church, took the first direct step toward Gothic racial suicide (if we do not count as such Sisibert’s allowing baptized Jews to pass as Gentiles a few years earlier) when he abolished the longstanding ban against intermarriage.
Prior to Recesuinto’s reign, the racial pride of the Goths had remained intact. None but Goths might rule, and Goths might marry none but Goths. The penalty for violation of this ban was quite severe: both partners were burned at the stake. Thus, the blood of the Goths had remained unmixed with that of their Roman, Iberian, and Jewish subjects. Recesuinto allowed Goths to marry baptized Jews and anyone else who claimed Christian beliefs, and the nobility of Spain has since been tainted heavily with the Semitic blood of department-store heiresses, or the equivalent thereof in that pre-department-store era.
The Jews conspired all the more against the Goths, and the successors of Recesuinto and Wamba were obliged to take measures against them on a number of occasions. They failed, however, to rid their kingdom of the pestilence, because they did not apply the same measures against baptized Jews as against their unbaptized brethren. This shortsightedness finally led to the undoing of the Goths during the reign of Roderic, who took the throne in 709.
While the men of Roderic’s race had grown soft and indecisive over the course of the dozen generations which had passed since the time of Adolf, unable finally even to cope with a gaggle of money-hungry Semites in their midst, a new Semitic danger had begun to rise to the south of them.
Here Pierce describes how the Peninsula fell to Islamic invasion a few years later. Only in the mountains of the north, in Asturias, were the Nordish Goths able to hold back the Semitic tide permanently. Pierce adds:
Even today, 12 centuries after the fact, Jews still gather in their synagogues on holidays to gloat over their destruction of the Goths, and Jewish writers openly boast of their treachery. The popular Jewish author and lecturer, Max I. Dimont, has taken particular satisfaction in the fate of the Gothic women, both in Spain and in those areas of Gaul subject to Moorish raiding parties from the south. In his best-selling book, The Indestructible Jews, Dimont writes: “As blond Christian maidens fetched fancy prices in the slave markets, raids in Christian lands by Muslim private entrepreneurs became big business. Female captives were pedigreed like dogs. Their Christian antecedents, their genuine blondness, their virginity, and their ability to bear children were all ascertained and notarized before they were marketed.”
Dimont discreetly avoids mentioning that the slave merchants doing the pedigreeing and marketing of these White girls were, in most cases, Jews. What he does say is: “From the inception of Islam’s conquest, Spanish Jews had soared to the highest government posts. A series of brilliant Jewish viziers—viceroys—enriched the caliphate’s coffers and helped usher in an age of splendor and learning.”
Pierce proceeds to describe the heroic deeds of Charles Martell, who unlike the Goths was successful in repelling Muslim invasion. Then he says:
Though forced to retreat south of the Pyrenees, the Arabs and the other Muslim invaders of Spain remained in the peninsula for nearly 800 years, and the genetic damage they wrought there was great. Islam, like Christianity, makes no distinction of race; all that counts is religion, not blood. Thus, the interbreeding begun under Recesuinto to satisfy the demands of his bishops continued at an accelerated pace under Muslim rule, and, as mentioned by the Jewish writer Dimont, the Arabs and Moors were especially fond of mingling their genes with those of Spain’s blond Gothic nobility.
One indication of this lust is revealed by the terms imposed on the Goths who remained in the unconquered enclave in the northwest, which later grew into the Kingdom of Galicia: In order to keep the Semites at bay they were required to pay a tribute of 100 blond virgins each year. It was not until the reign of Alfonso II, which began in 791, that the Goths were again strong enough to put an end to this humiliating imposition.
After a few more paragraphs Pierce ends his chapter with these words:
Not until 1492 was the reconquest of the peninsula finally completed. In that year the unbaptized Jews were expelled en masse from the country they had betrayed eight centuries earlier, and the remaining pockets of Moors followed them ten years later. The Inquisition, which had been established in 1478, dealt to a limited extent with the baptized Jews.
A quotation from John Martínez’s:
“Why Christianity and not Judaism
is the Enemy #1 of the White Race”
“Blaming Christianity is a sort of taboo topic in most of the English-speaking White Nationalist blogosphere.”
—Tom Sunic
It is a taboo topic in the whole WN blogosphere, Chechar.
These folks are ready to speak the unspeakable about race differences and the Jewish Problem. But they refuse to take the final step and face the fact that, if it was not for Christianity, perhaps we would not have to be discussing all of these problems now because they might not have happened in the first place.
How can someone advocate for the dignity and self-reliance of the White race while operating within a non-White, Levantine cult?
How can these people expose the Jews and their race supremacist cult while worshipping a Jew (!) and making extensive use of the Jewish mythology and the Jewish Weltanschauung?
It is mind-boggling…
My view about the core problems facing the White race today is that Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Communism are Semitic and therefore alien, extraneous ideologies that should be consigned to the trashcan of History. The differences I see among them nowadays are close to irrelevant as far as our interests are concerned.
Bluegrass comments here:
America was the preeminent racialist country before any European equivalent arose, but it was always held back from completely securing the existence of the European race by the mitigating power of our Christian foundation.
No Christianity means no Puritan proselytizing and universalism within the American psyche, which means no ideological foundation to tolerate the presence of Africans, Indians, or any non-White immigration.
Christianity always made it “uncouth” to be overly racialist. European America was able to implicitly secure the genetic stock through immigration restrictions, segregation, and what have you, but it was always a precarious position.
This semi-implicit racialism, always pervaded by the Christian sense that it was not necessarily the most dignified of ideologies, was easily destroyed by the Jewish culture of critique.
From then on, without the sounder minds to shepherd the flock our universalism (Coolidge etc) took hold and our religion became the realization of the proposition nation.
Of course, to realize that dream the destruction of White genetics has become a necessary sacrifice.
A personal note:
When I was translating to Spanish “Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy,” chapter 7 of Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, I suspended the translation when I hit this 1924 sentence about Israel Zangwill:
Mr. Zangwill spoke chiefly on the immigration question, declaring that if Jews persisted in a strenuous opposition to the restricted immigration there would be no restriction. “If you create enough fuss against this Nordic nonsense,” he said, “you will defeat this legislation. You must make a fight against this bill; tell them they are destroying American ideals. Most fortifications are of cardboard, and if you press against them, they give way.” [emphasis added]
If most fortifications in 1924, when supposedly American ethnocentricity was still very robust, were “of cardboard,” I told to myself, there must be an underlying factor that prevents us from defending our ethny, a primary infection.
Most nationalists act under the assumption that the Jewish Problem is the primary infection. My working hypothesis is that the JP, if compared to the most common HIV-related infections, is not the virus that is killing us but something like a bacterial disease such as tuberculosis, pneumonia or septicaemia: a deadly opportunistic infection that the HIV virus allowed to thrive.
Kill all the bacteria if you want. I have no problem with that. But if we want to save ourselves from extinction we really must go after the primary virus that weakened our defenses in the first place.
Jewry is Enemy #2.
For my collection of articles
dealing with Enemy #1 see here.
