|
|
|
American Exceptionalism: You’re All Americans Now! By The Narrator This is the final part of my anti-Universalist trilogy, earlier articles being Charity and the savage and The Unnecessary Faith American Exceptionalism. If you are unfamiliar with the phrase you’ll at least recognize it’s definition. Essentially, it is the general belief amongst the declining demographic known as White American Patriots that everybody on planet Earth not only wants to be a White American Patriot, but can and should become White American Patriots. This is the self delusional philosophy that the average (non-elite) White American conservative clings to in order to justify Imperial America’s foreign military adventurism. And, more importantly, to convince themselves that the massive non-White migration currently flooding America will end with Jamal, Ping, Pedro and Abdullah all speaking colloquial American English, loving John Wayne films, adoring Country music, voting Republican every four years and (magically) never making up more than 5% of small town America’s population. As you might expect, they are completely insane. Of all the hypocrisies in the world, theirs is uniquely obtuse in that they believe that everyone, everywhere, should voluntarily conform to an obligatory creed of self-reliant independence and rugged individuality. They believe that only fools or terrorists wouldn’t aspire to be exactly like them. Their most profound conviction is that people with convictions are obstacles to the state funded and government regulated consumerist lifestyle that props up the self-worshiping ideology of Individualism which they believe is inherent to all living beings. American Exceptionalism is, in many ways, the overtly capitalistic ideological-cousin of Marxism. Many people forget (or didn’t know to begin with) that the Communists set up shop in Moscow to construct, not a regional empire, but rather, a global empire. They intended to bring the glorious revolution to the whole world through subtle propaganda as well as not so subtle militaristic conquests of other nations. After all, they surmised, every people naturally wants what we have to give them; progress, Marxists envisioned themselves as liberators who would be greeted with flowers and cheers as everywhere they looked they saw peoples in need of liberation from despots and thugs. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? The truly unique aspect of American Exceptionalism is that it accomplished what old style Marxism never could; true belief and enthusiasm from the masses (aka White people). After all, in what other post-modern ideological system would you expect to find those willing to wage expensive and deadly wars abroad against nations which (historically) have neither the intent or ability to attack them at home? Of course attacks have happened, just not by nations. And their (the attackers) motivations for the attacks on America was American Exceptionalism showing up in their backyards with banners and bombs. And of course their attacks on American soil were only feasible because American Exceptionalism allows them (nay, insists they come) into the country to begin with. And so a self-cannibalizing cycle continues, gnawing ever closer to the bone. With cheap labor being good for business and a vanishing middle-class good for elites, corporations, ethnic groups and their mouthpieces in the media have developed and encouraged the notion of American Exceptionalism for middle-class Whites as an ideology or creed which can be adopted by non-Whites as opposed to a biologically based nation-state that is founded upon blood. In particular, European blood. Concepts such as the “Melting Pot” and “Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses”, have been absorbed into the cultural matrix to such an extent that to mock or question them is to be a heretic. Add a little hubris in the form of “ra-ra-ra U-S-A!!!!!” to the mix and you’ve got the ingredients for civilizational poison. In fact its gotten to the point that America is no longer a nation but a religion. Being an “American” is now a human right. Four things (among others) have allowed this faulty thinking to gain ground in the minds of Americans. 1. The unprecedented (multi generational) high standard of living in the US which, in the hands of a “forward thinking”, “live for the moment” people (read, unreflective and historically ignorant) who assume their lifestyle is the historical and future norm, has allowed the idea of civilization-as-a-business cycle to flourish. 2. The belief that this hyper-financially-minded lifestyle is sustainable and wonderfully contagious, and that its compulsory implementation will do away with all distinctions save between those who have flat screen TVs and those who tragically and foolishly do not. 3. See Kevin MacDonald’s book Culture of Critique - undermining the traditional biologically based Western character of America allows for the embrace of a generic, -product-everybody-must-have-, America) 4. America’s size. Stretching out across a continent “Americans” could (traditionally) travel thousands of miles to far away locations and find people who spoke, thought, acted, worshiped, worked and played “American” just like themselves. And if the foreigner living waaaaay out there in Kansas or Texas or Oregon or Michigan or Florida or Virginia was just like them and waved Old Glory too, then naturally the foreigners in Mexico, Europe, the Middle-East and Asia should and could be liberated to Americanism as well. Again, only a fool or terrorist would resist being “American”. And in the face of unprecedented human migration into every state in the union, it is, in the minds of modern White American Patriots, readily adopted and codified as the cure all solution to America’s rapid third-worldification. How many White American Patriots are walking through the ghetto their once nice neighborhoods have become, still seeing Mayberry RFD everywhere they look? Sadly, far too many. But if you’re not going to swim against a tide you know is treacherous then you have to contrive an argument/self-delusion to convince yourself the tide was going in your direction to begin with. In other words, American Exceptionalism is the pseudo-intellectual placebo that White Americans continue to take (or rather, accept) to rid themselves of that gnawing feeling that there may be both short and long term consequences to having junked their own people’s long-fought-for civilization by rejecting their natural tribal tendencies. Racially agnostic Whites (those who generally prefer not to actively believe in the existence of race) are often flabbergasted to find that non-Whites refuse to share in their preferred disbelief. American Exceptionalists face the same a similar rejection. Having vested a lot of emotional energy into projecting their own personalities, temperament and morality onto everyone else in the world they find themselves confused and often “betrayed” by people who, ironically, never considered them comrades to begin with. This is the obvious outcome of re-basing national identity on a broad based ideology rather than narrowly defined biology (race). In the “America is an Idea” camp there will never be a consensus on what America is, let alone what, if anything, makes it exceptional. For some people what makes America great is its seeming willingness to commit passive genocide against the people through (and for) whom it came into being in the first place. For others, junking the Constitution and denouncing American history as the epitome of evil is what makes America exceptional. For White American Patriots, what makes America great is themselves. They just can’t bring themselves to acknowledge this even though their list of “things that make America great” reflects ideas, morals, politics, ethics, cultural practices, etc that only they espouse and enjoy. For them, success in Iraq will be measured by whether or not ten years from now Iraqis are wearing flannel shirts and baseball caps and revelling in tailgate parties. Ultimately American Exceptionalism suffers the same Achilles Heel as Christianity and other “universal” belief systems wherein assumption meets projection. In attempting to construct and implement a creed-based group identity in a cosmopolitan era or area, it finds itself defined out of existence through the impracticality of its own universal applications which are, out of necessity, ever expanding. When everybody is Roman, no one is Roman. America is not the greatest country on earth. Never was. There is no such thing as the “greatest country on earth”. There are only countries, kingdoms, etc whose laws, customs, traditions and culture most accurately reflect the values, traditions, customs and culture of the people who inhabit them. In other words, a (natural) biologically-based nation. Because what is “great” for one people, is not going to be what is “great” for another. Comments:2
Posted by danielj on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:59 | # He seems to be a lover of the Jew and desperately trying to make common cause with them. I’m not sure it is worth anyone’s time. 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:22 | # This notion of “American Exceptionalism” has vaguely annoyed me since I first heart Jews referring to it a few years ago. After reading the present log entry I looked in Wikipedia to see who first put forward this idiotic notion, strongly suspecting it was the Jews. Sure enough:
I haven’t paid attention to the way in which the Jews use this term but vaguely I get the idea it’s the same sort of hogwash as the Proctositional Nation the Hebrews came up with, sort of “in America we Jews have encountered a nation of sheep that let themselves be dispossessed and genocided without a peep of protest. That’s truly exceptional, so we’re going to call the U.S. an ‘exceptional’ nation, and refer to ‘American Exceptionalism.’ No other country in the world would let us get away with doing what we’ve done to this place and take it lying down to boot. That’s genuinely exceptional.” Europeans: know that when you hear the Americans spout off about “American Exceptionalism” it’s not Americans spouting off, but Jews. Americans have nothing to do with that crap. Like “racism,” “The Patriarchy,” “anti-Semitism,” and so many other neologisms invoked a lot by Hebrews, “American Exceptionalism” has no meaning other than to signal that the Jews see this country as having given them a really good deal (kindness which they repaid by assaulting the U.S. with death-dealing blows like the 1965 immigration law). With enemies like them, who needs Jews! 4
Posted by Armor on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:17 | # Three weeks ago, the French League of Human Rights lodged a complaint against me for anti-Semitism because I had complained on an internet forum about Jewish supremacism and their race replacement efforts. The police took my deposition. I don’t know yet if the complaint will be accepted or dismissed. I think anti-hate laws that forbid criticism of the Jews are a good example of Jewish supremacism and exceptionalism! The reason I was complaining about Jewish supremacism was a radio program I had heard on France-Culture, where the presenter took position against the Breton and Basque languages. His pretext was that recognition of those languages in the French constitution may encourage “communitarism”, ethnicism, and a thing called “dérive identitaire” which probably refers to a suspicious drifting from identity awareness towards something more sinister. For the record, I am not a “communitarianist”, I am a nationalist. I think my nation should have its own state, separate from France. I thought those accusations were a bit rich, coming from a public radio station that has been largely colonized by the Jewish community, but I was not supposed to say so. On that same internet forum, I said that Jewish supremacism and French-Parisian supremacism had become allies against Brittany, which is true. Unlike the USA, France has a real history of being a proposition nation, since the 1789 revolution. The original French nation had only half the territory of today’s France. The whole country has been frenchified by wiping off languages other than French. The idea was, and still is, that French people have a universal quality that is lacking in Breton or Basque speakers. Even in the French part of the country, the administration was hostile to local identities. People had to become interchangeable citizens. Later, in the second part of the 20th century, I think that kind of ideology was of great help to immigration activists. I also think that Jewish organizations like to play with the idea that people are interchangeable citizens, and that being French is not about race. A Congolese or a North African Jew can be just as French as a Frenchman. Radio-France-Culture is a public radio station where they talk a lot about things of interest to Jews and very little about Brittany. By the way, we are not allowed to have our own public radio or TV station in Brittany. The reason I mention all of this is that the radio presenter, in the program I listened to, said something about French exceptionalism. What he calls French exceptionalism is the idea that, according to the 1789 notion of the French identity, no group rights should ever be recognized, even though they are recognized in other Western nations. He gave the example of the Jews, who were emancipated in France in 1789, thanks to the priest Henri Grégoire, who proposed the motto “Grant them everything as citizens, nothing as a nation”. Grégoire was also the author of a report to the French Convention about the necessity to kill languages other than French. It is only today that I had the idea to look up the name of the radio presenter (named Couturier) in wikipedia, and it seems that he is among the main contributors of a magazine called “Le Meilleur des mondes”. 5
Posted by exPF on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:36 | # Your essay touched on a number of interesting points, one of them was:
Its just a little psychological observation, but I think its interesting. I wonder how this ‘gut feeling’ plays out in the soul of the anti-racist. I think in the coming years I may actually make an effort to spend time with anti-racists
The concepts were packed too tightly in that one for me to unpack them. It is defined out of existence .... ok… by the impracticality…ok of its own universal applications… ok. I see the difficulty in uniting diverse peoples under an abstract idea as follows: 1. Ideas are not widely-shared gut feelings, such as identity is. Since they are abstractions, they have a thousand variants, none of which commands much visceral attachment beyond the circle of philosophers who drafted the manifesto. 2. Society’s present philosopher-kings cannot actually influence how much different groups actually like one another. They think preventing ‘hate’ will suffice, but really, these groups will like or dislike each other based on similarity. The kings can have minimal influence on this. 3. Idea systems are (almost) infinitely malleable, as the last century has shown. Ethnic animus runs deep- so rather than having ethnic compositions and identities altered in order to conform to ideas (which is today’s “great idea” from our philosopher kings), its much more likely that ideas will be shifted around to suit ethnic identities. Its not difficult to see how competing groups use different interpretations of the same laws, institutional codes, etc. etc., in order to win rights for themselves. 4. Liberalism is an idea putting the will of individual human beings in a primary place - yet it happens very frequently that peoples will are to suppress other people’s wills, there is (gasp!) conflict, and people strive against liberalism itself. Like you alluded to, I see liberalism as the desire for the infinite prolonging of the great, nice, affluent society of the 1960s forever and ever. White, affluent, void of grievances and passions: this is how they want us to keep ticking along forever. 6
Posted by Armor on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:39 | #
- So we are French too? 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:00 | # PF: people strive against liberalism itself Soren Renner, speech to New Right Meeting, London: “Liberalism is the struggle against the struggle for existence.” The left and right of conventional modern politics echo this inevitable struggle, the left striving to “abolish hate”, meaning to dissolve European ethnocentricity, while the right hankers after socially conservative forms that have a preservational character. I will illustrate further with reference to the British scene, ‘cuz that zawl I noe. Because Conservatism has had to chase a leftward migrating political centre for the last 180 years, the political right displays two further splits. The first is between closet loyalists and radical neoliberals, the latter being as keen as the left to see European Man dissolve himself psychically or physically - one is as good as the other - in the fathomless seas of the Third World. This split often manifests as Eurosceptic vs Europhile. About 80% of Conservatives are Eurosceptic. The second split is between the socially conservative majority and the now very fashionable socially liberal or libertarian minority. The Notting Hill clique which has taken over the Conservative Party is the very apogee of fashionable Tory compassion. But they are in such a minority that they have to gesture regularly towards the social conservatives to maintain their moral legitimacy as leaders. So in British Conservatism there is a broad strand of pretty confused and angry, vaguely loyalist social conservatives, especially down among the local associations. They are led by a rather small minority of old-money, professionally neoliberal, socially liberal and Europhile politicians. Sentiment struggles one way, wealth and power the other. PF, you should consider returning to post main articles - just occasionally when the spirit moves you. Your old account is still open. 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:47 | # It’s crystal-clear, after having read the French Wikipedia entry on Le Meilleur des Mondes linked above by Armor, that that organization is Jewish-Neocon in spirit (notwithstanding that, as always happens, it seems to have attracted a number of non-Jewish participants alongside all the obvious French Jews listed). What “American Exceptionalism” means to these Jews who traffic in this Jewish-neocon notion is “race-replaceability.” For the Jews, the conditions that have prevailed in the U.S. Second Republic (i.e., the Constitution; the First Republic was the Articles of Confederation) have ended up making the country race-replaceable. Jews like that. If the conditions in a country facilitate Jewish hegemony and Jewish-directed race-replacement of the traditional population the Jewish neocons will refer to that country’s “Exceptionalism” and will voice support for that “Exceptionalism” spreading to other countries (will voice support, in others words, for more and more countries taking on characteristics that make them congenial to the imposition of 1) Jewish hegemony and 2) Jewish-directed race-replacement of their original populations). That and that alone, I very strongly suspect, is what is meant by the Jewish term, “American Exceptionalism.” No true American came up with that term, and no true American who isn’t a Jewish neocon dupe endorses it, uses it, or even assigns some legitimate meaning to it. Europeans need to understand that: When you hear of “American Exceptionalism” it’s the Jews talking, Jews who mean neither the U.S. nor your own country well but only ill. 9
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 14:00 | #
... whether talking through their own or their bought, duped, intimidated, or in whatever other way owned-and-controlled, goy mouths. 10
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:02 | #
Imagine a secret society that establishes itself as a secret society….....then sets about, pursuant to its official policy, making everybody on earth a member of that secret society. That’s, essentially, what I was getting at by ‘defined out of existence through the impracticality of its own universal applications’.
And sure enough, on the Jewish question, CWNY writes here http://cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com/2009/02/winning-friends-and-influencing-people.html that,
So for CWNY being Jewish is just a religion and the jewess Jessica is a good Christian and thus, by implication that The West is a product of Christianity, a child of The West. That is the inevitable outcome of believing in a creed-based identity for a nation OR a Civilization… . 11
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:26 | #
Just want to point out to those not in the know, this is a statement of fact, and not mere insult. The vast majority of the population of the west is functionally insane. The particular stripe in question is even moreso, a fact that perhaps justifies the hyperbole of “completely” (obviously they’re semi-functional so they’re not completely insane). 12
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:32 | #
Precisely. It’s white men becoming little old women. It’s white men pretending they can’t hear the fire alarm, because they’re afraid to fight the fire. And the establishment, of course, does everything they can to make that bed snug and warm. Too bad it’s a coffin, and not a bed. 13
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:48 | # A thought just occurred to me, one pointed out by Kevin McDonald and Cass Sunstein. We are going to dominate all of the right, not these watered-down types like CWNY, Auster, Amren, etc. It’s inevitable. They can’t exclude us, much as they might try, because we’re too like-minded. And barring exclusion, we’ll take over. Again, it’s inevitable. It’s simply the way groups work - the “radicals” take over. So they should all probably think twice about where they’re headed, insofar as their stated and implicit goals go. I hope they don’t, because as I said eventually we’ll be running the show. 14
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:35 | # I left the following comment at Scotch Fiend’s blog regarding his post on Noel Ignatiev: http://scotchfiend.blogspot.com/2009/02/whiteness-studies-noel-ignatiev-also.html#comments Captainchaos said… Ignatiev is an atheist, he does not believe in, nor does he practice Judaism. So when you say he is “Jewish” you clearly mean he is genetically a Jew; a Jew by blood. “He’s not a ‘hypocritical Jew’ since he holds somewhat similar beliefs critiquing Israel, Zionism and anti-Semitism (details below).” Let us see about that. Ignatiev says: “The white race is a historically constructed social formation. It consists of all those who partake of the privileges of the white skin in this society.” Are we to assume that Ignatiev is so naive as to believe “white skin” is not a heritable trait? Are we further to assume that Ignatiev is so naive as to believe that the “white race” is not, at least, the coupling of “white skin” and Caucasian features, which is also heritable? Come now. “Its most wretched members share a status higher, in certain respects, than that of the most exalted persons excluded from it, in return for which they give their support to a system that degrades them.” Ignatiev pours opprobrium on lower-class Whites for not working towards the extinguishment of what he himself obviously believe they are genetically. “The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin.” But so long as there is “white skin,” coupled with Caucasian features, the boogeyman could never be laid to rest, clearly. Clearly Ignatiev know this. “The existence of the white race depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold.” He means that “white skin” and Caucasian features should be destroyed through miscegenation. ScotchFiend says: “He claims to not want genocide against Whites but rather to radically reorder society. Ignatiev is a Communist desiring the revolutionary transformation of the US.” Ignatiev is a Communist who clearly believes the genocide of the White race is necessary to achieve revolutionary change. Ignatiev says: “Now if there were five or ten per cent counterfeit whites around—people who looked white but really weren’t—then, I think, the white skin would lose its value.” Hmm, does he mean like Jews? Jews “look white” but are not genetically European. Is this where Ignatiev’s mask slips? Jews as the engine of revolutionary Communist change yet again? “The peculiar occupational distribution of European Jews led members of the dispossessed classes among the non-Jewish population to direct their animosity toward the Jews as the visible agents of oppression.” This is no different from the position of Marx, who none the less thought Jews could, and should, maintain a secular Jewish identity post revolution. Kevin MacDonald also describes Soviet Jews who supported the suppression of religious Judaism yet celebrated and clung to a secular Jewish identity. “I propose that there be established there a single state, in which every person who declares his intention to live there and adopt citizenship be recognized as a citizen and have one vote.” Okay. “I propose further that both Hebrew and Arabic be declared official state languages to be taught in the schools,” “...that the special position of Orthodox Judaism be ended and that the state declare freedom of worship and make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” So the trappings of Jewish culture, that are important to maintaining Jewish genetic continuity, would not be relentlessly suppressed. I wonder if the good Jewish professor Ignatiev would support the right of Odinists to freely practice their religion as a means of ensuring European genetic continuity? Some how, I doubt it. February 21, 2009 3:47 AM 15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:18 | #
I think we should stop calling ourselves “the right” or “conservatives.” We should just say what we want — an end to government-enforced race-replacement. These right-left labels come from people who are up to no good — largely the Jews but others as well. I don’t belong to “the right” and am not “a conservative.” Never was. I don’t even know what one is. I oppose forced race-replacement of my race. That’s all. That might as well be “left-wing” as “right-wing.” It’s none of the above, all of the above, or some of the above and not the rest. Labeling it in the way that is commonly done is Jewish talk, communist talk, and people who don’t know what they’re talking about talk. During Lincoln’s War of Northern Aggression, which side was “left-wing” and which “right-wing”? Neither. Same with us: we’re neither. We’re just us. Every time someone on our side accepts the label assigned to him by the Jews he helps the Jews. “Right-wing” is the label assigned to us by the Jews. 16
Posted by Fr. John on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:51 | # “American Exceptionalism suffers the same Achilles Heel as Christianity and other “universal” belief systems wherein assumption meets projection.” ‘Case in point, the writer at Cambria Will Not Yield. I’ve enjoyed some of what that writer has written but was critical of the universal religion he/she espoused, knowing where it leads.” SO, is this “American Exceptionalism’ DIFFERENT from ‘Manifest Destiny’? If it is, is it the Jewish spin that makes it different? I am confused. Frankly, I grew up in the USA. I read and heard preached by the Nuns at my parochial school, the concept that America was a ‘chosen nation;’ (which meant it ALONE was ‘different’ - which is a far cry from ‘universalism’) in the days before Vatican II, when being ‘Semper Edeam’ meant something as well, I was preached that Catholicism ALONE was the “True Faith” - again, the exact OPPOSITE of a “universalism” that seems to be the buzzword in both the comments noted above. So, if by American Exceptionalism, you mean a nation brought about by God, predestined to be the “Head” among nations, as long as she was a) ethnically herself, and b) covenantally faithful to the race from which she sprang, I guess I would say I believe that -of the nation I once knew, but not the NFKAUSA (Nation Formerly Known as the USA) of today. Perhaps that is the ‘chauvinism’ of the American tourist that so irked the European in the decades of 1950-1990- that we thought we were ‘special’. But that’s what we believed, and were taught, and our national rhetoric decreed it. Now, we are just like the mulatto nations of the REST of the WEST, frankly- though OUR ‘schwartzers’ and ‘pakis’ have been former slaves, and among us, far longer than you fellows. But a mulatto nation is still a dying nation, no matter what. Nevertheless, I’d like to know more of what the “American Exceptionalism” is. I don’t consider Cambria Will not Yield, nor myself to be “universalists’ yet that term seems bandied about by the creedless here on MR. Speaking for myself (but thinking Cambria might agree) we stand for the OLDER, NON-inclusive nature of Christendom- racially as well as theologically. Both were exclusionary in the extreme before the modern apostate era. And THAT era’s heresy, lies fully at the Jew’s feet. Of which I want no part….. So, please, gentlemen, clarify your positions for me, if you would be so kind…. 17
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:39 | #
No matter what. Well said. Now, the Jews know this. They know precisely this, that “a mulatto nation is a dying nation, no matter what.” So the question arises, Why do they want the mulatto transformation of every Euro country on the planet? There can be only one answer: they want every Euro country on the planet to be a dying nation. Now, why would they want that? Well, think about it: what kinds of things do you want to die, ones you like or ones you hate? To ask the question is to answer it. Now draw your own conclusions. All of them. There is no other analysis possible of Jewish behavior in this matter, none. 18
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:34 | #
They’re different but the psychology behind the former has certainly bled into the latter to an extent.
Yes, but “chosen” to do what? For the American Exceptionalist we’re “chosen” to liberate the world and bring democracy to all points of the compass.
?????? I don’t know Latin.
Doesn’t Catholic mean Universal?
That’s certainly a part of the mentality. And as I summarized, America was never the greatest nation as there is no such thing, UNLESS, one believes that standards of morals, ethics, temperament, ability, civilization, etc…. are universal.
Actually the rest of The West isn’t as bad off as we are. From a racial point of view, Britain, for example, is about 87% White and Germany is around 92% White while America is about 54% White.
If you’ll read that link I provided in the posts above to CWNY you’ll see that that writer very much implies that there is no such thing as a jewish race and that once one of them converts to Christianity they’re “one of us”. I simply cannot and will not subscribe to that kind of warped philosophy. This, our struggle, is about race first and foremost. Blacks, hispanics, jews and other non-Whites ARE NOT MY “BROTHERS” IN ANY CONTEXT WHAT-SO-EVER, Spiritual or otherwise. If you support sending missionaries to non-Whites to bring them “the truth”, you are a universalist.
If we are to survive then we must operate on the worldview that there are only two types of men in this world. White and non-White. And never the twain shall meet. As for explaining American Exceptionalism any more, well, I did the best I could, but I admittedly addressed the issue from a culturally rural Anglo-protestant point of view (still the dominant majority of White America) so it’s characterizations may not resonate as much for cultural Catholics. ... 19
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:30 | # Manifest destiny, as posited by Jefferson was Anglo-Saxon, pagan and founded upon excellence in governance; “the peoples of large parts of the world were incapable of creating efficient, democratic and prosperous governments;”
Manifest destiny, as posited by John L. O’Sullivan was anti-nativist, anti-Protestant, universalist, Catholic and immigrant based.
John L. O’Sullivan and His Times Book by Robert D. Sampson; Kent State University Press, 2003
20
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:46 | #
Got to be a real sucker to fall for that trick. It’s the same trick “cognitive elitists” try. But people considering swallowing this tripe should follow the smell first. Those who use this trick usually only use it under duress. You have to press them to get an answer. In other words, it’s utility is as apologia, and has nothing to do with an actual goal of either party. Those who use this trick don’t behave as if this reciprocity (or universalism, if you will) is something they want. They behave as if getting you off their back is what they want. Once you’re off their backs, they go right back to screwing you. Ignatiev is a great example. Does anyone here think abolishing the Jewish ethno-state gets more than 1% of his efforts? I wouldn’t be surprised if the instances he’s used this trick to get people off his back constitutes the entirety of his commitment to universalism. Regardless of whether it’s a conscious trick or not (it’s absolutely a trick, but self-deception is probably more common than outright lying), it costs them nothing. The vast majority of their co-ethnics will continue to plow us under. Razib Khan’s homeland will continue to invade our territory and constitute the giving end of one-way gene flow. Israel will continue to secure Jewish genetic interests as “American” Jews continue to undermine any chance of us pursuing ours. Does Ignatiev think the goyim so stupid as to be incapable of noticing that he isn’t in Israel, dealing with the concrete dispossession of the Palestinians, but instead is here in America, fighting phantoms? That we can’t figure out what’s really important to him, and what’s typical Jewish monkeyshine horseshit? 21
Posted by Armor on Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:26 | #
We could call ourselves white loyalists. It is shorter than anti-race-replacement activists. Right-wing political parties are now betraying their voters and enforcing race-replacement. Left-wing political parties have been at it for much longer, even though the immediate impact of that malevolent policy falls the harshest on their own voters. I suppose it was done by infiltration, by buying off politicians, with help from the media. It was easier to start with the left because their voters are easier to manipulate, and their ideologues have always been interested in crazy theories. In fact, it is not true that “the left” has usually been protecting vulnerable people. Whether “left-wing parties” choose to destroy the economy or to enforce race-replacement, people with low wages suffer even more than the rest of society. After our enemies were finished with the official left, they were able to give the same treatment to the official right because voters had nowhere else to go. The media would not allow any third party to emerge. It is not exactly as if left-wing ideology had taken over the right. What happened is that a anti-white ideology ate left-wing institutions first, and right-wing institutions next. As white loyalists, we are more equalitarian and left-wing than anyone, since we care about the down-trodden whites (I wish no ill to non-whites, but their place is in their own nations). At the same time, we are more right-wing than anyone, since we prize common sense, freedom, morality, preserving society and our existence… I think we need to unite both former left-wing voters and former right-wing voters. Post a comment:
Next entry: Ed Balls’ confession of systemic anti-white racism
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsAl Ross commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:55. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:26. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:58. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 20:49. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:00. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 16:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:35. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:33. (View) shoney commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:14. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 07:06. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:28. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:12. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:09. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:15. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:05. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:28. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:48. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 09 Apr 2024 10:46. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 09 Apr 2024 09:27. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 05:48. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 05:01. (View) |
Posted by Check out this good blog on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:56 | #
Good blog on White issues and the Jewish Question - http://www.scotchfiend.blogspot.com/