web analytics

Tag: Robert Morgan (commenter)

Categories
Abraham Lincoln

Robert Morgan’s comment

In order for white people to revolt as a race, they’d have to reject a century and a half of their own history. They’d have to abandon Christianity, and ruthlessly purge its cultural residue, since even atheists nowadays embrace its fantasy of a “brotherhood of man”.

People such as Lincoln, who is now a hero to most whites, would have to be seen as a villain. Likewise with MLK and FDR. They’d have to admit to themselves that they’ve been fools all along, and their ancestors crazy; that all the blood and sacrifice to stamp out white supremacy in the Civil War and in WWII was for nothing, or even less than nothing. The cognitive dissonance alone would probably kill them or drive them insane.

Frankly, I don’t see it happening.

Categories
Kevin MacDonald

MacDonald’s failure

by Robert Morgan

“The Catholic Church and other Christians were bamboozled into accepting the integration of the races…”

This idea that whites don’t know what they’re doing is malicious. Once you assume that whites have no responsibility for their own actions, the battle is lost.

Cultural pressure is intimidating, but no external force compels whites to act as they do, or have the culture that they do. It wasn’t Jews who launched and fought the American Civil War, or who freed the negro slaves and made them citizens, the legal equals of whites. Nor was Jewish control of mass media necessary to achieve that result. America was virtually 100% white and Christian at the time.

They weren’t bamboozled into anything. Denial of the importance of race flows very naturally from the basic tenets of Christianity.

“Christianity was cucked in recent times, and prior to the cucking it was the single and only cohesive group strategy that we had, as Kevin Macdonald has observed in his brilliant work.”

It can be argued that whites (i.e. Europeans) cucked when they accepted Christianity from Jews (i.e. non-whites), as Kevin MacDonald has failed to observe in his rather stupid books. MacDonald tries to pass his theories off as science, yet if Jews and whites are competitors locked in Darwinian struggle as he claims, haven’t they always been so? And if so, what does it say about Christianity? Letting the enemy draw up your game plan isn’t a wise decision.

Nietzsche and others drew the obvious conclusion that Christianity itself was the original subversion. MacDonald’s failure to address this issue of Christianity-as-subversion is a fatal flaw in his so-called scholarship.

Categories
Judeo-reductionism Kevin MacDonald

Robert Morgan’s comment

Jerry Attrick: To anyone curious—you cannot go wrong with The Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald if you want to know more.

Robert Morgan: Actually, you can. By focusing exclusively on Jews, MacDonald suggests that other causes of cultural developments are unimportant.

Yet American whites advanced the negro to citizenship and legal equality with themselves even before mass Jewish immigration began, and when the country was virtually 100% white and Christian.

Given such a history, subsequent developments in the 20th century would likely have followed sooner or later even without Jewish agitation.

Categories
Kevin MacDonald

Time to troll the Observer


Apparently, someone has been trying to discuss with MacDonald by email about this devastating critique of his naïve views on Christianity, to no avail. Instead, the retired professor has published an article by a Christian pundit that advances exactly the opposite point of view of this site.
In the first instalment of that piece, the author wrote: ‘Men of the Alt Right can and should recast themselves in the role of Christian cultural (maybe even holy) warriors fighting to regenerate once-Christian nations’. In the last sentence of the second instalment, he concluded: ‘The mission of the Alt Right, should it choose to accept it, is to spark the resurrection of the Church from the dead, not in a Rapture event next year, or in the far-distant future, but rather in the here and now’.
When whites become extinct by the middle of the 22nd century, bewildered Chinese intellectuals will be trying to figure out why these valiant defenders of the white race remained addicted to their Jewish opium. And believe me, this Judeo-Christian cult (‘ethnocentrism for me but universalism for thee’) is opium for the Aryan mind.
Visitors from The Occidental Observer who doubt the accuracy of this diagnosis should read (1) Evropa Soberana’s Rome vs. Judea, (2) Jack Frost’s PDF, (3) the recently published Why Europeans Must Reject Christianity by Ferdinand Bardamu, and tomorrow I shall resume the translations from the Kriminal-geschichte series.
Keep tuned!

Categories
Albert Speer David Irving Monologe im Führerhauptquartier

Are the table talks genuine?

uncle adolf
 
Editor’s note: I am relocating this August 5, 2015 comment by Jack Frost to this day so that it is the first post that a visitor hits when clicking the category on Hitler’s table talks. I won’t delete the old August thread but I have disabled comments on this specific article. Reason: I don’t have time to discuss with those Christian neonazis who cannot tolerate even the possibility that the talks may be genuine.
 

David Irving has considerable expertise in this matter, and he says they’re genuine.

Likewise Albert Speer, who was present at some of these dinner talks, attests to them in his memoirs. But also, perhaps even more convincing, the talks are the blindingly original insights of a true master.

These views of Christianity* are not derivative of anyone else’s opinions, certainly not Schopenhauer’s, and while at odds with certain of his public statements, are quite consistent with other things known about Hitler, particularly his anti-Semitism. Surely a forger wouldn’t have gone this route.

In the first place, he would have had to do original thinking that is quite uncharacteristic of forgers, and in the second place an ordinary forger would have been careful not to make any statements that were inconsistent with other things known to have been said or written by Hitler.

Their very originality speaks to their veracity. Of course, this can be turned around. People who want to believe Hitler was actually a Christian disingenuously ask why, if this was his real opinion, didn’t he put it in Mein Kampf or mention it in any of his public speeches?

But the answer is obvious. Hitler was a politician, and had to be all things to all people. No politician with such views could have been open about them in a Christian nation.

Accordingly, to Christians of his day, he appeared to be a Christian. Such hypocrisy was more or less built into the task he had set for himself.

_____________

(*) These were Frost’s August 4, 2015, 5:15 PM quotes on the same thread. Alas, as usual Dr MacDonald has now deleted the whole comments thread!

Categories
Deranged altruism Kevin MacDonald

A question for MacDonald

What is the evidence that, even in pre-Christian times, Europeans were prone to moral panics and excessive guilt and/or altruism? I’ve never seen any and find it hard to believe there is any.

—Jack Frost

Categories
Axiology Giorgio de Chirico

Technology

by Jack Frost

gran metafisico

A worldview is not a mere passive view, an act of looking at something, which might be suggested from the word, but actually a game plan for shaping it.

Christianity is the religion of whites and Christianity promotes an anti-racist worldview, which means that, with rare exceptions that were vigorously suppressed, the historical game plan of whites has been to deny the importance of biological race.

As their technological culture has now expanded to include all the races of the world, it’s quite obvious that the result has been and will continue to be to increase race mixing, and accelerate their own destruction as a race. As part of the game plan, it was easy to see this coming; but the problem was, with such a worldview, nobody really cared. In fact, they still don’t.

Whites value their technological culture more than their race, and because of this worldview, can’t see that the two are interconnected. This Faustian hubris is one of their defining characteristics and could well lead to their undoing. It’s possible that technological civilization may be able survive the demise of its founding race, but it seems at least equally likely that a permanent collapse may result. It’s the gamble of the ages!

Categories
Axiology Deranged altruism London

Poisoned arrow

by Jack Frost

Amor vincit omnia
Caritas vincit omnia
Agape vincit omnia. [1]

 
Perversely, the suicide of the West (Christendom) is an expression of its civilizational confidence—confidence in its own moral purity, in its vision of universal brotherhood, in the power of charity and love, and in its ability to assimilate the victimized Other, who recalls to them the victimized Jesus.

That this is all horribly misconceived according to the rational principles of Darwin is ignored. Calls to faith and universal brotherhood are stronger.

Thus, the poisoned arrow of Christian charity strikes home before the shield of reason can be raised to knock it away.

 

___________________________

[1] Note of the Ed.: The term Agape or Love Feast was used for certain religious meals among early Christians. Originally it was used as a verb but the noun form first occurs in the Septuagint. Other ancient authors have used forms of the word to denote love in contrast to philia (an affection that could denote friendship) and eros, an affection of a sexual nature. Christianity developed Agape as the love of the Providence for humankind. In the New Testament it refers to the covenant love of God for humans and the term extends to the love of one’s fellow man.

Categories
American civil war Blacks Egalitarianism Universalism

On the US Constitution

by Jack Frost

 
“The Naturalization Act of 1790 says that the country is open to Free White Persons.”

There’s quite a bit of interesting history involved with this discussed at considerable length in the Dred Scott case from 1856, especially in the dissenting opinions given by Justice Maclean and Justice Curtis. For example, Maclean wrote:

In the argument, it was said that a colored citizen would not be an agreeable member of society. This is more a matter of taste than of law. Several of the States have admitted persons of color to the right of suffrage, and in this view have recognised them as citizens; and this has been done in the slave as well as the free States. On the question of citizenship, it must be admitted that we have not been very fastidious. Under the late treaty with Mexico, we have made citizens of all grades, combinations, and colors. The same was done in the admission of Louisiana and Florida. No one ever doubted, and no court ever held, that the people of these Territories did not become citizens under the treaty. They have exercised all the rights of citizens, without being naturalized under the acts of Congress.

Also, Curtis:

On the 25th of June, 1778, the Articles of Confederation being under consideration by the Congress, the delegates from South Carolina moved to amend this fourth article, by inserting after the word “free,” and before the word “inhabitants,” the word “white,” so that the privileges and immunities of general citizenship would be secured only to white persons. Two States voted for the amendment, eight States against it, and the vote of one State was divided. The language of the article stood unchanged, and both by its terms of inclusion, “free inhabitants,” and the strong implication from its terms of exclusion, “paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice,” who alone were excepted, it is clear, that under the Confederation, and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, free colored persons of African descent might be, and, by reason of their citizenship in certain States, were entitled to the privileges and immunities of general citizenship of the United States.

Constitution_of_the_United_States,_page_1

Did the Constitution of the United States deprive them or their descendants of citizenship?

That Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States, through the action, in each State, or those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon, in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of that State. In some of the States, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on this subject. These colored persons were not only included in the body of “the people of the United States,” by whom the Constitution was ordained and established, but in at least five of the States they had the power to act, and doubtless did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption. It would be strange, if we were to find in that instrument anything which deprived of their citizenship any part of the people of the United States who were among those by whom it was established.

I can find nothing in the Constitution which, proprio vigore, deprives of their citizenship any class of persons who were citizens of the United States at the time of its adoption, or who should be native-born citizens of any State after its adoption; nor any power enabling Congress to disfranchise persons born on the soil of any State, and entitled to citizenship of such State by its Constitution and laws. And my opinion is, that, under the Constitution of the United States, every free person born on the soil of a State, who is a citizen of that State by force of its Constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States…

It has been often asserted that the Constitution was made exclusively by and for the white race. It has already been shown that in five of the thirteen original States, colored persons then possessed the elective franchise, and were among those by whom the Constitution was ordained and established. If so, it is not true, in point of fact, that the Constitution was made exclusively by the white race. And that it was made exclusively for the white race is, in my opinion, not only an assumption not warranted by anything in the Constitution, but contradicted by its opening declaration, that it was ordained and established by the people of the United States, for themselves and their posterity. And as free colored persons were then citizens of at least five States, and so in every sense part of the people of the United States, they were among those for whom and whose posterity the Constitution was ordained and established.

So it turns out that, despite being a nation in which white supremacy was enshrined in law, there were numerous places and times in America when this was honored more in the breach than in the observance. Without any Jewish “control” whatsoever, unless Christianity is admitted to be such a controlling influence, there had always been a strong undercurrent of anti-racism and of America being a “proposition nation,” which eventually and disastrously grew to the whirlpool of destruction that sucked the whole nation down into the carnage of the Civil War. After that, through ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, it was made explicitly so.

Oh say can you see, by the dawn’s early light, a proud Christian nation of racial cuckolds? American patriotism = cuck pride!

Categories
Axiology

On The Donald

by Jack Frost

donald-trumpThe federal gov’t has come up with an innovation called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), explicitly designed to break up what has been called “implicit whiteness” in housing patterns. Placing negroes and mestizos into white neighborhoods is now a “duty” of state and local gov’ts that want to keep receiving federal money.

I don’t think it’s possible to reform an anti-white system by degrees. So long as the most fundamental principle of America is anti-racism, which has been the case juridically since the Civil War, and culturally for an even longer time, it will remain an anti-white country.

In theory, a political revolution could overthrow this (that’s what happened in pre-WWII Germany), but the culture of anti-racism would have to reverse itself to achieve something permanent.

It would be interesting, for example, to learn Trump’s position on AFFH. He’s a guy who says he has no problem with Affirmative Action in the workplace, so how could he object to the same thing happening in regards to housing patterns?

Of course, carried out to its logical conclusion, Affirmative Action in everything—housing patterns, breeding patterns, and in the workplace—is the same thing as eliminating the white race entirely. It’s genocide. Yet where is the opposition? A large fraction of whites actually support it, and even the same whites who will tell you they oppose it will almost to a man deny that they are racists or oppose it because they want to preserve the white race.

The truth is, almost everyone nowadays claims to be against racism, and most of these people are sincere. Even Donald Trump.

“I don’t have a racist bone in my body,” Trump exclusively told ET, defending himself against accusations of racism. “The fact that I want a strong border and the fact that I don’t want illegal immigrants pouring into this country, that doesn’t make me a racist, it means I love this country and I want to save this country.”