I’m turning this into a main post as I’ve put some careful thought into it and it seems trolls will try to bury it:
Hi MOB, don’t worry about Carolyn being advertised here. She has her niche and we have our direction which is not competing. Therefore, it is not necessary to give her inadvertent advertising in a staple of critical attention to her efforts.
“Without respectful recognition of the uniquely remarkable role played by Hitler and the Germans in the seemingly insurmountable struggle against Jewish world domination, you lose considerable substance and credibility.”
I never said that Hitler and the Germans were not unique and remarkable, nor that their focus on the J.Q. did not merit assimilation - particularly in the sense of prioritizing Jews as a concern and seeing the necessity to separate from them.
I did not say that we should reject everything about Hitler and the Germans - especially not the Germans, of course (and congratulations, I suppose, on drubbing Brazil, even if you do have an N, a Turk, an Arab of some sort, and a half Pole on your team). It is rather that we are not going to ignore and pretend the negative side of Hitlerism did not exist. Nor will we say that he was unique in being wise to the J.Q. or that he handled it in a uniquely effective way. It is clear that is not nearly true enough. *
If people come to MR and say, hey, you know, Hitler had such and such an idea right, I would not turn them away if it is coming from one who is not trying to promote Hitler as correct and worthy of our loyalty across the board - as Carolyn does.
We would not exclude an idea simply because Hitler held the same, nor for that matter just because Jews or Christians may have had similar thoughts on a matter. It is that we cannot endorse these world views on the whole as their drawbacks are too great.
Our agenda at MR is no mystery: we are here to advocate people of native European descent. As such, we would like to look upon peoples of native Europeans as a classificatory whole with subdivisions. The whole and the subdivisions to be maintained and fostered as ecologies symbiotic within and between each other.
In response to Katana, I will add this:
The term “White” is not especially problematic and works especially well in combination as “The White Class.” However, there is a danger in being too simple with “White” as a blanket term. “White” can be too unsophisticated in particular as it is susceptible to include Jews while excluding authentic Europeans. As we all know White is a more American term. It is better to ask Americans to be inconvenienced to drop it (especially since the country is going down in terms of our interests) than to ask native Europeans to drop the designation, “European.” It is a better strategy to resurrect “European” as meaning, “of native European extraction.” It is more descriptive and provides better grounding all around than “White”. Even for Americans it should be the better term in the long-run. Though again, I do not have a big problem with “White”, particularly necessary to designate those of mixed European ancestry living outside of Europe.
I will draw the line on the contention that I am speaking in tongues when I insist upon an ecological and classificatory view.
Classification represents the mediation between Cartesian extremes: assertion of social classifications is what has been deprived us (Whites/Europeans) and what we need to restore (as a matter of coherence, accountability, agency and warrant, as I always say – lets add operational verifiability).
More, the view of ecological classifications is particularly important as it directs attention to systemic depth, patterns, historical relations as naturally conservative aspects of our evolution and relation to natural environment.
This class of classifications of native Europeans, the White Class, classifies, primarily not hierarchically but horizontally, between peoples, and discriminates accordingly. With especial vigilance to the European/ non-European distinction. With that, unlike Hitler’s world view, the maintenance of all native European peoples and their distinct nations should fall within our interest group - we should not be fighting each other for territorial acquisition, to establish a master- slave relation, whatever.
We do not see Jews as a part of our interest group; but as a distinct pattern averse to our interests.
It is problematic that there are some who are not harmful to us, perhaps even helpful; nevertheless, they do not fall within our interest group. An individual Jew who may be different from the pattern is still classified as a Jew - a non-European.
Nevertheless, it is our agenda to separate and have sovereignty from Jews, and other non-Whites, not to exterminate them. That confers the moral high-ground upon us and theoretical innocence. Even as we know, in fact especially as we know, that they are not likely to simply leave us alone (note the trolling of Thorn, et. al - why don’t they go away? need to ask?); this position is particularly important to maintain in assertion of our will to peace, cooperation and warranted defense as it may come to declared war (instead of the undeclared war as it now is).
What to do about quarter Jews and one eighth Jews (as Lenin apparently was), is also problematic - not a simple concern.
However, MR is sufficiently nuanced to address these problems in our posts and commentary. That is among our merits - we are clear but not too simple.
We have a hermeneutic view, which circles between scientific rigor and comprehensive imagination as need be - particularly regarding our interests.
As for MacDonald endorsing Greg and Counter-Currents, I think that is proper on a couple levels. First, Greg is publishing some good and sincere work on our behalf. Second, that people not let anti-homosexuality override the good work that he has done and can do. Though coming from a more scientific perspective, MacDonald has a view regarding homosexuality that is largely aligned with what I see as reasonable - critical, discouraging, but not shrill, because it is not numerically sufficient a draw for our men to prioritize as a staple of concerned attention either.
Finally, they do have that kindred Nordic entering point that I’ve discussed, in addition to a bit of academic snobbery going on. KM and Johnson are PhD’s and scholars. Their drawing lines around that has valid and invalid points, good and bad sides.
As maintained, their scholarly and professional standards can always be pointed to against those who say that we do not have that on our side. More, it is not merely an artificial line. They are gifted and skilled to examine the literature and issues in an in-depth and competent manner.
However, it does have its drawbacks.
The mannerly protocol of professionalism binds them into logics that can be insensible.
For example, they will not use the “N” word because, they say, that would turn-off soccer moms among other “intelligent” and “educated” people.
But they will openly court those who fully endorse Hitler, as if that will not turn-off intelligent and educated people.
That is the kind of absurd and insensible contradiction that sheer logic and professional interface with the respectable public is susceptible to.
MacDonald and Sunic maintain that the only stereotype to avoid for White Nationalists is the vulgar skinhead. I have maintained that the wimpish (or yes, faggy) nerd, who will not say “N”, could be equally a turn-off. In advocating our group interest, they are insufficiently “othering” people who should be “othered” and over “othering” people who should not be “othered.”
There might be some susceptibility to that in Germanophiles or Nordicists as they may resort to their logical abilities in transcendence and to focus on themselves in relation to Jews (an over focus on the most intelligent and formidable adversary indeed, but conferring an undue measure of benign innocence on other non-Whites; while unduly pejoratizing other European peoples); as Germanics and Nordics have not evolved in interface with Africa, but in antagonisms with other Europeans and Jews; they escape there, take cover in not being “prejudiced” against blacks; allowing other Europeans to take the brunt of black reality. It can be a logical perspective which, for its insensibility, leads to an unmeasured narrowing of prejudice and overcompensating response. This might only be compounded by Christianity, Hitlerism and Jewish incitement.
For my part, when a person uses the N word in an intelligent way, with proper context, it does not turn me off, but tells me clearly that this person has sense, knows what they are talking about, organizes matters properly. That will resonate for others as well.
The largest reason why I do no use it here is because it is my understanding that it is literally illegal in some European nations. I am not an agent provocateur trying to lead people to jail, fines or other limitations on their effective advocacy.
I am not a “Professional.” That gives me some advantages and disadvantages. It does illustrate that I am not the all conquering world beater, who can succeed in just any circumstance - a man whose ability and will carried him to a PhD even in America’s multi-cult hell hole. It also means that I am not so insensible as to carry on by dint of sheer logic, “rise above” and ignore what I should not. I did embark upon a PhD, but I cannot say that I regret not contributing to America’s multicultural hell hole or not saying anything sufficiently critical of it - contributing to it or not saying anything critical of it having been two requirements to go ahead in American academia. Nevertheless, I did participate in the PhD program and audited it enough to get a good feel, if not understanding of things I need to know.
On the positive side, my “inability” to achieve a PhD reflects sensibility on my part, an unwillingness to ignore the destruction of our people that was imperviously entailed in the “hegemonic logics”, i.e. PC requirements, of a PhD.
A Philosophy PhD once said to me (even though not knowing me or much about me), that you cannot be a racist if you are going to be a PhD.
I responded, “that is why I do not want a PhD”
He smiled as he understood my reasoning automatically.
Nevertheless, admittedly, being unprofessional does have drawbacks. For example, over indulgence of vulgarity (in my defense, against people who were vulgar with me and having vulgar motives) because I don’t see the status to be lost in such association - which could cost us an interview, say, with Frank Salter, who in turn would not want to be associated with vulgarity. Still, those indulgences were before GW suggested that I might take over the wheel and steer MR’s direction.
In this case, I do have more responsibility to not drag GW’s project down, as it is a noble and beautiful one. Thus, I would try more to refrain from unnecessary vulgarity as it might send intelligent professionals away from helpful connection with us.
Even so, it has been my position and continues to be that Europeans need to be more assertive, not self transcendent and self censoring. I believe that there is an optimal balance between intellectualism and efficiently asserted prejudice - the N word, for example, can be very effective coming from a scholar or an intellectual on occasion. More, it will signal to people that one has sense, sense enough to see and organize the pattern for what it is - thus connecting to people who have to rely more on their senses, where they cannot figuratively escape in and through baroque logics; and where they cannot literally escape their inundated circumstances. It would confirm from high and authoritative places that indeed, these people are not to be intimately mingled with. They are not ok for your daughter.
But “no no no, musn’t refer to those people as N’s. We must care about their families and how Jews are misleading them.” Upchuck from up-in-the-head logical escape of “White Enterprises” that of all positions should know better and provide feedback protective of Whites. But no, “Newsome and Christian were in the wrong place, should have known better” - really?! (if you can believe it, “Father Francis” actually said that)
“What would constitute tasty and nutritious food to draw WNs into the MR parlor on a regular basis? What would affirm and strengthen their present White Nationalist orientation?”
I would submit the essay below, “The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 1” as a good start
Note, MOB, that I do not consider or treat you as a troll, even though you have some disagreement with our editorial direction, you are different in being sincerely concerned with all Europeans and their significant distinctions.
Now that we have begun to clear away what and who we are not representing, we can begin to elaborate more and reach more for what and who we are representing.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, July 10, 2014 at 07:20 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Christianity, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, That Question Again, Thread Wars, White Genocide Project, White Nationalism
Adding (August 4th, 2014) a definition of Peace (at bottom).
In response to “Flippityfloppity’s” concern regarding definitions
I may have deserved a barb for being a little hypocritically amenable to Anthony’s proposal that Christianity can serve an important constructive function in organizing a guiding and spiritual light for Whites. I was a bit too agreeable perhaps because I like the rest of what he says well enough. Though his including Buddha and Lao Tze into the mix would indicate that he can reach accord with people like me for whom race serves as the organizing spirit and transcendent, religious factor (our legacy being the hereafter). That is probably why I appeared to flip flop a little to accommodate him.
However, introducing Christianity into the mix, with its propensity for a myriad of definitions, including liberal and universal, non-accountability thereof, is problematic.
Regarding definitions, I do not flip flop. But people, including WN, do, especially between definitions of “Left and Liberal.” Basically because they are following an “official” (i.e., convenient to Jews) definition of “the left”, which fluctuates between being liberal and open to all; or specifically open to unions of non-Whites or unions of people with problems; imposed in special admission, inclusion and integration upon Whites under the guise of equality and undoing exploitation.
The chief reason why people might use The Left defined as such is because that definition has gained wide currency as the Jews have largely defined and promulgated the term through academia and the media – that being a confused definition promoted by Jews precisely because it is confusing and because it altercasts us as rightists (who are not necessarily against imposed liberalism, just against “equality” - great, we are accepting the definition of ourselves as elitist pigs, but open to others if they are “better”). The acceptance of this definition and its flip flop between left and liberal is exemplified by the way that the Political Cesspool (among others accepting the definitions, themselves as right, their opponents as left) will flip flop between saying “the left and liberal” in the same broadcast.
Those who accept the rightist altercast and endeavor its position are to blame as much if not more than Jews for enforcing the idea that leftism and liberalism is all about “equality.” That is even worse theoretically than it is descriptively. For as White Leftists, we would be basing discrimination mostly on an assortment and disbursing of qualitative differences, which would be a symbiotic, largely non conflictual basis; not subject to the false comparison that lends to conflict as the phoney “equality non equality” issue engenders. Equality/non-equality is neither sufficiently descriptive or prescriptive - unless, perhaps, you want to instigate what is likely to turn out to be mutually destructive conflict.
We might stay with the confused definition of The Left - as liberalism, advocacy of non-Whites, their equality and imposition on Whites because it has had currency through Jewish media. Then oppose that for obvious reasons, as has been the strategy of almost all WN. However, staying with that definition, just because it has wide currency - despite the fact that it is a disingenuous and confusing definition promulgated by Jews (for the reason that it is confusing and disingenuous as they want us to be “rightists”, to scare people, our own included) and turn people off, our own included, as such, by reflecting that disingen -uousness and confusion through disorganization and denial of accountability - is neither sufficient reason nor compensation for the price paid. It is like saying we should continue to trade in currency that makes Jews wealthy and destroys us. It is counterfeit currency (definition) aimed to circulate to our confusion and detriment.
It is obvious enough that plutocratic, traitorous and well, elitist pigs of any stripe, will conveniently cite “The left” as the great enemy.
I believe you make a good point, that we probably should nail down some definitions and try to make them stick, as best we can, at least here at MR. One trick will be getting people to do this despite me – so that they will not refuse to do it just to spite yours truly. That can be a problem because I am not always most tactful. I understand this motivation to not be ego bullied (for example, I would not use the prefix “Zio” or “Jewish supremacist” in part because Duke proposes it, in addition to the fact that I don’t like the sound). Nevertheless, I maintain that the aim here is not about ego but theoretical accuracy, viz. theory which serves White interests. I do use the following terms consistently and they continue to make perfect sense – that is why I “stubbornly” continue to do so.
These proposed definitions are holding up, making consistent sense of pro and anti White alike.
We must not be so averse to terms and concepts Jews have abused as to fall into the trap of their being didactic as the Jews may want, for us to rebel against what is good for us. This has happened with social constructionism and hermeneutics for example. To where even the Heideggerian notion of hermeneutics would be looked upon as Jewish and Marxist, such that we would not admit of that part of the non-Cartesian process which provides orientation on scientific focus, to allow for that tad of narrative speculation of the not-at-all-times-observable social classificatory boundary of the European biological system and its history (to allow for Heidegger’s admission of the form of the people as necessary as well, an observation by GW that I had missed).
The White Left as:
A social classification and classifying of a people (specifically native European people), legitimizing unionized discrimination against outsiders; accountability to those within; both in positive return on effort and what is brought historically; and in a negative sense against those would-be facilitators of “scabbing” and those elites who might betray the class. This would be in contrast to leftist classification and advocacy of other groups; and certainly in contrast to our universal obligation to include in (our) vital resources (esp. genetic) just anyone who appears to be down-trodden or desirous of entry, including those outside the socially delimited group. This is discrimination against individuals of classifications based on warranted prejudice of the pattern of which they are a part. The White Left would take the White Class as synonymous with the distinct genus of the native European race and its distinct sub-classifications. It is a social taxonomic classifying necessary to accountability and human ecology.
It focuses on qualitative and symbiotic differences while keeping to a minimum false, quantitative comparisons (as opposed to equality/non equality it focuses more on qualitative sameness or difference).
It is decidedly not against private property (may in fact work with the land tax / exemption scheme laid-out by Bowery)
It does not aspire to equal wealth (there can be some people who are significantly more wealthy than others), but does strive after some balance, a middle class and shared leverage on some basic necessities. The point is that the boundaries are maintained. More or less socialism or free enterprise can be flexible according to the particular state.
As a rule, it applies the silver rule to out-groups as opposed to the golden rule.
Thus, it is in contrast to liberalism as applied to non-Whites, which is what racialists normally mean when they say, “the left.”
Beliefs and practices which intimate and can ultimately deviate and rupture reconstruction of the systemic biological pattern, accountable social classifications.
Designating, classifying a social group as a race (a species of people distinctly evolved to circumstances and practices in history, who have discernibly more genetic similarity to themselves than to other human groups) and discriminating accordingly. It is a motivation to separatism, not elitism, exploitation and persecution. This separatist discriminatory motive is more than generally advisable, it is necessary for accountability, human ecology and biodiversity.
The coercive prohibition against classifying people (could be even non-racial classifications) and discrimination accordingly. The coercive imposition of one people upon another, the denial of their freedom of and from association.
As they are defined here, they even make sense of how other people bungle these terms.
This issue probably is worth this main post, as trade in the currency of these terms defined in this way would help a great deal to achieve clarity and direction. These definitions make consistent sense of organizing our people, their requirements and problems.
In my next post, I will attempt to show how modernity, as a pejorative term, does not contradict but contributes to the articulation of what Bowery sees as negative in his definition of “civilization.”
In connection with that, both Migchels and Bowery seem to have a concern to maintain individual integrity as an authentic and distinguishing characteristic among Europeans. GW’s close readings have some similarity there as well.
In that regard I would point them to Harré‘s suggestion that there are two vital aspects to self, and thus to authentic self and individuality, which are 1, the corporeal, embodied, genetic self, having biological requirements, potentials and limits (which you three are concerned to approximate in description of its authentic functioning as closely as possible, un-borrowed from non-native influence) and 2, a narrative self, which is crucial for the matter of coherence, orientation, connection with the systemic whole and history. Now, that narrative self can deviate, even terribly, from the authentic biological interests of the self and system. It is obviously better if it accords well with our biological interests and historical form. I believe the Jewish abuse of hermeneutics is why GW has been a bit averse, and surprisingly, as it is one necessary side of a would-be Heideggerian, hermeneutic process; but then, even MacDonald was averse, apparently for the same reason of Jews having made it didactic.
It is important to note that this hermeneutic view not only permits of individuality, integrity of self, I would argue that hermeneutics is absolutely necessary for it - a coherent, agentive and warranted self. What it does deny is that there is no social relatedness and indebtedness to its make-up, its construction and its constitution; or that one has no accountability for its direction other than “the countenance of Jesus” or some other unverifiable source.
Adding a definition of Peace
I will probably turn this into a post later, but I will propose this definition/ working hypothesis of “peace” in comment here.
Later, I will invite others to contribute to a working hypothesis of peace and correlate it to prior definitions proposed.
Peoples as they correspond with nations, states, regions, localities, mutually respecting and recognizing sovereignty of genetic accountability, prerogative to discriminate and prohibit association accordingly; while those who wish to leave may go to a consenting receiving nation, their return to the people they departed from may be prohibited; their offspring, if any, may be prohibited as well.
Negotiative, persuasive, non-lethal tests are sought as the normal recourse in conflict resolution (lest there be any misunderstanding, miscegenation is not a normal problem requiring negotiation - that is prohibited; expulsion being a softer variant in resolving the problem).
This would include the capacity for a people to maintain its genetic kind and the reasonable capacity for individuals to find an appropriate mate; with that, to have the means to provide for a family that does not require a detrimental number of hours away from family and leisure, is grounds of peace.
Those who overpopulate, burden the world’s ecosystem and create spill over effect - let alone deliberate exploitation or usurpation of other nations’ land - are seen as in violation of the peace.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, June 22, 2014 at 06:26 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Christianity, Conservatism, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, History, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Liberalism & the Left, Linguistics, White Nationalism
I’ve always been a bit of a petrol-head, and I thought I would write something about motoring.
A short while ago I came across an arresting photograph of a 1940’s Dodge Delivery Panel Van sitting sphinx-like in some late-spring North American field. Time and the irresistible will of Nature had turned it into an inverted flower-pot. It invited interpretation (some of which could even turn out to be relevant to Daniel’s recent exploration of new religious potentials, you never know).
Discounting the usual romantic allusions to decay and the fragility of Man’s design, what I saw there is a statement about mediation. At the most obvious level, the image could be taken to represent the will of Nature to establish herself and remain established in a world of constant disorganisation, pushing through all obstruction, all negation, but having to be opportunistic, having to adapt to do so. As such, it is a figure for all that we can say for sure – that is, free of religious creation myths and other speculative theories - about Source and subsistence.
Well instead of talking about which of the many conspiracies is at work (today this Sunday) to destroy organised Voodoo, why not enjoy the slightly more intelligent and thoughtful reflections of Terry Eagleton on culture and the death of God this fine Sunday as an alternative?
GW has expressed the constraint:
DanielS has expressed the constraint:
An approach offered by John Harland is to admit the historicity of Jesus in His essential mythic image as descendant of God evidenced in his own over-ruling of texts with direct bodily connection with God as Father, but to deny the historicity of the extant texts—deny them as yet another means by which dastards attempt to interpose themselves between the God-heritage of individuals and their Father, in spirit and flesh.
Ridicule of Harland’s own editing of the texts to suit his view may be conducted only at the sacrifice of the two constraints establishing the context of this presentation. Offer a superior approach if you don’t like Harland’s—either that or declare folly the entire effort to connect with the spiritual force of Christianity.
Click this link for a pdf document containing part of Harland’s account starting with “The Germans” (in the anthropological sense meaning what many identify as Celtic and Nordic pagans of the pre-Christian era), “The Catholic Church Promotes Judeo-Christianity”, “The First Breaking Apart of the Church Serpent” (regarding Henry VIII and Martin Luther), “A Further Break From the Serpent” (regarding the establishment of America), “The Strange Phenomenon of ‘Money-Mad’ Americans” (regarding the closing of the frontier and replacement of Nature and Nature’s God with money-based “culture”), “The American Dream” (the commodification, by conspirators, of the American spiritual renaissance), “The German Reich” (the parallel processes occurring in what became the nation state known as “Germany” during the 1800s leading up to WW I), “The World Picture After WW I” (the situation leading up to WW II) and the concluding section of this pdf document is “The Second World War”.
The entire book is “Word Controlled Humans” by John Harland, ISBN 0-914752-12-X available from Sovereign Press, 326 Harris Road, Rochester, WA 98579 (with which I have no business or personal relationship).
Posted by James Bowery on Wednesday, March 13, 2013 at 08:37 PM in Anthropology, Archeology, Books, Christianity, Conservatism, European culture, History, National Socialism, Political Philosophy, Psychology, Revisionism, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, U.S. Politics
In this fascinating narrative advanced by Scottish Theologian Alexander Hislop, all supra-scriptural practices instituted by Catholicism (naturally) are attributed to insidious expression of the evil Babylonian Mystery Religion:
Bishop Richard Williamson speaking at the London Forum, 2nd February, 2013. Title for the speech: God, the pre-requisite for all politics:
By way of background, Bishop Williamson has been expelled from the Society of St Pius X following criticism of moves by his Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, to reintegrate the Society with Rome. Readers may also be interested to learn that Bishop Williamson is continuing to fight his corner in the German state’s prosecution of him for holocaust denial, which began with the Regensburg court convicting and fining him £10,000 in 2010. He has since been back to court on Appeal, won, been re-prosecuted, convicted and appealed again. The prosecutors have not given up, however. The latest round was on January 16th this year when Bishop Williamson was found guilty for a third time and fined £1600. He has appealed again.
In a recent newsletter to his supporters he wrote that “Now not only does what is known as the “Holocaust” serve as the secular religion of the New World Order (Auschwitz replaces Calvary, the gas-chambers replace the Cross of Our Lord, and the Six Million play the part of the Redeemer), but also it seems to me that the post-World War II Germans have difficulty in respecting themselves unless they are beating their breast for the alleged crimes of the Third Reich. ... much more than just money is at stake. A great nation, the true religion and God’s World Order are all involved.”
This is an admirable priest.
There were, btw, a few minutes of Q&A missed off the above video. They can be seen and heard here.
I came upon the work of Frederick Parker-Rhodes in my quest for the ideal computer language, which I have elsewhere on MR discussed in relation to Heidegger’s “as” structure and GW’s ontology project. Recent work in theoretical physics has provided empirical validation to his “wildly eccentric” views—which managed to provide a priori derivations of the dimensionless scaling constants of physics from his ontology detailed in his book “The Theory of Indistinguishables”. To be brief, there is his “combinatorial hierarchy” that derives from FRP’s attempt to find the underlying mathematical structure of what he called “wholesight”.
Below the fold is an excerpt from “Wholesight: The Spirit Quest” by Frederick Parker-Rodes…
Posted by James Bowery on Monday, February 4, 2013 at 01:08 AM in Art & Design, Christianity, Economics & Finance, Environmentalism & Global Warming, Global Elitism, Globalisation, Science & Technology, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project
Never let it be said that Richard Williamson was cowed into submission by his January 2009 encounter with Jewish power. The SSPX’s most politically adventurous bishop is back, via a circular to his email list, with a fresh perspective on the papal perspective on our Elder Brothers in Faith:
by Karl LaForce
Alabama governor and Baptist deacon Robert Bentley speaking at the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church, Monday 17th January 2011, shortly after taking his oath of office at the Alabama Capitol:
Alabama governor and Baptist deacon Robert Bentley speaking to reporters after meeting “Jewish leaders” on Wednesday 19th January 2011:
Alabama governor Robert Bentley is just another genetic-European whose head and heart have been captured by a Jewish ideology. There’s no shortage of Jewish ideologies, of course, or of captives. There are probably somewhere around one hundred million white Americans in a similar condition. Bentley is not at all an exception in terms of belief, not even among bible-belt state governors, though he is possibly ahead of most in the willingness, as a high ranking public official, to enlighten the public about the in-group status he believes Christians share.
As shown by his statements, he is not merely a victim of the fertility of Jewish macro-religious thought and modern-day Jewish ethnic activism but he busies himself promoting both victimhoods.
This piece is authored by my friend DanielJ, who is someone I am proud to say I have met and like, and regard as a brother in the cause if not, as he might regard me despite myself, in Christ (or perhaps he wouldn’t!) The article appeared yesterday in the Summer 2010 edition of The Kinist Review.
KINISM:THE ONE AND THE MANY
Adam was created directly by God in the express image and likeness of God. The Godhead conspired to create, and after naming man, declared that the express purpose in their creation of man was the ruling, classifying, dominance and administration of creation. Although God created man in His own image and His own likeness, Adam has left to us—his children—a legacy of death and a fallen nature. After the fall, Adam and Eve gave birth to children that were born in their own image and in their own totally depraved likeness rather than the direct likeness and image of God.
This is an account of the births of Adam: In the day of God’s preparing man, in the likeness of God He hath made him; a male and a female He hath prepared them, and He blesseth them, and calleth their name Man, in the day of their being prepared. And Adam liveth an hundred and thirty years, and begetteth a son in his likeness, according to his image, and calleth his name Seth. (Gen 5:1-3)
We are, therefore, born into a covenant of death under a covenant head who has passed unto to us nothing but sin, death, and decay. We are all, by virtue of this inheritance, corrupt and headed for perdition. We, the many, of every tribe on Earth, are of the Adamic kind and in need of the one—represented in Scripture by Seth—to save us from our sins. Scripture tells us of the battle between these two seeds: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He will bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.” (Gen 3:15) Furthermore, Scripture states:
by The Narrator
There continues to be debate about the pros and cons of religion, specifically Christianity, around pro-Western and semi pro-Western blogs and sites. Does religion help? Does it hurt? Is it a bulwark against multiculturalism and diversity or is it their foundation? The following will address some of the points which often come up in this ongoing discussion.
A recent article at Takimag.com put forth the (somewhat common) theory that part of The West’s problems in regards to the promotion of multiculturalism and immigration is one of fertility as it relates to theist vs. atheist influence. The theory goes that as Whites drift away from theism (usually specifically Christianity) they cease having children in sufficient numbers.
Now the problem with this theory is obvious. Namely, there are actually very few atheists in the world or the West in particular. (And for the clarification of the uncertain here, a theist is not a Christian. A theist is someone who believes in a deity or deities or the supernatural in general. In other words Julian the Apostate and Martin Luther were both theists.)
This article at Wikipedia sources a Eurobarometer Poll from four years ago informing us that France has the highest percentage of those who “do not believe there is a spirit, God, nor life force” at 33% (within the European Union 18% fell into this category). In America the percentage of atheists is even fuzzier with various polls suggesting somewhere around 4% to 9%. Further problems are created when agnostics are lumped in with atheists.
At any rate, when it comes to numbers, theists seem to hold a firm majority. So much so that to contrast theist vs. atheist fertility rates may be impossible as the later could easily fall into the ‘margin of error’ on most polls in many Western nations.
2. Texts have to be ‘translated’ mentally by those reading them into European thought forms, making “our” sacred texts essentially a form of Orientalist scholarship from the beginning. However, scholarship is often critical of its sources, whereas our sacred traditions view these oriental texts as completely authoritative and really the last word on spirituality.
3. The text alienates the common reader because the unique mindset for culturally co-opting this oriental religion is only shared by a few, who become priests. There is little or no resonance for the common man in the stories of the Bible. Unlike the Homeric stories, which we know to be widely disseminated and enjoyed in ancient Hellas, the sources of our religious tradition have belonged from the beginning to the few Orientalists who would submit to their foreignness and teach it authoritatively to the rest of us. Those who viewed the adoption of oriental thought forms as the purest access to spirituality became the fathers of our traditions.
4. The alien nature of our Jewish religious texts means that they cannot be added to in a similar style; there was necessarily a complete stylistic break when they were imported. This means that we cannot add to them or treat them as living documents, but rather as relics to defer to as over and above ourselves. This kills the possibility of building a pre-rational, living tradition within our own lands. The most a British man can hope for, spiritually, is to become an obedient antiquarian for the inspired Jews of the Hellenist Levant.
As happens sometimes here, a thread given over to one subject has been rudely assaulted by another ... the perennial, insoluble, irresistible problem of ... well, God. So with belated apologies to Soren, whose thread God offended against, I’m relocating the unequal struggle here. Just in case the Blighter has any fight left in Him.
In danielj’s intellectual armoury lies the following by no means rusty and unsharpened assertion:
Now, this way of looking at the empirical enemy recognises the hard and unpalatable fact that ever since that night in Oxford when the Bishop was slain by a mawnkey, religion has been in full and undignified retreat. We all know the story. I don’t need to reproduce it here. The reverberations of that night, and of the publishing event that preceded it, still reach down to us today, a century and a half later. Although evolutionary science has won every battle since, the faculty of faith is nothing if not enduring. It doesn’t give up. It can’t. It is as much a part of the human genome as the strict and methodological intellectualism it disdains.
So we have daniel’s response to all the long years of being told that Christians are dealers in self-deception. It is to assert that the scientific method - the pursuit of the predictive - is predicated on belief no less than belief itself. Now, I am not much interested in how this conclusion is reached. It must, after all, only be a matter of faith. It cannot, by its own admission, be true.
And there is the little local difficulty. Daniel’s stratagem has the effect of rendering all truth hollow and meaningless, though this probably isn’t his intention. We are not taken back to some sweet life of the mid-Victorian past, filled with simple and good, hi-fidelity hearts. We are transported to a truthless world, and Man cannot live without truth. Truth is more necessary, more visceral and humane, more of our lives than faith or beauty ever was or, most certainly, ever will be.
But that is what happens when the terms of the debate are dictated by Christians, and all categories are reduced to mere belief.
Well, let’s keep them separate here, at least. The committment to ontology and the committment to teleology are separated by qualitative differences. They employ the qualitatively different methods of, respectively, proof and prayer, and journey along qualitatively different lines. Ontology predicates experience > hypothesis > predictiveness > truth. Teleology predicates thought > idealism > faith > beauty. Truth and beauty are not equals. Truth leads to enlightenment. Beauty leads only to itself.
To make truth and beauty both matters of belief is disingenuous and rather unEuropean. It has something in common with the semitic attraction to postmodernism, and the equally semitic promulgation of the Sociobiology Wars of the 1970s, 80s and 90s. It is inappropriate for us. Let the faithful reflect, if they can possibly bring themselves to, on the spirituality of superfice which eschews the subtle and difficult, the psychological, and grasps instead at bibles and prayers, salvation and eternal life, and all the beautiful exordia of self-deception and moral frailty that once cost “witches” their yet more beautiful lives and brought destruction to the sons of men in a way that blood and soil never did. Let them reflect on the responsibility they all share of bearing a powerful psychological driver through life without visiting harm upon others, as one would with the sex drive or with male aggression. Let them learn to withhold it from the world, keep it private so public life, public progress and intellectualism can proceed, naturally enough, not on daniel’s relativistic terms but on their own.
A review of ‘The Language of God’ by Francis S. Collins
‘I am convinced that a change can only be prepared from the same place in the world where the modern technological world originated. It cannot come about by the adoption of Zen Buddhism or other Eastern experiences of the world. The help of the European tradition and a new appropriation of that tradition are needed for a change in thinking. Thinking will only be transformed by a thinking that has the same origin and destiny.’
‘I know that everything essential and great has only emerged when human beings had a home and were rooted in a tradition.’
—Martin Heidegger, Der Spiegel interview 1966
The foundation for Collins’ belief is the ‘Moral Law’ as outlined by C.S. Lewis in ‘Mere Christianity’, which is taken to be the source of our innate ability to judge right from wrong. Collins realizes that his own discipline has something to say about this, so he tries to counter the sociobiologists’ arguments for altruism right away. But he does a terrible job of it, the icing on the cake being his invoking the examples of Oskar Schindler and Mother Teresa as his sole proof against group selection (most of the examples Collins provides of the Moral Law made flesh are drawn from the usual suspects of the PC parade: Schindler, MLK, Wilberforce, etc.). Such scientific failings expose Collins to the charge of hypocrisy, as one of his main criticisms of creationists is that they are promoting a ‘God of the Gaps’ whose existence is made vulnerable by advances in science. In a more blatant example, after cricizing the hubris of those who referred to parts of the genome as ‘junk DNA’, he himself describes parts of it as ‘flotsam and jetsam’ and uses its purported ‘junk’ status to refute creationism. Collins assumes he knows what parts of the genome are non-functional. One wonders whether he is even aware of the recent revolution in RNA biology and that the majority of the genome is transcribed.
So began a speech by Prof Andrew Fraser given last March at the Inverell Forum, Australia’s famously incorrect annual celebration of dissident opinion and free speech. The Forum organisers produce DVDs of each of the speeches, and it is thanks to MR reader John Fitzgerald that the Fraser speech is now in transcribed form and I can quote from it.
In the first part of the speech, Fraser traces the roots of white racial consciousness through the period of slave-owning in the American South, the development of white skin privilege and white equality, and the emergence in the North of the fundamentals of modern human rights.
“In Australia,” he asks, “how can you run an immigration policy on the basis of discrimination between white and non-white, especially once you start to play around with the notion of white, because white is not synonymous with Anglo-Saxon. Afterwards you get massive numbers of Italians, Greeks and Lebanese Christians. Are they white? Just where is the boundary of whiteness? So then it became human-ness that really counts. And so you have what came to be known as the non-discriminatory immigration policy.”
Now, Fraser had begun by using the term “spiritual disorder”, so it should be no surprise that from here on the speech focuses heavily on the, as he sees it, broad failure of Christianity in the crisis of Anglo-Saxon identity. “It’s a mistake,” he tells us, “to do what a lot of people on the right would do; blame it all on the Frankfurt School, or the Jews or, as I hear here, the Illuminate.” Fraser roots the entire process in the Papal revolution which confined the action of kings to the secular world. “The world becomes flattened, “he says, “God is a being, we are beings, he is an infinite being, we are finite beings ... In that kind of context God, because he’s infinite, becomes very remote and only accessible to us through his will.”
Over the last few days I have conducted an e-mail exchange with “Rocket”, whom readers will know for his firm universalist Christian stand. Rocket asked to post here on the juxtaposing of ethnocentric and universalist Christian aims and values. What we’ve ended up with is this, which parentage is very much more Rocket’s than mine. So it is his handle which appears beneath the post.
In the sociological substratum of ethnocentrism versus authentic Christian universalism there are a number of interesting ways to compare and contrast these two value systems. One significant qualitative difference lies in the dual concepts of honor and shame, which are the tribal equivalents of redemption and retribution in Christianity.
Historically, tribes with an iron clad bloodline-identification placed a high premium on honor and shame. Roman historian Tacitus wrote about Germania and its conflict with Pax Romana, and how the German tribes refused to be subdued. Hence they remained free men in the sense of retaining control over their tribe’s fate.
Meantime, through the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, the Christian is embraced by divine forgiveness. Hence he lives as a free men, even though his life-circumstances may dictate otherwise.
There can be no honor for the followers of Jesus of Nazareth because His followers do not seek honor from men, including each other. They do seek redemption, though, and an act of altruism towards the poor and sick is redeeming. Hard-heartedness or greed, on the other hand, will meet with retribution. The parallel in the old Germanic world was that hard-hearted fighting was in-group altruism, and there was honor if you fought as an Ostrogoth and great shame if you did not.
An Imaginary Interview
Why are white Europeans in retreat?
“It is clear that white Europeans no longer believe what white European pagans once believed, nor what white European Christians once believed. This is why they are helpless in the face of the “passionate intensity” of the barbarians of color. The barbarians still believe in barbarism.”
Dr Tomislav Sunic writing under his heading of “American neo-paganism in his book, Homo americanus.
Now, I’ve put together this quote because it contains both halves of what I suppose we must call the Christianity Question, namely:-
1) The role of the Bible in communicating the Jewish materialistic worldview, out of which came the obsessive 20th Century drive for world improvement.
All liberalism’s children, including communism, democratism, predatory capitalism, even anti-semitism in Tom’s view, are just secular offshoots of this strange, borrowed Levantine faith. And there is no end to it as long as we draw water from that well.
2) The desirability and grave difficulty of recovering mythological value for Europeans (which Tom qualifies as “the quest for their ancestral heritage”).
I am going to make a few observations about both issues. I do so with some nervousness about treading on hallowed ground. I am a stranger to faith myself and would not, even if I was able, wish to follow Richard Dawkins’ tasteless precedent. I am not, therefore, making a case against faith. My case against Christianity is the case against the leaden characteristics of the Jewish god.
With that caveat then, here goes.
When debating the existence of God, philosophers point to two major problems: unnecessary evil in the world and non-belief (See T.M. Drange’s Nonbelief & Evil, 1998). One strong component of many religions then is to find ways to prove that God exists, and especially reassuring are miracles and prophecies.
In The Politics of Apocalypse: The History and Influence of Christian Zionism by Dan Cohan-Sherbok, 2006, he traces the long history of Christian Zionists attempts’ to use biblical prophecy to show that God exists, that God plays an active role in the unfolding of the future, and being saved before “Armageddon arrives,” which is right around the corner, should be the main concern for Christians. Until recently I have always considered such ideas belonging to a small number of religious literalists, but they have far more influence than I was aware of before—and outside their group I would assume others are also quite unaware of their influence.
‘Grey, faceless Global Community’! As in, what we might have once the distinct races and nations of the West are subsumed into a toffee-coloured global mass!
And just wait until you hear what Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society* (read:National Society for the eradication of Christianity) and author of such uplifting and edifying works as these, has to say:
Translation: “This is precisely the sort of extreme propaganda that Muslims have been using to encourage their young to make war on Christians. This, however, is an example of Christians - Whites - doing the same, which can’t be allowed. Don’t you remember that you’re supposed to be a helot, not to fight back?”
Now, why would a campaigning homosexualist, in other words somebody who campaigns for the benefit of those whose interests do not extend past this generation, be so hostile to a reaffirmation, however vulgar, of the fighting Christian faith, which is apt to make life uncomfortable for the near future but is nigh on essential if we are to survive in the long run? That’s easy enough to answer. Now, why does the Times choose to quote him without mentioning any of these highly salient details? That’s the more interesting question.
We don’t have to agree with the sentiments, fundamentalist, totalitarian and genocidal ones, endorsed by Left Behind to welcome the arrival of this video-game. It will act purely as what The Revolutionary Conservative once called ‘a totalitarian onslaught of mind-numbing extremity against Political Correctness’. It’ll be a way of confronting Cultural Marxism with its dialectical opposite, and seeing it flinch in sheer terror at the spectacle. After all, they, not we, first decreed that the public celebration of Christmas was but a lesser variant of the same crime that the Holocaust represented, the crime of racism. Those behind this game simply agree, although they are also unwilling to give up Christmas.
*Here‘s a rather interesting website. Scroll down and count the number of National Secular Society members you can find.
...but this week’s offering is just too good:
None-too-bright but seemingly unstoppable lip-flapper and scourge of English survivalism ... “The Man” when it comes to equality ... the one and only Trevor Phillips, Tony’s Georgetown bro, has been laying those smooth, smooth moves on the BNP. Again.
“The first time the Church has launched such a defence of the country’s Christian heritage” is how an un-named bishop described a confidential Church document, leaked to The Sunday Telegraph today.
“An astonishing attack on the Government’s drive to turn Britain into a multi-faith society” was how the Telegraph saw it.
The paper, titled Cohesion and Integration – A briefing note for the House [of Bishops], was written by Guy Wilkinson, the interfaith adviser to the Archbishop of Canterbury. These are the criticisms it levels at our so-liberal political masters:-
1. The attempt to make minority “faith” communities more integrated has backfired, leaving society “more separated than ever before”.
2. Divisions between communities have been deepened by the Government’s “schizophrenic” approach to tackling multiculturalism. While trying to encourage interfaith relations, it has actually given “privileged attention” to the Islamic faith and Muslim communities.
3. The Church of England has been sidelined. Instead, “preferential” treatment has been afforded to the Muslim community despite the fact that it makes up only three per cent of the population.
4. Britain remains overwhelmingly a Christian country at heart and moves to label it as a multi-faith society suggest a hidden agenda.
5. Public funds have been used to fly Muslim scholars to Britain, legislation on forced marriage has been shelved, financial arrangements to comply with Islamic Law have been encouraged. Yet none of this has produced any “noticeable positive impact on community cohesion. Indeed,” the report goes on, “one might argue that disaffection and separation is now greater than ever, with Muslim communities withdrawing further into a sense of victimhood, and other faith communities seriously concerned that the Government has given signals that appear to encourage the notion of a privileged relationship with sections of the Muslim community.”
6. The Government is wrong to see faith as the cause of a divided society.
Of course, one has to note from the outset that the Church of England is more the wounded liberal Establishment at prayer than the forthright, awakening defender of an imperilled Christian nation. It still adheres firmly to the pluralistic faith-society, the la-la “why can’t we all love one another” ideology. But this is kumbayah with an oddly refreshing note of menace - at least as far as this useless, fearful, screwed-up Government is concerned.
The day that menace finds its proper target amid the golden crescents of England’s northern towns and cities will be really something.
Just one more ball to find.
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa