OUR MOTHERLAND: IMPERIUM EUROPA

Here is my introduction to Norman Lowell’s forthcoming book IMPERIUM EUROPA: A BOOK THAT CHANGED THE WORLD.

OUR MOTHERLAND: IMPERIUM EUROPA

by Constantin von Hoffmeister


“The nations are dead, for Europe is born.”
—Francis Parker Yockey

Norman Lowell has a vision. A vision of what Europe will become. Not what Europe should become but what Europe WILL become. According to Lowell, the year 2012 will be the year 0. Time will start afresh for our race. A new beginning, a new dawn - a new aeon approaches. While ancient traditions will be upheld and cherished, modern technology will be implemented to both boldly innovate new paths and persistently perpetuate former greatness. Lowell wants Aryan heroes of yore, like ancient Spartan warrior Leonidas, to be cloned, thus ensuring that the new genetically enhanced generation of natural leaders will be supported by proven leaders from our glorious past. A new species of Aryan supermen will once again rule the planet and - finally! - the cosmos beyond.

Lowell is right when he stresses the importance of the unity of ALL Europeans. Only as a unified bloc will the White race be able to overcome the anti-Occidental forces which have as their ultimate goal the total destruction of Magna Europa (Europe and its daughters AmeriKa, Canada, Chile, Argentina and Australasia) and the complete annihilation of all Europids on the planet. Alas, a White race bloc (composed of Anglo-Saxons, Teutons, Slavs and Latins) that asserts itself as such will be able to once and for all overcome internal divisions only if it ruthlessly crushes all signs of resurging petty nationalisms. There is no place for separatist tendencies in the Imperium Europa. A fragmented Europe, as the past has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, is a weak Europe. The need for a Europe that is truly ONE is a pressing need indeed: a Europe “from sea to shining to sea,” from Dublin to Vladivostok is the ONLY Europe that has any chance of survival in the cataclysmic events that lie ahead. Like Friedrich Nietzsche, one has to learn to become “a good European” instead of a good German, a good Russian, a good Englishman, etc.

Our true motherland is the Imperium Europa! We must forge a new identity! We must create the new European man! Nations are concepts that betray the imperial destiny of the worker as the creator of a new cosmos. The economy, as well as society at large, must be centralized. This is why we need an Imperium Europa. While each nation has the right to retain its cultural and ethnic autonomy, chauvinist nationalisms must be crushed. We must oppose petty nationalism as it is a provincial dead-end form of worship. The only nation that must be worshipped is Holy Europe. The mixing of different European nationalities should therefore be encouraged. We must support sexual unions between Russian women and German men, Spanish men and Swedish women. Only by radically breaking down the artificial barriers dividing Europe can we create the new breed of man - a breed that has ONE allegiance only, the allegiance to the Imperium Europa!

Imperial capitalism as opposed to international capitalism is the best economic system for the future empire. There will be no need for an influx of cheap labor in the form of racially alien immigrants or “guest workers” if all citizens of the empire can freely trade within the empire’s borders, without the pressure that the current global financial system imposes upon Europe by flooding its gates with inferior goods, services and people. Europe simply cannot compete with the incredibly low standards of the Third World. Hence, Europe must force itself to rigidly adhere to its own standards which should be nothing less than excellent. In opposition to Lowell, I would dare argue that some form of social commitment from the side of the state is necessary to ensure that the weaker elements of the population are properly taken care of. After all, the elite exists to serve the masses and not the other way around. Hence, free-market socialism seems to be the appropriate model for implementing both the necessary competition to guarantee progress and the vital security net that the state must provide for its citizens in need. Socialism denotes the ineludible bond of common ancestry.

Lowell is correct when he argues that all life on Earth might be extinguished at any moment by a meteorite. This is why, according to Lowell, our race must get off this planet and start colonizing space. While avoiding danger might be one of the reasons for racial expansion in deep space, another - and more natural! - incentive is the mere existence of the Promethean aspect of our race soul, an existence that can never be denied and never be suppressed. Self-sufficiency is the key. However, it is imperative that we shall not limit our scope to this planet only. We must ever strive to become the Faustian beasts that we were always meant to be. The sun must circle around US! Domination of our own by ourselves is a necessary prerequisite, in order to establish the Imperium of the End, ruled by the dictatorship of the class that creates. There is no Aryan nation. There is only an Aryan class. Programs to colonize and eventually terraform new planets need to be established (after all, the threat of meteorites threatening our race on Earth is a very real one). NOVA EVROPA will be the first Aryan settlement on Mars.

The Prolet-Aryan is the creator and sustainer who destroys the old order, paving the way for the new and improved. He lends a guiding hand to the lesser races, elevating them with his own ascent to godhood. The red flag of socialism is the flag of blood, the blood that flows in the veins of the Aryan worker-soldiers of the coming empire of war, struggle and conquest. Like the socialist flag, Mars is red. Mars is not only a planet but also the god of war. Hence, war must be declared in the name of blood and the red planet colonized in the name of socialism. Yuri Gagarin showed us the way. We must follow!

Because of its non-universal nature and ethnic character, Paganism (in all its incarnations, be they Odinism or Mithraism) is Europe’s only legitimate religion. Christianity is indeed, as Norman Lowell calls it, “an abject religion fit for children and slaves.” The main and most glaring problem that Europe has with Christianity is that this religion is not European, either in nature or origin. No matter how much of Christianity has been Paganized (or Europeanized), in its essence it remains a Semitic cult from the desert of the Middle East. Anti-Semitic European Christians are the epitome of hypocrisy as they worship a dead Jew on a piece of wood (which, to make it even clearer, had “I.N.R.I.” [“Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews”] written on it) while at the same time denigrating all Jews (even European ones) collectively as enemies of the West. Lowell has good reasons to attack the Church. The Church, being the official representative of an alien creed, has made its anti-European intentions known. The Jesuits in Malta (“refuse collectors” as Lowell correctly calls them) and their Catholic brothers elsewhere in Europe favor unrestricted immigration, based on the insane Christian belief that your enemy should be loved and not fought. The times of the Crusades, when the Church actually favored the defense of Europe against her enemies from the desert, are gone. The current behavior of the Church merely proves that Europe flourished not because of but in spite of Christianity. As self-aware and confident Europeans, we must praise Dr. Faustus the Aryan, not Jesus the Semite!

Influenced by the Belgian geopolitician Jean Thiriart, Lowell shows himself to be a true libertarian when he argues that, while the future empire should be strictly guarded against external threats, inside the empire complete freedom for the individual should reign (e.g., legalization of drugs, freedom of speech, etc.). To put it another way: It should not matter what one does in private when one is a loyal citizen of the empire in public. In the future European empire, the private and public spheres of life will be strictly separate. Or as Thiriart argued, the Imperium (concerned with imperial decisions) is distinct and not necessarily a reflection of the Dominium (concerned with personal decisions). If one wants a hooker and shoot up heroin, one should be free to get one and do so. We do not need moralizing pundits in the empire. The empire will not be a nanny state, composed of repressed individuals and zealous Puritans. In short, the future European empire will not become a for Whites only carbon copy of the contemporary US of A!

Lowell astutely points out a fact that many White nationalists (especially the chauvinist European variety) like to forget: AmeriKa is an integral part of Magna Europa. Contemporary White Americans (AKA the only true Americans) are not nearly as emasculated as contemporary Europeans. (White) Americans still have an essentially healthy imperial vision. It is thus a shame that AmeriKa’s vigorous, and basically Faustian, drive for world domination is not based on a race-affirming ideology (as it was in the glory days of Teddy Roosevelt). From a Machiavellian point of view, there is nothing wrong with AmeriKa’s subjugation of the Middle East. However, this endeavor would only be noble if it served an Aryan objective. Vinland awake! It is not too late. If AmeriKa once again realized its holy mission to assert European might (as opposed to abstract and false values, such as “universal” [no such thing] democracy) across the globe, it would be able to safeguard European man’s iron grip of dominance. Invading countries like Iraq and Iran would be noble pursuits if it were done to exploit these countries (for the benefit of the White race only) instead of “liberating” them (for the benefit of a multiracial and bastardized elite). Lowell’s message must be heeded by Washington: AmeriKa must come home into the future Imperium Europa. A bridge across the Bering Strait!

Lowell prophesies that in the future Imperium, all citizens will be “proud to belong to that Biological Aristocracy that is the Europid Race.” That is what I call Gene Pool Romanticism, the mystical glorification of blood and the rational exaltation of the whole (as opposed to the indiviudal parts that make up the whole). While individuals are many, the Race is one. Through generations and through aeons, links have been unbroken, from Cristopher Columbus to Neil Armstrong, individuals of the Race conquering new ground for the Race as a whole. As the late John Tyndall said, Armstrong’s was “a giant leap for White mankind!”

time has come
to close the window
shut out the draft
the filthy stench
to breathe the air
of freedom
to rule all
here
and evermore
an empire
to bind
perplexing vision
fit for masters
not sheep

IMPERIUM EUROPA EST PATRIA NOSTRA!


Moscow, Russia - October 19, 2007

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Sunday, March 22, 2009 at 06:53 AM in
Comments (138) | Tell a friend

Comments:

1

Posted by silly on March 22, 2009, 09:06 AM | #

There was a time when Scottish warriors were the most in-demand mercenaries in Europe. The reason was because they continued to engage in clan warfare. They were toughened and conditioned by there local rivals. Europe was able to dominate the world because we had been tempered in the heat of competition between our neighbours. The Greeks united to fend off Aisa but would not have had the ability to do so had they been holding each others hand and singing kumbya together.

2

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 22, 2009, 11:44 AM | #

I disagree one hundred percent with CvH’s interpretation of Lowellian Euro-race and Euro-geography regionalism, in that C, like David Stennett, thinks regionalism must eradicate regional genetic/racial/ethnocultural/local-national identities.  It mustn’t.  It must not.  Did the Holy Roman Empire?  No.  Then neither must it.  That is the precise truth of the matter.  I haven’t read Lowell’s book but if Lowell himself says that it must, as C does, he’s wrong as well — though regionalism is not wrong, it’s right, and if Lowell himself is wrong it becomes merely a question of putting forth an interpretation of regionalism (within an all-encompassing Euro-race empire but a loose empire) that is right.  It’s not a matter of rejecting regionalism, because regionalism, Norman Lowell’s dream, is fundamentally right.  I picture it as resembling the Holy Roman Empire (and I suspect Robert Steuckers also imagines that something along these lines would be an improvement over the current state of affairs).

A tight, local-identity-erasing empire, along the lines CvH or David Stennett would appear to welcome, would spell the death of Europe and Europeans.  Any such empire would be a Jonestown-style suicide pact.  I don’t think Norman Lowell aspires to be the white race’s Jim Jones, or intends regionalism to play the role of Kool-Aid.

Constantin, you’re allergic to intra-European racial/ethnocultural particularism.  Why?  What on earth for???

3

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 22, 2009, 12:12 PM | #

“Yuri Gagarin showed us the way.  We must follow!”  (—from the entry)

“Yuri Gagarin”?  That’s C’s Russia-worship showing through. 

What about Neil Armstrong, C? 

(And what’s going on with your Russia-worship in general, comrade?  What’s up with that?  Where did it come from?)

4

Posted by Fr. John on March 22, 2009, 12:56 PM | #

“Because of its non-universal nature and ethnic character, Paganism (in all its incarnations, be they Odinism or Mithraism) is Europe’s only legitimate religion. Christianity is indeed, as Norman Lowell calls it, “an abject religion fit for children and slaves.”

You are all utterly mad. And such a paganism I would fight with a vigor ten times stronger than that of merely Jewish Zionism; for while the latter is clearly Antichrist, it is yet foreign to my ethnos, and thus easily dismissed- but this POV is utterly Traitorous, for it partakes of the duplicitous spirit from within…

http://cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com/2009/03/at-last-trump.html

Idiots on this forum call me a heretic. I countered with the rejoinder (that, if what I believe is heresy, as compared to the new heresy that is aping ‘orthodoxy’) I’d be GLAD to be considered a heretic, using those terms.

What I uphold is that which once informed and give life and breath to the whole of Christendom.

But this, this is an utter return to BARBARISM.  You’d have to do a damn sight better than this, to make me take ANYTHING you say seriously, other than to utter a well-deserved…

ANATHEMA SIT.

5

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on March 22, 2009, 01:15 PM | #

“What about Neil Armstrong, C?”

I mentioned Neil Armstrong in my essay.

6

Posted by Captainchaos on March 22, 2009, 01:35 PM | #

Hasselhoffmeister: “While each nation has the right to retain its cultural and ethnic autonomy, chauvinist nationalisms must be crushed.”

“The only nation that must be worshipped is Holy Europe. The mixing of different European nationalities should therefore be encouraged. We must support sexual unions between Russian women and German men, Spanish men and Swedish women.”

The claim that individual European peoples will be genetically preserved under the Imperium is now exposed as a lie.  And people wonder why nordicism keeps popping up.

“From a Machiavellian point of view, there is nothing wrong with AmeriKa’s subjugation of the Middle East. However, this endeavor would only be noble if it served an Aryan objective. Vinland awake!”

Can’t say I disagree.  If that was the objective I’d sign up.  But I’d like to preserve the northwestern European character of “Amerika” thank you very much.

Hey GW, what do you think of mixing the English with southern and eastern Europeans?  Would that be better or worse than mixing with the “Krauts”?

7

Posted by Pretty Good Blog? on March 22, 2009, 02:00 PM | #

This guy named Patrice Ayme, a European (Franco-Swiss?) intellectual, has a pretty good blog that has a fairly solid economic footing along with a solid European nationalist point of view - it is unabashedly pro-European, strongly against anti-American hegemony and foolishness, anti-capitalist, anti-plutocracy, and thus seems to be only a small step away from being anti-Jewish.  He constantly exposes many Jews who have their hands all over the current financial meltdown, yet seems a bit unwilling to expose them as Jews - perhaps because of a the stigma still attached to ‘antisemitism’ in Europe?

I’ve left a few posts there trying to explain that the USA became the new headquarters of the international Jewish plutocracy after WWII left much of Europe broke and devastated and many of Europe’s Jews then left for the USA and/or Israel, and he seems pretty amenable to that.

8

Posted by Armor on March 22, 2009, 02:08 PM | #

The claim that individual European peoples will be genetically preserved under the Imperium is now exposed as a lie. (—Captain Chaos)

I don’t know about Norman Lowell, but Constantin enjoys writing rubbish, that’s all.
F.Scrooby asked him a good question: Why?  What on earth for???
I don’t expect an reply !

9

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 22, 2009, 03:13 PM | #

“A tight, local-identity-erasing empire, along the lines CvH or David Stennett would appear to welcome, would spell the death of Europe and Europeans.  Any such empire would be a Jonestown-style suicide pact.”  (—my comment)

The Second Reich (the 1871-1918 Deutsches Kaiserreich) was sort of that, a tight empire which significantly weakened local identities.  Compared to the previous arrangements for organizing the non-Austrian German world, which were “looser” arrangements (the North German Confederation; the Holy Roman Empire), the 1871 Reich a) decreased German flexibility/resilience somewhat, and b) decreased German redundancy. 

a) You want flexibility and resilience:  a rod that’s too stiff can’t bend, can only break, snapping in two under pressure.  You don’t want that; you want bending under pressure, not snapping in two.  “Bending” can always “bend back” later when the pressure subsides.

b) E pluribus unum, “out of the many, one,” is not something you want too much of, because you do want many, you don’t want “just one”:  many gives you redundancy, gives you variety, and gives you numbers, all of which give you strength, making for a stronger you.

The Kaiserreich’s relative inflexibility and relative lack of redundancy led to WW I and WW II, the ruin of Germany.  By the way, who financed Bismarck’s wars of 1866 and 1870?  We all know who.  Those wars are what led to the 1871 Reich.  Did the group financing those two wars want a tighter Reich to replace the looser organization?  Were they whispering things in Bismarck’s ear?  We know they were whispering things in the Kaiser’s ear in 1914 because he himself alluded to it.

10

Posted by Gorboduc on March 22, 2009, 03:29 PM | #

Not more warmed-up IMPERIUM (cue Trumpets: triumphal arch, loud cheers, etc.)

“...to both boldy innovate ...”
What’s this, Star Trek?
The New Europe had better be a bit more grammatical, innit?
Anyway, if the book is as yet “forthcoming” - in other words, if it hasn’t yet been published - how come it’s already changed the world? I’ve looked, and if anything things are just that little bit worse already.
Elsewhere on this highly interesting and occasionally MOST philosophical site I’ve tried to point out that when you lose the TRUE faith you abandon coherence and descend into mere rant.
A good example of this distressing tendency is the close relation in the text between Prometheus and self-sufficiency. Prometheus didn’t kindle fire for himself; he STOLE it with dire consequences for himself.
(And there I was, thinking that this site was replete wth learned classicists
I should have remembered that years ago a Scorpionista told me that an important difference between the august Nordic/Teutonic and debased mongrel Mediterranean tongues was that the former didn’t really have selfish verbs like “have” , “own” or “possess”, while Latin had grasping words like “habeo”. In Norway you say “There is to me a house” nobly meaning that it’s entrusted to you, not owned by you.
The fool appeared totally ignorant of the parallel Latin construction, the dative of possession, wherein you say “Domus est mihi”)
Ditto with Faust: in all serious versions of the Faust tale, he. like Don Juan, is dragged down screaming to an eternal hell. He doesn’t become an eternal “master”. Oh dear, Spengler again! (ho-hum, yawn.)

As Belloc said “And with minds of this quality, these fools ask me to deny my God!”

It reminds me of PG Wodehouse’s parody of a 1920’s optimistic self-help book -
“the frontispiece was a picture of a fairly nude chappie giving the rising sun the glad eye, and underneath it said, ‘Be! with every fibre of your passionate being, BE!’

Men like Gods, and all that guff! Any bloody fool can be like Odin and get drunk and lay about him with a hammer - and as for the sexual union of different European peoples, it’d be nice to know first , that as regards the many enforced unions of German women with Russian soldiers that occurred in 1945, things were adjusted to the general satisfaction of the women, and second,  that the Russians in question weren’t Eurasianists and Tartars.

I LOVE the bit about Washington having to heed all this: sit up straight, Obama boy, and pay attention!
RACE OF MASTERS, indeed!
And we’re ALL going to be ARISTOCRATS!
All chiefs! No Indians!. Oh well, perhaps it’s just a transposition of the rhetoric of the French Revolution’s “Citoyens!”
It’s in “The Gondoliers” - “When everybody’s someone, then no-one’s anybody!”
Try it - “Aristocrat! A pint of Guinness!”
and, “Aristocrat! Pull your bloody finger out and give me my change!”

And, O heavens, please, not MORE drivellingly incompetent toshy “poetry”! Who’s going to take up a gun to defend the right of THE RACE to read and write such poor stuff?

Any more of this violent self-aggrandisment, and I’ll be happier with a sub. to “Searchlight”!

In fact ,Gerry Gable’s masters had better comission a few more articles and books like this to make totally sure that the New Right disappears up its own backside.

11

Posted by Norman Lowell on March 22, 2009, 03:30 PM | #

Captainchos
“The claim that individual European peoples will be genetically preserved under the Imperium is now exposed as a lie.”

I do not normally lie.
In fact, I am going through the travails of years of Court attendances for Racial Incitement:
because I refused to lie - I could have easily said I did not post an article on our website VivaMalta.org

I wanted to challenge these Racial Hatred laws in Malta.
Knowing that if we “clean our slab” - the whole Empire would be cleansed.
The Establishment has thrown everything, every trick in the books to put me behind bars.

That refusal to tell a simple lie has now led to a Constitutional Court Case -
the ramifications of which will determine the future of Freedom of Opinion and Expression in Malta.
Judgment is for the first week of April - should I lose, I will appeal to Strasbourg.

Constantin Von Hoffmeister has his own opinion as to the Racial Policies of the Imperium.
As a Libertarian (within the Dominium sphere) - I gave him free rein to express his views.
This he did in truly Superman fashion - and I am grateful for it.

As to my views for the racial preservation of the various elasticities within our coming Imperium:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ghMDXhWVGI

Norman Lowell
Malta

12

Posted by cladrastis on March 22, 2009, 03:35 PM | #

I share Scrooby’s sentiments.

I also find the idea of invading Iran to create more lebensraum totally repugnant.  It’s as stupid as the Nazi plan to invade the USSR and subjugate the slavs.  The Iranians (Aryans) are our cultural and genetic kin.  At most they need a fresh infusion of Aryan blood, not conquest and disposession.  They should be part of any panEuropean empire and empowered to rule the deserts of the Eastern Mediterranean - assuming they shed the religion of their Arab oppressors. 

Now, invading resource-rich Kazakhstan, Kyrgistan, or Uzbekistan (or even Turkey) might be justifiable military enterprises (these being ancient Scythian and Indo-European homelands that were crushed by the invading Asiatic and Mongoloid hordes).  Send them all back to Mongolia and the deserts of China with their filthy yerts and kumiss, for all I care!

13

Posted by Templar on March 22, 2009, 03:54 PM | #

Men like Gods, and all that guff! Any bloody fool can be like Odin and get drunk and lay about him with a hammer

Oh Lord, that’s beautiful.

I think you mean Thor, though.

14

Posted by torgrim on March 22, 2009, 04:43 PM | #

“Men like gods and all the guff! ....snip

“Oh Lord, that’s beautiful. I think you mean Thor, though.”—Templar

Well at least the Nordic Gods have a sense of humor….

With all that End of the World cultic fear coming from the Desert Deities of SW Asia, no wonder we see profits,(spelling intentional), on teevee like old, “Jaba the Hut”, Pastor Hagee, telling how wonderful it will be when the world is consumed by fire…but wait I remember something of a fire and a bush in the Desert, oh yes the fire symbolism, well that can’t be a good thing. But neither is what we see on this U-tube, either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig

15

Posted by Templar on March 22, 2009, 04:58 PM | #

Well at least the Nordic Gods have a sense of humor….

Did they? I always thought they seemed rather melancholic and grim.

With all that End of the World cultic fear coming from the Desert Deities of SW Asia, no wonder we see profits,(spelling intentional), on teevee like old, “Jaba the Hut”, Pastor Hagee, telling how wonderful it will be when the world is consumed by fire…

Why, exactly? I’m not sure I see a connection.

but wait I remember something of a fire and a bush in the Desert, oh yes the fire symbolism, well that can’t be a good thing.

Why not? Fire is good. Fire purifies. Fire is tool and weapon and comfort.

16

Posted by gorboduc on March 22, 2009, 05:19 PM | #

Odin, Thor, doesn’t really matter. They don’t exist.
“Odinism” never existed as a religious system until perhaps the 19th century.
For hammer read sword, club, artificial leg, whatever you like.
I just love all those Latinate terms, Imperium, Dominium, Vomitorium, whatever.
When I’m an Aristocratic God I shall get drunk on my enemies’ blood and lay about me with fire-irons, drinking-horns, rolled-up copies of ‘Scorpion’, whatever ... just you wait!
Why shouldn’t a True God speak in the desert? This question has been asked before.
Perhap they can only achieve authentic speech through computers, CDs and the little “poetry” presses.

17

Posted by Templar on March 22, 2009, 05:23 PM | #

Odin, Thor, doesn’t really matter. They don’t exist.

Good point.

18

Posted by torgrim on March 22, 2009, 05:34 PM | #

“Did they I always thought they seemed rather melancholic and grim.” Templar

Melancholic and grim, yes but there is also humor displayed in the lore too, I will not bore the reader with details but if interested much can be found in the “Skandinavian bible” the “Poetic Edda”, by Hollander and others.

“Why exactly I do not see the connection.”

I am making a connection or more exactly the differences of the monotheists of the Desert and the polytheists of the northern forests. From the “Fire Spirit” speaking from the burning bush, to the holy wars, to the Final Battle, all are a very different world view, than that of the polytheistic, indigenous religions of Europe.

“Why not?” Fire is good..”

Yes if it is a campfire, a stove or a heater, but not a thermonuclear detonation(s), which is what the Rapture crowd seem to deduct from their Bible.

19

Posted by gorboduc on March 22, 2009, 06:07 PM | #

“I do not normally lie” says Norman.

Well, of course not.

Reminds me of another PG Wodehouse funny:

Chap A: “Rubbish!”

Chap B: “I am not accustomed to talk rubbish.”

Chap A: “Well I must say that, as a beginner, you do it dashed well!”

20

Posted by Templar on March 22, 2009, 06:07 PM | #

Melancholic and grim, yes but there is also humor displayed in the lore too, I will not bore the reader with details but if interested much can be found in the “Skandinavian bible” the “Poetic Edda”, by Hollander and others.

Gallows, humour, I expect.

I am making a connection or more exactly the differences of the monotheists of the Desert and the polytheists of the northern forests.

You are making an assertion. You have not demonstrated that it is true, or that it is of significance.

Yes if it is a campfire, a stove or a heater, but not a thermonuclear detonation(s), which is what the Rapture crowd seem to deduct from their Bible.

What can I say? The Rapture is not a Catholic belief.

21

Posted by gorboduc on March 22, 2009, 06:29 PM | #

And before I take my leave of this hospitable site, I might remark that Yuri Gagarin has been mentioned above. Admiringly. Umm.

Look up an article by the late Tory MP Jock Bruce-Gardyne that appeared about 20 years ago in the Daily Telegraph, “WAS GAGARIN RUSSIA’S ANSWER TO THE PILTDOWN MAN?”

(There are some garbled refs. to it on the web, and some of it appears there in a cranky anti-gravity book.)

J B-G claimed that Gagarin died in a space catastrophe, and his role as a Soviet hero, being presented to the Young Pioneers, opening collective farms etc., was taken by someone else.
cool mad

22

Posted by torgrim on March 22, 2009, 06:51 PM | #

“You are making an assertion.” Templar

Yes I am asserting that the polytheistic worldview is demonstratably different from the monotheistic concept of how one group views the world and hence acts accordingly. Many are the differences between a life affirming view and a life rejecting, next world affirming view of creation.

I remember how the late Joseph Campbell on his program, teaching about myth.., when he taught about the religions/myths of the East, North and the Americas, he was lauded and given praise, but he stepped into trouble when he suggested that the religion of the first monotheists, the Hebrews, were but myths of their own Creation Story. He was chastised and demoted forthwith.

All people have a creation story. A creation story or myth, becomes, the, Creation Story, when it is attached to a specific people.
Unlike most people today, Europids do not have their tribal creation stories intact. By no means was this accidental. What wasn’t oulawed, was destroyed, except for those, fortunate, isolated places where the Christian and polytheist managed to cooperate, ie., Iceland and other parts of the Baltic and Skandinavia.
The saying goes something like this, myth is not fact, but it tells truth..

I don’t think much will be gained with further discourse by me, and as I must get ready for another week on the road I will sign off with, Ha det bra! (Have it good!)

23

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 22, 2009, 06:52 PM | #

I just happened to watch this anti-Lowell video.  In the video’s final frame, look at the alphabet in which is written the name of the video’s maker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlgyqKT1qss&NR=1

So, according to the Jews, in other words, Malta has to have an open-doors immigration policy with Africa (the main thing Lowell is protesting agasint). 

Why doesn’t Israel have to have it? 

Can any Jew on the planet come here to this thread and explain either why Israel’s border doesn’t have to be open to Africans as Jews say Malta’s does, or why Malta’s can’t be closed if Israel’s can be? 

What’s up with the double standard, Jews?

What’s up with the sickening, filthy, stinking, nauseating, morally leprous, abominable, hate-motivated, foaming-at-the-mouth, genocidal double standard?

Any Jews care to come on here to these threads and explain?

You know, Jews, we’re sick of it?  We’re god damned fricking heartily sick and tired of it.  That’s something you should be aware of.

24

Posted by Templar on March 22, 2009, 07:21 PM | #

Yes I am asserting that the polytheistic worldview is demonstratably different from the monotheistic concept of how one group views the world and hence acts accordingly.

Quite so, and that is the problem, as assertions without arguments are rarely convincing.

Many are the differences between a life affirming view and a life rejecting, next world affirming view of creation.

Many are the errors of those who misunderstand Christianity, sadly. I can’t say I would characterize paganism as “life-affirming” either, except perhaps in an animalistic sense.

I remember how the late Joseph Campbell on his program, teaching about myth.., when he taught about the religions/myths of the East, North and the Americas, he was lauded and given praise, but he stepped into trouble when he suggested that the religion of the first monotheists, the Hebrews, were but myths of their own Creation Story. He was chastised and demoted forthwith.

I don’t think any of us here is disputing the pull of the Jewish lobby.

Unlike most people today, Europids do not have their tribal creation stories intact. By no means was this accidental. What wasn’t oulawed, was destroyed, except for those, fortunate, isolated places where the Christian and polytheist managed to cooperate, ie., Iceland and other parts of the Baltic and Skandinavia.

Again, assertion without argument or evidence. What proof is there of this alleged destruction? Who recorded it?

The saying goes something like this, myth is not fact, but it tells truth..

I prefer Tolkien’s version: Myths can express truths, but only Christianity is a true myth, and to reject it is to reject truth.

I don’t think much will be gained with further discourse by me, and as I must get ready for another week on the road I will sign off with, Ha det bra! (Have it good!)

God be with you.

25

Posted by james on March 22, 2009, 11:39 PM | #

How would banking and money transactions be regulated in this Imperium seeing how international banking is at the core of today’s problems with world banks and major financial institutions like the IMF pushing for globalisation and the stock market system were Jews with there domination in finance and government make billions from insider trading.
Rothschild in London was reported to gain huge portion of the bond and stock market in England by gaining advance knowledge of the outcome in Napoleons war in Waterloo.
Further more Rothschild and other leading Jewish international banking families and firms have used there wealth and ability to transfer there huge capital to affect foreign policy and starting in Germany finance universities and political movements to over through the existing order starting with the French revolution.
Jacob Schiff, Warburg and Rothschild of London used there finances to finance the Bolshevik revolution and undermine Czarist Russia like Schiffs financing of war loans to Japan in 1904/05 in the Jap/Russo war.
In Africa Rothschild financed Cecil Rhodes to get control of Africa’s diamond and other resources creating a monopoly were they can set the price of gold, diamonds, etc.
The also have huge media influence with a virtual Jewish monopoly in western media and Rothschilds family news and media ownership from family branches throughout Europe like the Gaurdian media group in the UK.
British Empires foreign policy was essentially Rothschild.

Even today Rothschild frontman George Soros engineered economic policy that dismantled the post Soviet economy in Russia and Ukraine, instrumential through NGO’s, PR and media destroying Yugoslavia and engineering “coloured revolutions” in Ukraine and Georgia which he used as a proxy to launch war against Russia in August.

I guess my main question is how would an oligarchy be prevented of commercial and financial interests like there is today with one country dominating he Imperium like in the Roman or British empire.

26

Posted by Dasein on March 23, 2009, 04:37 AM | #

Yes I am asserting that the polytheistic worldview is demonstratably different from the monotheistic concept of how one group views the world and hence acts accordingly. Many are the differences between a life affirming view and a life rejecting, next world affirming view of creation.

Was Zoroaster (aka Zarathustra) an Aryan?  To the extent that those in Iran who adopted the religion were still Aryans (I do not know how admixed they would have been at that time in the first millenium BC, or whether the elites who pushed it were less admixed), Zoroastrianism could be seen as an example of Indo-European monotheism.  And insofar as Judaism was influenced by Zoroastrianism (I am not a religious scholar, but I have read that there is evidence to support this), Europeans adopting monotheism would be the convoluted return to another essentially Indo-European religion.  Perhaps someone with more knowledge of Zoroastrianism could comment.

27

Posted by the Narrator... on March 23, 2009, 06:08 AM | #

(Europe and its daughters AmeriKa, Canada, Chile, Argentina and Australasia)

by Constantin von Hoffmeister

Chile? It’s maybe 30% White.

Based on one genetic study, Argentina is about 44% White.

And a great many Whites in Latin America have gone native, so to speak, and associate themselves completely with “latino culture”.

Can’t speak for Australia but America and Canada are just above half White.


Yes we must remain hopeful, but not deluded as to the tenuousness of our predicament. 

You are all utterly mad. And such a paganism I would fight with a vigor ten times stronger than that of merely Jewish Zionism; for while the latter is clearly Antichrist, it is yet foreign to my ethnos, and thus easily dismissed- but this POV is utterly Traitorous, for it partakes of the duplicitous spirit from within…

http://cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com/2009/03/at-last-trump.html

Posted by Fr. John on March 22, 2009, 04:56 PM

Your ancestors were Christians for hundreds of years.

Your ancestors were pagans for thousands of years.

Which is the usurper?

And with all due respect, I’d be careful about hitching your wagon to CWNY.

Odin, Thor, doesn’t really matter. They don’t exist.

Posted by gorboduc on March 22, 2009, 09:19 PM

None of them exist. Yahweh, Zeus, Isis…..they’re all fictional.

I prefer Tolkien’s version: Myths can express truths, but only Christianity is a true myth, and to reject it is to reject truth.

Posted by Templar on March 22, 2009, 11:21 PM

I think it was Lewis who phrased that. Though Tolkien may have had the same sentiment. Tolkien’s work in Rings was fairly Pagan in outlook because Tolkien was Catholic (the Catholic church re-cast the gods and goddesses with Mary and “the saints”).

Lewis tried the same thing (from a different angle) in Narnia by having various pagan creatures and deities walking side by side with Jesus/Aslan.
But having read Rings first, Narnia was a bit hard to take. Kind of like going from steak to a hotdog.

In either case though, both men recognized what many renaissance artists knew, which was that our own European pagan mythologies were far more inspirational and enlivening than oriental biblical narratives.

Even real life events in Pagan Europe were more inspirational than the hebrew myths.
Juxtapose David, cowardly tossing rocks at Goliath, to King Leonidas mocking the persians for threatening to use arrows instead of combating them face-to-face like men.

There is just nothing heroic or inspirational in Biblical stories.

The Iranians (Aryans) are our cultural and genetic kin.  At most they need a fresh infusion of Aryan blood, not conquest and disposession.  They should be part of any panEuropean empire and empowered to rule the deserts of the Eastern Mediterranean - assuming they shed the religion of their Arab oppressors.

Posted by cladrastis on March 22, 2009, 07:35 PM

No thanks.
Iranians may have some distant link to some Europeans in the distant past, but Iranians are not Europeans. Nor can they ever be.

...

28

Posted by Templar on March 23, 2009, 11:55 AM | #

None of them exist. Yahweh, Zeus, Isis…..they’re all fictional.

I beg to differ. smile

I think it was Lewis who phrased that. Though Tolkien may have had the same sentiment.

If memory serves it was Tolkien who made the point, in his book On Fairy Stories, though I seem to recall he also stated it to Lewis during the course of a conversation.

Tolkien’s work in Rings was fairly Pagan in outlook because Tolkien was Catholic

In the sense that Catholicism synthesizes the best parts of the pagan cultures it supercedes, perhaps, but the cosmology of Arda is implicitly a Christian one. In fact, that was, I believe, largely the point: to baptize the ancient northern mythologies in a Christian consciousness.

(the Catholic church re-cast the gods and goddesses with Mary and “the saints”).

The Catholic Church replaced pagan gods and goddesses with Mary and the saints. Get it right, would you? wink

Lewis tried the same thing (from a different angle) in Narnia by having various pagan creatures and deities walking side by side with Jesus/Aslan.
But having read Rings first, Narnia was a bit hard to take. Kind of like going from steak to a hotdog.

I always felt the nature gods popping up here and there were an unwelcome distraction from an otherwise engaging mythology.

In either case though, both men recognized what many renaissance artists knew, which was that our own European pagan mythologies were far more inspirational and enlivening than oriental biblical narratives.

There’s nothing un-Christian in that. G.K. Chesterton could likewise excoriate the Protestant practice of soaking oneself in the “oriental book” of the Old Testament, “without sense or reason”, praise the struggle of the Roman hearth gods against Carthaginian Moloch and write elegies to battle-lust and yet still be an energetic, orthodox Catholic. That’s the beauty of the one, true Church.

Even real life events in Pagan Europe were more inspirational than the hebrew myths.
Juxtapose David, cowardly tossing rocks at Goliath, to King Leonidas mocking the persians for threatening to use arrows instead of combating them face-to-face like men.

While using the terrain to ensure that his smaller force could only be approached through a thicket of shields and spears. smile

I’m sorry, but while I’ve no doubt that the deeds of the old gods and heroes may resonate more strongly in our hearts than those of their Old Testament Hebrew equivelents, I can’t buy your comparison. In both instances, the weaker, smaller (physically in David’s case, numerically in Leonidas’s) combatant is wisely doing his best to minimize his disadvantages against his opponent, as a good warrior should.

There is just nothing heroic or inspirational in Biblical stories.

There is nothing but self-evident nonsense in such an assertion.

29

Posted by Templar on March 23, 2009, 11:59 AM | #

and write elegies to battle-lust

That should be “eulogies”.

30

Posted by gorboduc on March 23, 2009, 12:29 PM | #

Rubbish, Narrator.

Read Tolkien’s Collected Letters: shot through and through with traditionalist Catholic apologetics. (Apparently he was a subscriber to CANDOUR)

He open states that LoR is writtem to express Catholic notions.

Pre-Christian paganism has NOTHING to do with modern neo-paganism, which is a Romantic construct, a literary invention, not a survival of tradition.

The new stuff will probably turn out to be based largely on Renaissance magick (Bruno et al) and from there, the step to the Cabbalah isn’t very far…

JSM Ward, Gardner and Crowley:  18th century neo-Druidism, invented for a laugh by Stukeley and his chums:  Troy myths, from Geoffrey of Monmouth: Victorian spiritualism, Wagner AND the dear little flower fairies are all there too: WHAT a mess!
Get out into the woods with Ludendorff and eat horse-meat!
If ONLY I hadn’t read Goodrick-Clarke and Aurel Kolnai.
What WAS good in genuine paganism survived into Catholicism.

31

Posted by gorboduc on March 23, 2009, 12:46 PM | #

AND I meant to compliment TEMPLAR on his contributions, which are all spot-on.

GKC.s The Everlasting Man is great on the relationship between Paganism and Christianity.

AND I should have added that as well as the well-known German volkisch fraudsters, the Jewish CANAANIM with their goddess nonsense (See “Nice Jewish Girls: A Lesbian Anthology” for where all that leads you,) are ALSO in the neo-pagan mix, AND Fraser’s brilliant but misleading “Golden Bough”. (When someone asked Fraser it he’d ever met any of the “primitive” folk he pontificated about, he replied “God forbid!”)
And I suppose HG Wells’s plagiarised notions are in there too: his Outline of History, at which Belloc poked such rumbustious fun, was mostly lifted from a fifth-rate feminist world history by an unknown Canadian, a Miss Deeks.

And the poor bloody Norsemen couldn’t even write their tales down until the despised Med. types learned ‘em their alphabet!

32

Posted by danielj on March 23, 2009, 09:14 PM | #

Yes we must remain hopeful, but not deluded as to the tenuousness of our predicament.

Hope is by nature an expensive commodity, and those who are risking their all on one cast find out what it means only when they are already ruined; it never fails them in the period when such a knowledge would enable them to take precautions. Do not let this happen to you, you who are weak and depend on a single movement of the scale. And do not be like those people who, as so commonly happens, miss the chance of saving themselves in a human and practical way, and, when every clear and distinct hope has left them in their adversity, turn to what is blind and vague, to prophecies and oracles and such things which by encouraging hope lead men to ruin.

- Thucydides

Your ancestors were Christians for hundreds of years.

Your ancestors were pagans for thousands of years.

Which is the usurper?

And with all due respect, I’d be careful about hitching your wagon to CWNY.

Whichever one is true.

I still say you are misreading him. I forgot to get a hold of him though. Well, I attempted to but I got a hold of the wrong guy - the Hearthstone guy.

None of them exist. Yahweh, Zeus, Isis…..they’re all fictional.

If I believed in empiricism than I would have to agree with you. We are both being logical according to our respective epistemological systems.

No thanks.
Iranians may have some distant link to some Europeans in the distant past, but Iranians are not Europeans. Nor can they ever be.

They would be our most loyal allies though and would easily control natural resources in the area for us.

33

Posted by Harvard Race Denier on March 24, 2009, 05:25 AM | #

Just to give you a sense of the type of people race realists and White nationalists are up against…the person who wrote the following nonsense has an MA from Harvard: http://cerebralcommerce.blogspot.com/2009/02/moratorium-on-c-word.html

It’s very literate, clear, and intelligent nonsense, but it’s still nonsense.

I’d get a kick out of some of the people here going to this person’s blog and obliterating their weak and pathetic arguments.

34

Posted by the Narrator... on March 24, 2009, 05:35 AM | #

but the cosmology of Arda is implicitly a Christian one.

Posted by Templar on March 23, 2009, 03:55 PM

It always struck me as a cross between polytheism and deism. Illuvatar stays pretty much in the background as the the Valar (the gods) shape the world, battle the enemy and so on.

to baptize the ancient northern mythologies in a Christian consciousness.

Posted by Templar on March 23, 2009, 03:55 PM

Is that scriptural?
I wonder why we never saw a jolly old St. Baal?

The Catholic Church replaced pagan gods and goddesses with Mary and the saints. Get it right, would you?

Posted by Templar on March 23, 2009, 03:55 PM

And how did the Catholic church do that?
Since judgment comes after death and it is God alone who judges people, then how do Catholics know who is a saint and who isn’t?
The Bible mentions some people by name who are obviously residing in heaven, but not enough to fill a twelve month calender.

There’s nothing un-Christian in that. G.K. Chesterton could likewise excoriate the Protestant practice of soaking oneself in the “oriental book” of the Old Testament, “without sense or reason”, praise the struggle of the Roman hearth gods against Carthaginian Moloch and write elegies to battle-lust and yet still be an energetic, orthodox Catholic. That’s the beauty of the one, true Church.

Posted by Templar on March 23, 2009, 03:55 PM

Men like Chesterton, Lewis, Charles Spurgeon and the like all made clever observations about the state of the world in regards to their Christianity. And they all became highly influential in Christian circles over the past 50 to a hundred years.
Now considering the declining state of Christianity over the past 50 to a hundred years, I wonder why “in the know” Christians still appeal to these men’s doctrines.

While using the terrain to ensure that his smaller force could only be approached through a thicket of shields and spears.

Posted by Templar on March 23, 2009, 03:55 PM

That’s hardly the same thing. All the Spartans did was meet the Persians at a place where the odds were even. They then had to fight, hand to hand, several hundred thousand enemies.

Leonidas knew it was a suicide mission though but went anyway knowing he would achieve glory in a valiant death.

There is nothing but self-evident nonsense in such an assertion.

Posted by Templar on March 23, 2009, 03:55 PM

Okay.
At least give me an example though. Chapter and verse. Except Samson. Please don’t refer me to Captain Hair.

Pre-Christian paganism has NOTHING to do with modern neo-paganism, which is a Romantic construct, a literary invention, not a survival of tradition.

Posted by gorboduc on March 23, 2009, 04:29 PM

I agree.
But the same holds true for Biblical stories as well. How many Christians hold romantic notions of Abraham, Moses, Joseph or Esther? Slimy characters who not only obviously didn’t exist, but who stories illustrate how Hebrews can (and will) plunder and ruin gentile nations.

It’s a matter of genetics though. European myths appeal to (and inspire) us in a primal way. Semitic myths appeal to semitic peoples similarly.

The myths aren’t real. But they do reflect collective (group) personality traits and character.

Hope is by nature an expensive commodity, and those who are risking their all on one cast find out what it means only when they are already ruined; it never fails them in the period when such a knowledge would enable them to take precautions. Do not let this happen to you, you who are weak and depend on a single movement of the scale. And do not be like those people who, as so commonly happens, miss the chance of saving themselves in a human and practical way, and, when every clear and distinct hope has left them in their adversity, turn to what is blind and vague, to prophecies and oracles and such things which by encouraging hope lead men to ruin.

Posted by danielj on March 24, 2009, 01:14 AM

Ummmm…..could you unpack that for me?

I still say you are misreading him

Posted by danielj on March 24, 2009, 01:14 AM

If I’d read just one or two of his(?) articles I might agree. But I’ve read through most of his blog and it’s obvious that his view on Whites is that we are who we are because we adopted Christianity.
In other words, from CWNY’s perspective, Europeans were no different than blacks, jews or asians until we turned to Christ. And that if we turn back from Christ, we will once again be no different from blacks, jews or asians.
So for him, our identity is wrapped up COMPLETELY in a Christian cloak. Remove the cloak and were all just Al Sharpton underneath.
For him the ONLY thing that differentiates Whites from the rest is/was our Christian adherence.

And since that position obviously ignores pre-Christian Greek and Roman Civilizations, basically what CWNY believes (when you get right down to it) is that the White race is a “social construct”.

.
.
.
And I don’t know why the word Pagan has taken on such a suspicious connotation. It just means a country dweller or rural person.
By that definition I’m damn proud to be a pagan. Beats being called a hillbilly or redneck.

I mean, who would deny that about 99.99999% of all evil in the world emanates from cities?

I vote that from now on we refer to all suspicious and potentially satanic worshiping types as Urbanites who are engaging in the dark art of Urbanism or neo-Urbanism.

...

35

Posted by danielj on March 24, 2009, 05:42 AM | #

Ummmm…..could you unpack that for me?

I just meant I agreed with you that excessive optimism was a refuge for the idiot.

36

Posted by the Narrator... on March 24, 2009, 05:44 AM | #

No thanks.
Iranians may have some distant link to some Europeans in the distant past, but Iranians are not Europeans. Nor can they ever be.

-the Narrator…

They would be our most loyal allies though and would easily control natural resources in the area for us.

Posted by danielj on March 24, 2009, 01:14 AM

I don’t know how ‘buddy-buddy’ we’d be with them.

Either way they aren’t European.

I just don’t want them mixing with our people…

.

37

Posted by danielj on March 24, 2009, 05:54 AM | #

Either way they aren’t European.

I just don’t want them mixing with our people…

I agree and I don’t.

They would just be easier to control and liberalize than Saudis.

38

Posted by Al Ross on March 24, 2009, 06:21 AM | #

Christ, the US government cant even ‘control’ the invasion of Mexicans far less ‘control’ Iranians. As for liberalizing Iranians, you must surely understand that it was the Shah’s perceived liberalism (in the sense of an official governmental distancing from that perennial MR supernaturalist favourite, religion) that was an indispensable condition of the Ayatollah Khomeini’s rise to power and the decline in US influence.

39

Posted by the Narrator... on March 24, 2009, 06:21 AM | #

Just to give you a sense of the type of people race realists and White nationalists are up against…the person who wrote the following nonsense has an MA from Harvard: http://cerebralcommerce.blogspot.com/2009/02/moratorium-on-c-word.html

It’s very literate, clear, and intelligent nonsense, but it’s still nonsense.

I’d get a kick out of some of the people here going to this person’s blog and obliterating their weak and pathetic arguments.

There is a note on his comments that states. Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

I’m not going to join up with his blog just to yap with him. He has the sign up thing there to censor what gets posted and use what he wants to make his own points. If he’d come here where he’d be free to post what he likes, I’d engage him.

But reading his stuff I’d venture to say he probably does not in fact have an MA.

For example, he asserts, “Race, as a distinct biological reality, is, without equivocation, a bankrupt notion.”

Without equivocation?
Such stipulation-free language is unnecessarily reckless and smells of an un-scholarly hand.

And it’s funny that he infers that racial categories were social/political impositions yet states, “The civil-rights movement of the 1960’s dismantled the most explicit forms of racism including many biological/scientific-sounding racial epithets.”

The civil-rights movement was, in fact, a political movement, not a scientific one….

A lot of his other points I’ve addressed (generally) .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).


...

40

Posted by the Narrator... on March 24, 2009, 06:24 AM | #

Try that again. Here is the link, http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/collective_wisdom/

41

Posted by Lurker on March 24, 2009, 06:28 AM | #

I went to have a look at this guy http://cerebralcommerce.blogspot.com/2009/02/moratorium-on-c-word.html.

But he is the only one who can comment at his own blog.

42

Posted by rb on March 24, 2009, 11:22 AM | #

Was Zoroaster (aka Zarathustra) an Aryan?

Sure. He was spoke a garble that looks like what scholars think PIE would’ve looked like has someone taught them to write. He liked his cows and fields, and feared the Turks. His asura spoke to him in the desert.

I do not know how admixed they would have been at that time in the first millenium BC

Emphasis on admixture is overdrawn by racialists (and the high-handed British / German historians from whom they’ve borrowed some their rhetoric). Iranians, Elamites — whatever we call the masses of that region, they’ve always been brown and hairy. Sometimes you can see a redhead or blue eyes peering out at you through a chador, usually among the bourgeoisie of Tehran or former semi-nomadic communities elsewhere. This doesn’t mean Aryans swarmed onto the Plateau and “mixed”. It means they didn’t settle there in great numbers to begin with. The Parsees look like Jews: I don’t know why, but it tallies with their economic influence in Mumbai. I’ve never seen a Parsee who looked remotely Aryan or European; so, perhaps like the Kashmiri Kandits, their “Aryan” heritage is located only at the genetic level.

Zoroastrianism could be seen as an example of Indo-European monotheism

Except Zoroaster’s faith wasn’t monotheistic at all. It actually isn’t too different from the Vedic system, exhibiting a fundamental similarity which lightweight scholars were wont to pass over in view of Zoroaster’s topical departure from certain aspects of Vedism. See here: http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/zoro.pdf

Europeans adopting monotheism would be the convoluted return to another essentially Indo-European religion

Except the Aryans weren’t monotheistic and their faith wasn’t all that serious. Besides which this scenario is overdrawn. No one is returning to or abandoning anything. Faith is dogged. Only individuals defect in this age. Also consider that at least for Latin peoples, God is still *Dy?us, and “god” itself seems to lack unquestionable reflexes in all other Indo-European languages: which makes the vocable “god” quite uniquely European.

I’d like to see the Iranians left alone.

43

Posted by rb on March 24, 2009, 11:24 AM | #

Typos there — readjusting to QWERTY keyboard from time abroad.

44

Posted by Templar on March 24, 2009, 12:17 PM | #

It always struck me as a cross between polytheism and deism. Illuvatar stays pretty much in the background as the the Valar (the gods) shape the world, battle the enemy and so on.

I imagine it strikes you as a cross between polytheism and deism because you want to see it as such.

Is that scriptural?

Yes.

I wonder why we never saw a jolly old St. Baal?

Does Baal strike you as an especially jolly god? smile

You’re still confusing the replacement of gods by saints with the renaming of gods as saints, of course.

And how did the Catholic church do that?
Since judgment comes after death and it is God alone who judges people, then how do Catholics know who is a saint and who isn’t?

Through the authority of the Church, obviously.

The Bible mentions some people by name who are obviously residing in heaven, but not enough to fill a twelve month calender.

The Bible was compiled a little under two thousand years ago. Does it seem logical to you, assuming that there are especially blessed souls residing in a special state of grace in Heaven, that no other examples of holiness should be added to their number in all that time?

Men like Chesterton, Lewis, Charles Spurgeon and the like all made clever observations about the state of the world in regards to their Christianity. And they all became highly influential in Christian circles over the past 50 to a hundred years.
Now considering the declining state of Christianity over the past 50 to a hundred years, I wonder why “in the know” Christians still appeal to these men’s doctrines.

Your wonderment is a logical fallacy that Owen Barfield and C.S. Lewis (coincidentally enough, and while he was still an atheist, interestingly enough) called “chronological snobbery”, which is described thus:

I argue that A implies B.
You claim that A implies B is an old argument, dating back to the times when people also believed C.
C is clearly false.
Therefore, you claim, A does not imply B.

Of course, “in the now” Christians (setting aside the issue of whether they may actually claim the title of believers in Christ with any legitimacy) appeal to transient modernity, not the enduring wisdom of Lewis, Tolkien or Chesterton.

That’s hardly the same thing.

It is the same thing, effectively.

All the Spartans did was meet the Persians at a place where the odds were even. They then had to fight, hand to hand, several hundred thousand enemies.

Not really. The choice of terrain ensured that only a very small number of Persians was ever able to engage them at once, and then they were outclassed by the longer spears and heavier armour of the Hellenes.

Leonidas knew it was a suicide mission though but went anyway knowing he would achieve glory in a valiant death.

I think you may be remembering the film 300 and not historical accounts of the battle, where the situation only turned suicidal after the Persians were able to outflank the Hellenes’ position and Leonidas decided to dismiss his allies and remain behind with his bodyguard (to ensure the bulk of the allied forces could retreat in good order, if I recall correctly) along with several hundred Thebans and Thespians.

Okay.
At least give me an example though. Chapter and verse. Except Samson. Please don’t refer me to Captain Hair.

I always found the story of Sampson more tragic than heroic, personally. The New Testament accounts of he Crucifixion and the lives of the Apostles were more inspiring to me.

I agree.
But the same holds true for Biblical stories as well. How many Christians hold romantic notions of Abraham, Moses, Joseph or Esther? Slimy characters who not only obviously didn’t exist, but who stories illustrate how Hebrews can (and will) plunder and ruin gentile nations.

Ah, but what basis is there to say that they didn’t exist?

It’s a matter of genetics though. European myths appeal to (and inspire) us in a primal way. Semitic myths appeal to semitic peoples similarly.

I agree.

The myths aren’t real.

Depends on what you call a myth.

If I’d read just one or two of his(?) articles I might agree. But I’ve read through most of his blog and it’s obvious that his view on Whites is that we are who we are because we adopted Christianity.

It is obvious. smile

45

Posted by Templar on March 24, 2009, 12:24 PM | #

Hmm, I seem to have mis-read “in the know” as “in the now”. Odd…

46

Posted by the Narrator... on March 24, 2009, 02:48 PM | #

I imagine it strikes you as a cross between polytheism and deism because you want to see it as such.

Posted by Templar on March 24, 2009, 04:17 PM

The first time I read the books I was still nominally a Christian (not that many years ago) and even then it struck me as such. In fact if you match it up with scripture, it inverts the apocalyptic narrative making Aragorn the anti-Christ and Sauron God.

It is, after all, the anti-Christ who unites the peoples of the world, gathers them at Megiddo (Mordor) to do battle with the singular being God/Sauron who is coming into the world yet again.
In which case the Ring would be the Cross and all that it stands for. Get rid of it and the power of God is broken.

I know that’s controversial to say the least, but Aragorn and ‘The Return of the King’ scenario is absolutely anti-Christ like.

Does Baal strike you as an especially jolly god?

Posted by Templar on March 24, 2009, 04:17 PM

Alright then. So why no plain St. Baal?

You’re still confusing the replacement of gods by saints with the renaming of gods as saints, of course.

Posted by Templar on March 24, 2009, 04:17 PM
 

Semantics.

Through the authority of the Church, obviously.

Posted by Templar on March 24, 2009, 04:17 PM

So the Catholic church, not God, makes the final judgment of all men?

I’ll be darned if I can find that in the Bible!

The Bible was compiled a little under two thousand years ago. Does it seem logical to you, assuming that there are especially blessed souls residing in a special state of grace in Heaven, that no other examples of holiness should be added to their number in all that time?

Posted by Templar on March 24, 2009, 04:17 PM

Added by who?
Again, God judges not a church.

From a scriptural perspective, unless someone is specifically mention in the biblical text as having achieved salvation (think Abraham and Elijah at the transfiguration) then we have no way of knowing who is in heaven or who is in hell. That goes for everybody from Adam to Paul or from Mary to Bob Johnson down the street.

But from a technical point of view, all who are saved and have Jesus as their savior are saints. A saint is not a special set aside person apart from other Christians.

Not really. The choice of terrain ensured that only a very small number of Persians was ever able to engage them at once, and then they were outclassed by the longer spears and heavier armour of the Hellenes.

Posted by Templar on March 24, 2009, 04:17 PM

Well there were only 300 Spartans who took the brunt of the Persian attack. The other Greeks kinda hung back. So they were still facing terrific odds and were meeting their enemies head-on, not hiding behind a hill and throwing rocks at them.

I think you may be remembering the film 300 and not historical accounts of the battle, where the situation only turned suicidal after the Persians

Posted by Templar on March 24, 2009, 04:17 PM

I’ve as yet to see the film. The last new film I saw was the Dark Knight, and as it was comically awful in spite of the hype, I’m hesitant to run out and rent 300 as well.

But, I’m pretty sure there was a prophecy about the Spartan King falling in battle.

The New Testament accounts of he Crucifixion and the lives of the Apostles were more inspiring to me.

Posted by Templar on March 24, 2009, 04:17 PM

They are for a lot of Westerners. And that’s the problem. Too many of them are inspired by Jesus and his followers going to their deaths like stunted sheep. There’s nothing heroic in going down without a fight. Pardon the blunt language but my ire raises when I see stories like the following http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/22immig.html?_r=1&th;=&emc=th&pagewanted=all

[

u]
Ah, but what basis is there to say that they didn’t exist?

Posted by Templar on March 24, 2009, 04:17 PM

Common sense.

It is obvious

Posted by Templar on March 24, 2009, 04:17 PM

So then you’re not one of us?

If you don’t believe that Whites (peoples of indigenous European descent) are a biological reality, then you are opposed to us.

...

47

Posted by Templar on March 24, 2009, 04:24 PM | #

The first time I read the books I was still nominally a Christian (not that many years ago) and even then it struck me as such. In fact if you match it up with scripture, it inverts the apocalyptic narrative making Aragorn the anti-Christ and Sauron God.

It is, after all, the anti-Christ who unites the peoples of the world, gathers them at Megiddo (Mordor) to do battle with the singular being God/Sauron who is coming into the world yet again.
In which case the Ring would be the Cross and all that it stands for. Get rid of it and the power of God is broken.

I know that’s controversial to say the least, but Aragorn and ‘The Return of the King’ scenario is absolutely anti-Christ like.

Like most non-Catholic interpretations of Catholic thought, that requires an extensive amount of mental gymnastics and deliberate ignorance of inconvenient details.

Alright then. So why no plain St. Baal?

Because there was no saint named Baal, perhaps?

Semantics.

Hardly.

So the Catholic church, not God, makes the final judgment of all men?

Where are you getting that idea from, exactly? smile

From a scriptural perspective, unless someone is specifically mention in the biblical text as having achieved salvation (think Abraham and Elijah at the transfiguration) then we have no way of knowing who is in heaven or who is in hell. That goes for everybody from Adam to Paul or from Mary to Bob Johnson down the street.

That is why scripture is inadequate and a teaching authority is needed.

But from a technical point of view, all who are saved and have Jesus as their savior are saints.

From a technical (or rather, a semantic) point of view, all believers in Christ are martyrs, but not all believers have actually undergone martyrdom. Likewise, the communion of saints is subject to ordering, and don’t forget, not all who believe in Christ are necessarily saved, either. Remember the epistle of St. James: “Faith without works is dead”.

Well there were only 300 Spartans who took the brunt of the Persian attack. The other Greeks kinda hung back. So they were still facing terrific odds and were meeting their enemies head-on, not hiding behind a hill and throwing rocks at them.

You’re still attempting to overlook the fact that the whole point of meeting the Persians head-on was so the Spartans and other Hellenes could meet the Persians from a position of strength. For what it’s worth, the Persians would not be unjustified in mocking their foes as cowardly turtles hiding in their shells.

As for David, if there’s some evidence for him hiding behind a hill to throw rocks at Goliath instead of meeting him head-on, I’m unaware of it. If you can demonstrate that there is, I’ll accept it. If you can’t, I would enjoin you to cease being so pointlessly contemptuous.

I’ve as yet to see the film. The last new film I saw was the Dark Knight, and as it was comically awful in spite of the hype, I’m hesitant to run out and rent 300 as well.

But, I’m pretty sure there was a prophecy about the Spartan King falling in battle.

Perhaps, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that this particular Spartan king’s main reason for participation in the battle was to consciously fulfill a prophecy.

They are for a lot of Westerners. And that’s the problem. Too many of them are inspired by Jesus and his followers going to their deaths like stunted sheep.

It’s all about who’s doing the teaching.

There’s nothing heroic in going down without a fight.

Many people seem to think so nowadays, but the old pagans were more than a little impressed by the stoicism of a St. Laurence or a St. Sebastien.

Common sense.

Common sense should rule against many things that have happened over the centuries and have been duly recorded in our histories, and yet, there they are, all the same.

So then you’re not one of us?

Again, you’re remarkably free in your eagerness to jump to unsupported conclusions.

If you don’t believe that Whites (peoples of indigenous European descent) are a biological reality, then you are opposed to us.

I laughed out loud at this, to be honest.

Going by that logic, the influence of Christianity, or any other philosophy, for that matter, is moot, and Whites would have reached the same state they exist in today whether they had been converted or not. Nothing anyone says or thinks matters in the slightest. Even this conversation we’re having now is entirely the product of our genetic make-ups. All is biological determinism! smile

48

Posted by Captainchaos on March 24, 2009, 05:00 PM | #

Templar, do you believe that Catholicism, as you understand it, is in any way opposed to racial preservation?  E.g., Is opposition to miscegenation uncatholic?

49

Posted by Templar on March 24, 2009, 05:06 PM | #

I would think it would be fairly obvious that Catholicism, as I understand it, is in no way opposed to racial preservation. smile

To be more straightforward regarding your question, however, I see no reason to believe there is anything in Catholic doctrine that is opposed to the idea of racial preservation.

50

Posted by SM on March 24, 2009, 05:17 PM | #

Eugenics (testing and sterilization) good. Meek shall inherit the earth religion bad.

What should the test criteria look for?

Debate that.

51

Posted by Dasein on March 24, 2009, 05:17 PM | #

The Natural Law tradition in Catholicism should be used to oppose race replacement.

52

Posted by Captainchaos on March 24, 2009, 05:37 PM | #

And Templar, what in your Catholic opinion is a just solution to the Jewish Question?  A response by you touting the efficacy of converting all Jews to Catholicism may come across as glib, mind you.

53

Posted by Captainchaos on March 24, 2009, 05:45 PM | #

“What should the test criteria look for?

Debate that.”

What if the decided upon criteria doesn’t fall your way?  Will you voluntarily hoist your balls onto the chopping block for the good of the race?  I don’t want to hear any screaming now.

54

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 24, 2009, 07:46 PM | #

The Inductivist writes:

“Are the religious more or less likely to marry outside their ethnic/racial group?” Church is a common way for marriage-minded people to meet, and it is certainly true that people of different races often belong to the same religion. On the other hand, churches are quite segregated. In my town for instance, Catholic Hispanics gravitate toward the same parishes while whites do the same.

The Houston Area Study asked 809 people about the race of themselves and their spouses, and asked how important religion was to the respondent.


Percent of who are married to someone outside their ethnic/racial group

Whites
Religion is not very important 10.0
Somewhat important 6.7
Very important 11.3

Hispanics
Religion is not very important 44.4
Somewhat important 14.6
Very important 13.7

(The black sample is not large enough). Church doesn’t matter for whites, but look at Hispanics—huge differences. It looks like religious involvement keeps Latinos from assimilating.

55

Posted by SM on March 25, 2009, 12:12 AM | #

“What if the decided upon criteria doesn’t fall your way?  Will you voluntarily hoist your balls onto the chopping block for the good of the race?  I don’t want to hear any screaming now.”

———
“Sterilization” not “chopping balls”.

Smart people self sterlize all the time. It’s called thinking it through. The dumb can’t think it through so they should be forced to make the right decision (the desicion to breed slowly and carefully).

If it turns out that the majority of whites are dumb than so be it (they are actually). If they are not sterilized, the “race” will die through the weight of their ill thinking majority muscle.

Pain and suffering will be the norm in a race of idiots. Even if it is not ‘thought’ about.

Liberalism is not bad (all that vegitarinism and sappy this and sappy that). It is simply wrong: it makes bad decisions rooted in bad beliefs (most of that the fault of congenital shortcomings and complex snowballing implications of that). (Note I personally still pine for the northern “heroic” past, ‘cause I’m a child ‘alpha male’—the past is where I thrived—but it doesn’t ‘work’ or it would have already.)

Remember, either way “genics” happens. It is just a question of which strains will thrive—and whether these strains will be called “Eu-” or Dys-”. (It gets even more complicated than that unfortunately; eg “heredity” etc. But the premise is super sound.)

This isn’t that complicated either.

56

Posted by the Narrator... on March 25, 2009, 02:33 AM | #

Going by that logic, the influence of Christianity, or any other philosophy, for that matter, is moot, and Whites would have reached the same state they exist in today whether they had been converted or not.

Posted by Templar on March 24, 2009, 08:24 PM |

That’s the very definition of White Nationalism. Jesus, I can’t believe I’ve spent all this time going back and forth with an anti I thought was a misguided one of us.

No wonder his arguments were all semantics, gibberish and double-talk.

....

57

Posted by Big Sinkair on March 25, 2009, 02:47 AM | #

What if the decided upon criteria doesn’t fall your way?  Will you voluntarily hoist your balls onto the chopping block for the good of the race?  I don’t want to hear any screaming now.

I think you’d find many people would be willing to consider it if it were sweetened with appropriate financial incentives.  A society which taught itself to honour the “eugenic sacrifices” of its citizenry would also witness an increase in eugenic co-operation.  I mentioned to Robert Lindsay once (unsurprisingly, he scoffed) that a bum who agreed (cajoled or not) to forgo passing on his own genes and artificially eugenically conceived (and raised—though we know this doesn’t matter as much) a child could fairly be regarded as moving from a “zero” to a “hero”—it’d likely earn him the contempt of his peers and social class if he blabbed or were found out (“you think your kids are better than mine???”) but if he could cope with that [what coping mechanisms could a eugenic society implement?] he’d lead a fulfilling life.  After all, such a momentous decision creates significant inertia, and individuals prefer (or simply find it easier) to defend inertia than to muster the energy required to overcome it. 

The idea that people could be enticed to raise other than their own might sound fantastical until we remember that African trophy adoptees are the flavor of the month. 

Furthermore, society today already regards its present members as inferior and replaceable (via immigration and intermixture), celebrates news that that replacement is proceeding smoothly, and yearns for the day when an entirely new breed of utopian men (a “cosmic race”) will emerge among whom the social problems of the past (ie of today) will be unknown.  The problem is the qualities being selected for will not result in the hoped for utopia.  However, altering the selection criteria so that they are in accordance with the findings of (real not bogus) social science (IQ, anti-diversity) will result in social improvements across the board. 

The “liberal zone” conurbations and megalopolises of an America partitioned along the lines I have suggested (ie partitioned realistically) could then serve as “incubators” of a kind for “diverse” (ie mixed) people wishing to “homogenize”—raise homogeneous children who could later, if they wished, move to homogeneous territory.  Again, fantastical and unlikely perhaps, but any more fantastical or unlikely than (Final Victory-style) Rahowa or Imperium, and if so, so much more that it doesn’t merit discussion?

58

Posted by the Narrator... on March 25, 2009, 02:51 AM | #

What if the decided upon criteria doesn’t fall your way? 

Posted by Captainchaos on March 24, 2009, 09:45 PM

I think most reasonable people would support a practical eugenics program. There are some people who, for obvious reasons, should not be allowed to propagate their genes; mentally handicapped, people with psychological disorders, people with physical disorders that could potentially be passed along to their offspring, career criminals, and there is a case to be made that some people are habitually poor. There are some people/family/clans (even among Whites) who remain in a state of near poverty generation after generation. That cycle needs to cease. And that can be done in a safe and humane way through a eugenics program.

Some people still wince at the mention of Eugenics, but it sure as hell beats work farms, prisons/dungeons, gangs, overcrowded welfare state, etc…

.

59

Posted by White Western Man on March 25, 2009, 03:01 AM | #

The state of organized Christianity is so pathetic in many parts of the UK that a lot of churches there have already or are in the process of being turned in to post offices, daycare centers, etc.

This is a good sign because it signals that the Jewish ethos and morality of Christianity, which is a branch religion of Judaism, is loosening its wicked tentacles on the White Western mind.

In the future I hope to turn many unused churches in to cultural centers of White/European/Western appreciation and education (featuring White art, literature, philosophy, sciences, etc), and also as places to widely educate Whites about the Jewish threat which faced and is still facing them.

And after the coming White revolution, once all of the Jews have exited White countries, their synagogues will promptly be turned in to banks/insurance offices, insane asylums, blood donation centers, and garbage dumps, among other extremely unsavory places.

60

Posted by Gorothcair the Elf on March 25, 2009, 07:21 AM | #

What is this non-sense that Odinism did not exist until the 19th century??

Yes Paganism did not exist as an Organized Religion as we understand the term but it certainly existed as Custom (in fact it was called ‘The Custom’ in Norway), Folklore, and Mythos.

There was no need for a building as entire Wooded Groves were consecrated to the Pagan Gods!  (who wants to spend all day in some jew synagogue-clone called a Church??  I don’t!)

There are ample examples of Ancient Germanic Pagan beliefs in Tacituses Germania (Heck Tacitus thought Wotan was Mercury if memory serves!  More proof that people knew of Wotan in Ancient/ Traditional Times)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_(book)

Also I am not liking these comments about getting Iranians to drop Islam.  They are naming the jew, building nuclear weapons, and their women-folk for the most part are still respectable and all this is happening under Islam.  Sometimes I wonder if maybe David Myatt was right all along that Islam may be the way to go but then I remember that I don’t want to follow some Alien Asiatic faith and turn myself into some sort of mongol or oriental so better to just stay with Paganism (go with Donar, he doesn’t demand human sacrifice like Wotan does…)

Also I would like to thank CvH for the good intro.  I am not going to lie dude alot of your writting does turn me off but hey that was a good intro!  (I am against mixing out European Ethnicities though.  I just like Italian Chix too much to want that to happen… oh and I just bought Alyssa Milanos new book today smile  That is not a coincidence.)

61

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 25, 2009, 07:42 AM | #

“And after the coming White revolution, once all of the Jews have exited White countries, their synagogues will promptly be turned in to banks/insurance offices, insane asylums, blood donation centers, and garbage dumps, among other extremely unsavory places.”  (—White Western Man)

The most symbolically appropriate of course would be the blood donation centers although the word “donation” might need to be changed to something like “extraction.”

62

Posted by the Narrator... on March 25, 2009, 08:38 AM | #

What is this non-sense that Odinism did not exist until the 19th century??

Posted by Gorothcair the Elf on March 25, 2009, 11:21 AM

Neo-Paganism is pretty much a modern concoction of the hippie generation. Most of what we know about the old Germanic Pagan religions comes from comments from people like Caesar or Tacitus. Most of it though came from Christian monks who wrote down many of the old sagas. The Edda most certainly reflects Christian influence, especially Voluspa which looks like it was taken right out of Revelation.

There was no need for a building as entire Wooded Groves were consecrated to the Pagan Gods! 

Posted by Gorothcair the Elf on March 25, 2009, 11:21 AM

I’m sure a lot of their ceremonial things and customs live on even today, unrecognized by their descendants who engage in them without knowing their origins. 

Sometimes I wonder if maybe David Myatt was right all along that Islam may be the way to go but then I remember that I don’t want to follow some Alien Asiatic faith and turn myself into some sort of mongol or oriental so better to just stay with Paganism (go with Donar, he doesn’t demand human sacrifice like Wotan does…)

Posted by Gorothcair the Elf on March 25, 2009, 11:21 AM

It’s my opinion that Christianity greatly reflects European sentiments and morality having been influenced by them. (The writers of the New Testament were immersed in an area and era dominated by Greek philosophy and Roman politics)

Islam is what Christianity probably would have looked like if it had been nurtured outside of European influence and remained wholly semitic.

I’d advocate for no gods, but I know a great many people need faith in their lives. I try to give my opinion on it and discuss it with out overtly offending people like Fred, Dainelj or Fr. John.
I know some of the opinions I express probably does offend them, but it’s not done inconsiderately or intentionally.

...

63

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 25, 2009, 09:17 AM | #

“I’d advocate for no gods, but I know a great many people need faith in their lives.  I try to give my opinion on it and discuss it with out overtly offending people like Fred, Dainelj or Fr. John.
I know some of the opinions I express probably does offend them, but it’s not done inconsiderately or intentionally.”
  (—The Narrator)

For my part, no offense taken, comrade, ever.

64

Posted by gorboduc on March 25, 2009, 09:22 AM | #

Yes, Gorothcair,
Odin or Wotan had parts in the mythologies of various European peoples many hundreds of years ago.
I don’t say that he and his like weren’t honoured or even worshipped - or at least placated - by some of those folk, and I certainly enjoy reading of their exploits. And of course these mythologies are ancient. Who disputes that? I’m talking about belief systems.
Supporters of the view that Odinism is an authentic tradition need to demonstrate a clear line of descent. There’s a kind of gap between, say 1000 and 1850. This gap is filled by fake-folklore the Romantic imagination.
If three men had met together in the year 960 to discuss their religious beliefs, we know that one of them could have said “I am a Christian” and another could have said “I am a Jew” but the third could NOT have said “I am an Odinist”. The word wasn’t available. It’s a modern coinage, like “Nordic”.
A few years ago I watched a Blot: the whole thing was full of misappropriated Christian symbolism and included a cod communion: but it also involved listening reverently to some chunks of recorded music. THAT bit must have come from a New Age meditation session, or even an old-fashioned BBC broadcast for schools.
  The choice of music (Vaughan Williams and Delius, I think) wasn’t surprising, given that the whole thing was a late-Romantic nostalgic invention. The celebrant and some of the hierophants were dressed up in pseudo-medical clothing, white coats and high collars. I trhought they were vets. Their garb was explained as symbolising their greater sense of hygiene, and their initiatory apartness.
“Procul este, profani” or “Hekas esti, bebeloi!”
  I suppose that I shouldn’t have been surprised at the ceremony’s content: an Odinist prayer book (originating, in all places, in Australia in I think the 1930’s) that I was privileged to inspect a few years ago (before its owner snatched it back with all the air of an angry Freemason retrieving his little secret book from the eyes of a cowan,) appeared to have been composed with the dear old C of E’s Book of Common Prayer close at hand. You’ll be telling us next that the quaint old (c.1930 again!! rituals of the Woodcraft Folk are ddirectly transcribed from pre-Christian Siberian, Etruscan or Red Indian shamanistic texts.
You need to do just a little basic research on the history of the relation between Judaism and Christianity. Please don’t just repeat mere slogans.
Read a bit!

65

Posted by Captainchaos on March 25, 2009, 02:54 PM | #

S&M;: ““Sterilization” not “chopping balls”.”

Would it have been more to your liking if I had qualified my characterization with a ‘so to speak’?  Come now, oh ruthless consequentialist, it is, as is said, ‘all the same in the end’.  Are you telling me you wouldn’t be willing to countenance “chopping balls” if that is ‘what it took’?

“Smart people self sterlize all the time. It’s called thinking it through.”

Nay, it is intelligent Whites ending their gene line because of what can only be considered their self-absorption, to the overall detriment of our race.  There is your dysgenics.

“If it turns out that the majority of whites are dumb than so be it (they are actually).”

A group average IQ of 100 seems to be on the high end, relatively speaking of course.  But intelligence is not all that matters to us (I don’t know about you), we here are not ‘cognitive elitists’, we do not seek the replacement of the left side of the bell curve of our people with intelligent racial aliens.  We value our people because they are our own, and because they are decent, or at least I do. 

“The dumb can’t think it through so they should be forced to make the right decision (the desicion to breed slowly and carefully).”

By mutilating, I’m sorry, I mean “sterilizing” them.

“If they are not sterilized, the “race” will die through the weight of their ill thinking majority muscle.”

It’s a wonder we made it this far, without Dr. Mengele on the job.

“Pain and suffering will be the norm in a race of idiots. Even if it is not ‘thought’ about.”

If it is not “thought” about won’t that serve as anesthesia? 

“Liberalism is not bad (all that vegitarinism and sappy this and sappy that).”

Clever, clever.

“It is simply wrong:”

You mean that it will not ultimately deliver what it promises, in fact, in CONSEQUENCE? 

“...it makes bad decisions rooted in bad beliefs (most of that the fault of congenital shortcomings and complex snowballing implications of that).”

You just said liberalism is not “bad,” yet you characterize what is intrinsic to it as “bad.”  I know, I know, consequentialism, my bad.  Yet, what liberalism has wrought hitherto cannot be all “bad,” in consequence, unless the lion’s share of our fellow Whites are masochists.  So, unless you are willing to affirm that some of the present state of our race is ‘good’, and I submit that our eschewing the barbarism of involuntarily mutilating our fellows is part of what is good in us, then you want not the betterment or amplification for the better of our people, but only to give vent to your malign will to power.

“(Note I personally still pine for the northern “heroic” past, ‘cause I’m a child ‘alpha male’—the past is where I thrived—but it doesn’t ‘work’ or it would have already.)”

I’ll not cast aside my honor to follow you down your dark road of refined sadism under the guise of allegedly inexorable logic. 

“Remember, either way “genics” happens. It is just a question of which strains will thrive—and whether these strains will be called “Eu-” or Dys-”. (It gets even more complicated than that unfortunately; eg “heredity” etc. But the premise is super sound.)”

Our not-so-brights are not even breeding at replacement level, what we need is to get the oh-so-brights to breed at replacement level by providing incentives.

“This isn’t that complicated either.”

Find another target for your condescension, dipshit.

66

Posted by SM on March 25, 2009, 04:54 PM | #

Captainchaos

I have no energy for deconstructing the motor pool of the world.

Suffice to say…

In any movement there are those who read the maps and those who lug the water.

...Cap’n there’s a well over there; take frJohn and templar et al. And Hop to!

——-
Oh and sinkair

‘Bums’ shouldn’t be raising other people’s “high born” children, whether it helps ‘civic-ize’ the bum or not.

`Talk about co-opting/hijacking an agenda at the ground floor.

(By the way, regarding testing and eugenics, ToWhomItMayC, females are the ‘carriers’ of most social disease; the sons who are patho/ violent, bums, the weird etc are the expression of that disease. ‘Female sexual value’—or more properly the instinct it has unwittingly bred for in ever competing males—causes many/most to not see that.)

67

Posted by danielj on March 25, 2009, 05:36 PM | #

I’d advocate for no gods, but I know a great many people need faith in their lives. I try to give my opinion on it and discuss it with out overtly offending people like Fred, Dainelj or Fr. John.
I know some of the opinions I express probably does offend them, but it’s not done inconsiderately or intentionally.

I only believe it cause I find the philosophical arguments convincing. I wish that I was instead convinced of the truth of materialism since it would absolve me of the responsibility to God.

The discussion of ideas doesn’t offend me. Ideas don’t offend me. It is tone. Even if Al would good naturedly suggest the execution of everyone with the faith gene I wouldn’t find his posts reprehensible but good natured is not what I get from most.

I’m not offended, it is a nice discussion with you.

68

Posted by Captainchaos on March 25, 2009, 05:37 PM | #

SM: “I have no energy for deconstructing the motor pool of the world.”

I thought that was your forte.

“In any movement there are those who read the maps and those who lug the water.”

Ya-huh.

“...Cap’n there’s a well over there; take frJohn and templar et al. And Hop to!”

If you hadn’t noticed, I was the one who attempted to nail down Templar on points of importance, instead of wasting time arguing with him about trivia.  He has yet to reply to my Jewish Question question.  I wonder why?

“(By the way, regarding testing and eugenics, ToWhomItMayC, females are the ‘carriers’ of most social disease; the sons who are patho/ violent, bums, the weird etc are the expression of that disease. ‘Female sexual value’—or more properly the instinct it has unwittingly bred for in ever competing males—causes many/most to not see that.)”

Do you mean: fucked up women -> men being led by their dicks -> more fucked up women…

Instead of: men who lead their dicks -> lead their women -> child-birthing, child nurturing role oriented women -> men who lead their dicks?

Sorry to put it so crudely.

69

Posted by Captainchaos on March 25, 2009, 07:38 PM | #

Hey GW, let’s take a tally.  We’ve got Norman Lowell pronouncing Hasselhoffmeister as a Nietzschean “Superman”!  We’ve have Silver suggesting that sterilized winos should raise surplus eugenically engineered children!  We’ve got Mr. Microcommunities counseling against giving winos eugenically engineered children, but still recommending we sterilize the winos!  We’ve had a crytp-Jew who thinks the best way to save the White race is to a) exterminate all non-White, b) miscegenate with Negroes, Jews and Asians, and c) blast of and go live on the fucking moon! 

As Charlton Heston once said, “It’s a [fucking] madhouse!  Madhouse!”

LOL!

WTF?!

Maybe we do need a Fuhrer, or a Czar, if the former is too loaded a title for genteel tastes, of the White race to knock some fucking sense into this situation.  Do you want the job, GW?  If not, I recommend Wintermute.

70

Posted by Gorothcair the Elf on March 25, 2009, 07:44 PM | #

Supporters of the view that Odinism is an authentic tradition need to demonstrate a clear line of descent.

Aye that is the rub!

Alot of this stuff is certainly reconstructionism however I certainly believe that in some of the more rural areas of the Far North that some individuals managed to ‘hide out’ and keep their beliefs intact ‘underground’ and some were even more brazen and just put their Runes on the sides of old stavekirches and hoped none of the bishops noticed!

There are still people to this day who claim to have had encounters with Wotan when out on hunting trips and such so I know I believe he is out there.

Also you are talking about Ritual, and certainly Authentic Rituals are pretty much gone, but I am more into just Knowing the Lore and am not really Ritualistic ‘in nature’. 

You need to do just a little basic research on the history of the relation between Judaism and Christianity. Please don’t just repeat mere slogans.
Read a bit!

Sometimes a good slogan can encapsulate the Truth though!

“Christian Theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism” —Oswalt Spengler

Would you like to make some suggestions as to reading material????

When it comes to judeo-christianity here is a short list of some of my standbys:

The Christian Question - a review by Sam Francis
Christianity Turns Brown - Amren
Monotheism vs. Polytheism by Alain de Benoist
The problem with explicit processing: Christian evangelicals - By KMac

Now when it comes to the relation of judaism and christianity that is something that just doesn’t really interest me.  It is clear to me that judeo-christianity is just ‘judaism for the gentiles’ and I really don’t feel a need to study it frankly, however if you have a link or book to read please post it (maybe Seperation and its Discontents by KMac, I know he talks a little about the Inquisition in there.)

71

Posted by Captainchaos on March 25, 2009, 08:33 PM | #

SM,

I’ve been continuing my dialogue with many of the faileocon commenters from Takimag at another blog.  “Weaver,” the webmaster of said blog, and apparently some kind of respected elder in the faileocon ranks, agrees that we should encourage healthy breeding patterns to stave off dysgenics for the White race.  He’s a “Christer.”  He even gives some mild lecturing to “RonL” (a faileocon Jew hanger-on, who only seems to pop up when I criticize Jews) on the obnoxious behavior of Ronny Boy’s co-ethnics.  I’m telling you, I’ve told you before, your war on Christardianty is not productive; it is more a reflection of your own prejudices and private grievances than it is ‘strategic’.  And for fuck’s sake, stop exhorting the sterilization of other Whites, have you lost your mind?!

I know I’m not the one who needs to be manning the bilge pump.

72

Posted by a Finn on March 25, 2009, 09:35 PM | #

CaptainChaos: “It’s a [fucking] madhouse!  Madhouse!”

- I agree. Lack of normal and sensible moderation in comments and lack of selection in articles does that. GW seems to want that things are this way. It makes one wonder and contemplate.

GW, your problem is this: If you were government agent working for MI5 or Yard, you would/could produce a site exactly like this.

* Draws intelligent people, but who soon see that this a dead end. They turn to other hobbies.

* Entices more intelligent violent people to expose themselves.

* Makes the efforts of participants to go to waste.

* Prevents sensible development of reasonable, non-violent and non-agressive policies.

GW, you are a nice chap and gentleman according to the best British traditions, and you have produced many good things, but you need to change a little bit.

73

Posted by Captainchaos on March 25, 2009, 11:24 PM | #

Finn, you are as trenchant as you are gentlemanly.  You are a White Man, in the way that only a White Man can take it upon himself to gaze onto a hostile, uncaring universe and not have it mirrored in his own soul.  To vow, on his honor, that being a White Man is more important to him than just passing along the fucking genes.  To know, that if he fails in this, if his example falters, there will be no more White Men, and no more White people to love that makes his burden born daily worth it.  It is more than I can say for some others; feet of clay, it breaks the heart. 

Someone has a lot of fucking nerve lecturing the denizens of another, some say notorious, website on the excesses of their alleged “sociopathy”.  And then this from him: the forced sterilization of the weak, the helpless, those of our people, loved by our people, taken by force from their arms to be mutilated.  Just as Nazi doctors did beyond dispute.  Just as the good German people, my blood, protested that they stop.  Don’t you know?  If I were to be within arms length of one of those bastards it would take every ounce of restraint I possess to impede my quivering fibers from grasping for anything that would allow me to reduce their face to pulp.

Are we to be monsters?  If so, is saving our people worth it at all?

It is that kind of outrage that allows GW to countenance the burning of German women and children, consumed like so many wax candles - German women and children, the most precious blossoms of our race! - and say, “Yes, it must be.”

GW is a good man.  He trusts us to get it right, to do right, and if we can’t we don’t deserve the fruits of victory.  That’s why I will stick around through even this, most gut churning, utterly sicken display from a man who should, could be more than that.  My loyalty IS my honor.  Isn’t that your motto, Mr. Sterilization? 

Put that in your fucking pipe and smoke it.

74

Posted by Captainchaos on March 26, 2009, 12:00 AM | #

Silver, you keep at Fred and “Rienzi” because you know can get a rise out of them.  That should tell you they are not “the bad guys” in our movement.  You’re kept around because you provide balance, in addition to being a clever greaseball.  Play the part you’re good at, stay the fuck away from all the eugenics, ends justifies the means, horseshit.  Learn to pick your targets more carefully.  It’s not hard to know when what the man says doesn’t reflect what he is inside, and when it does. 

That’s my two cents, fuck it.

75

Posted by a Finn on March 26, 2009, 01:40 AM | #

Thank you, CaptainChaos. I just do everything in my small power to prevent the violent, aggressive events in the future.

“... to gaze onto a hostile, uncaring universe and not have it mirrored in his own soul.”

- You said it better than I could.

I cautiously say though, that if Europeans backs are put against the wall by violence of other people, I support self defence. Physical survival and the existence of Europeans must come first. They are and will always be my first priorities. High ideals and ideologies are in the final analysis words in certain order and Europeans are so much more important to me than any word order, that it is impossible to me to sacrifice Europeans for them.

But let’s do everything in our power for peaceful solutions.

76

Posted by SM on March 26, 2009, 02:15 AM | #

I can’t tell whether the recent posting flurry is to me (um SM) and my “eugenics” proto-germ manifesto. The flurry is badly constructed (though I’m terse too so I can’t really say much). If it is, you’re not characterizing eugenics any where near correct. You’ve built a straw man wherein the word ‘eugenics’ means German late war (WWII) slaughter—allied induced or scorcherd earth Goeterdaammerung.

AGAIN…

“If they [the dumb whites ascending in recent centuries] are not sterilized, the “race” will die through the weight of their ill thinking majority muscle [anyway].”

(((((
BTW The Third Reich said nothing like that. The war they fought and the crusade the anglo american propaganda machine was fighting were two different wars. In this war fought on two separate `dimensions the term ‘eugenics’ came to mean, and was used as headlines reading “[huns kill women and children as they purge Europe of undesireables]”; implication being “johnny, you dumb hick, go get yer gun and fight ‘the good fight’, ie for us [jew] liberals”).
)))))

And…

“Remember, either way “genics” happens. It is just a question of which strains will thrive—and whether these strains will be called “Eu-” or Dys-”. [Eu and dys are relative constructs of the observer making the claim.]

(It gets even more complicated than that unfortunately; eg “heredity” etc. [Meaning… er um, too fricking complicated for an aside, but… dog breeds do form through selecting of characters from the litter BUT it isn’t always a `straight line, given the ‘profundities’ of ‘he’s got grandma’s nose and great grandpa’s ears’; few of those ‘profundundities’—from the 19th and 20th century explosion of epiphannies—have trickled down and been imbibed properly because of the political problems—problems in part created by the above propaganda crusade to rally dopey johnny and his holy babble].)

But the premise [of selective breeding always happending whether we “take the bull by the horns” or not]is super sound. [`T’is.])”

[And this ‘taking the bull by the horns’ is not synonymous with ‘invading Slavia and engaging in “Draconian anti sabateur policy”[as we retreat in dire straights]’; nor is it synonymous with inviting sanctimonius, hypocritical carpet bombing. Thats a straw man in your head; it was put there by your enemies, you daft… {grrr: grits teeth and lets it go.}]

——————
The reason I’m down on christianity…

Isn’t just that it is a curious alien meme vectored in by a clade which is still demonstrating it’s um curious tendencies. (Hell we’re probably interbred with them by now anyway; t’is radial-diffusion’s way)

It is simply THAT IT FAILED.

One does not pass the ball to someone who has a history of fumbling.

...We huddle up. It is towards the end of th game. We took a few massive hits earlier on.

The ball is put up at waist level in front us. A finger draws on it…

“You do a down across. You do a post—and gas it good. You do a down and out. And I’ll fake a handoff to you—take these blockers and make it look real. You two others block over here and buy time for that post to get open—if not a I dump the down and out.”

Then ole jebus loving butterfingers Magoo goes “duh!, throw it to me again. duh!”

Um no. Be grateful we need guys or you’d be benched. Stand on the line and try to look busy. ...And for christ’s sake take that propellor beeny off.

Same for the capitalists.

...Their star pitcher is “cockeyed Pete”.

He’s got the best palm-ball change-up in the league.

Too bad it’s his only pitch…

=============
As for not seeing the soundness of cause and effect “materialism”...

You don’t think the universe is generally as big as ‘we’ think it is? Same with the time scale?

You don’t think weather is cause and effect on the scale of hot and cold creating currents? Same for earth quakes and volcanoes. You dont think mudslides and floods etc are “domino-effect” movements?

You can’t put together for yourself how the movements of people, creatures and things—all of which are chemical composites—are the continuations of movements from previous days and then previous days before that?

Now if the Uni is that big and old, any self aware creator entity which can grapple with all of its movements over that span must be magnifico in the extreme. Does it make sense that “red in tooth and claw” would be the cosmos-wide motor of a loving fatherly protector being?

Now you say “satan did that red in tooth and claw jazz”.

Okay: Is “God” too weak to stop `him? And didn’t the great savant—-who according to you particular myth (which only recently comes from a previous one called zeus and prometheus) created satan—see that his throne baring class was prone to pilfering?

As far as Natural Selection (which is cause and effect on the bio-chemical [carbo nitro atom] scale)—“Darwinism”...

You don’t think dog breeds come from wolves through selectively picking certain traits over others? Same for horse breeds and grass/wheat/rye/barley. You don’t think that that process of “only some traits getting to breed” applies to other organisms over more generations, as selected by the cause and effect domino effect movements of their surrounding locales/environments?

You don’t think human babies are chemical variants? You think all babies go on to do equally well at passing on their genes/ideas? (Ideas/memes are a symptom of the chemical composites we call genes.)

=================
If GuesWorkr’s “intelligent debate blog” needs to ‘censor’ anyone, I dare say it needs to be you all. And stop with the seeing spooks everywhere. Sinkair yes. (LOL) (And even he isn’t on the payroll—he’s a hobbiest liberal.) Everytime someone trumps your silliness it isn’t a mason et al conspiracy.

(Though note helicopters and “photogs in the buildings next store” etc do monitor “extremists”/renegades occasionally. Sad but true. Most of you are not relevent/clever enough to warrant that. ...The more stress you put on the “infrastructure” the less able they will be to do that: they will throw up their hands and just stand there a’la manhattan cops—there is too much happeneing at once for them. You put stress on the machine by changing your tone and tactics.

=================
As far as central authority:

I call it “good czar, bad czar, no czar”.

‘Good czar’ is best, all agree. But ‘bad czar’ is so bad that we accept the dangerous ‘no czar’ system simply to prevent bad czar.

I’m not sure that is sound. That assertion was created by envious underlings looking to say anything against authority for whatever their reasons past.

Mind, I am not applying for the job of chief. Though I was born one, I have long since turned into a less healthy Shaman type. As such, I walk alone ...“twinkaling bells” (just me and the voices in me head).

=========
If you all say that “christendom and capitalism and freedom to become atomized woodsmen is the only possible way we can go lose or win”.

Well yay for your convictions. But the entity called the white male as he has been known is doomed. Guarantee. Hopefully they’ll be some remnant left when it’s time to head to space… and the orientals will be gracious to surviving ruddy genius vagabond `round eyes.

The “English Gentleman” meme has to be one of the most short lived memes ever; indeed it can only form at all in shooting-star economies. Either it goes down with its ship or it will be shaled off in favor of another one that rights the ship.

(I want to amend the atomized woodsman thing… I do believe that someday in the Undiscovered Continent that is space that that noble woodsman thing can be attempted again (Man will need self sustainment techno on lifespan-habital vehicles). It might just work—for the sliver few (as Gods they’ll be)—since next time there’ll be no Pacific Ocean to stop the dream…)

77

Posted by Wandrin on March 26, 2009, 03:59 AM | #

While each nation has the right to retain its cultural and ethnic autonomy, chauvinist nationalisms must be crushed.

Disagree with this completely. Any attempt to build a singular European “Imperium” will automatically lead to nationalist resistance at a time when that sort of conflict is the last thing we need. European nationalists should strive for their own solutions in their own lands while at the same time cooperating in a loose alliance for mutual aid and support.

78

Posted by a Finn on March 26, 2009, 04:14 AM | #

I wrote: “I cautiously say though, ...”——> Cautiously = politely. It can be used in Finnish to express that. I am not sure if it has that meaning in English.

79

Posted by Wandrin on March 26, 2009, 05:06 AM | #

I wrote: “I cautiously say though, ...”——> Cautiously = politely. It can be used in Finnish to express that. I am not sure if it has that meaning in English.

It’s not usually used in that way but it works quite well in my opinion.

80

Posted by Captainchaos on March 26, 2009, 07:59 AM | #

SM, what you are saying is that the (genetic) state of our race is not static, that by utilizing objective measurement we can verify this flux.  And that we ought to at least keep the flux from drifting “dysgenically”.  No shit. 

It is just that I eschew your barbarism.

Your posts come across as the ramblings of a psychotic, or a troll.  Whatever edifying effect you hope to achieve, if any, you certainly don’t.  Let’s destroy Christianity, let’s sterilize some winos, it is the tough truths that we need to here that only you can tell us, SM.  LOL!  You certainly know just what to say to appeal to John and Jane Lemming.

Stupid bastard.

81

Posted by gorboduc on March 26, 2009, 10:10 AM | #

Gorothcair at 11.44: You mean Wotan’s recently been appearing to people in the fields and forests, just as Jehovah appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai? And you believe ‘em? Gosh!

Gosh! So who though of it first?!

THE LORE - where does it come from?

Of course, a few nutters in the Ranaissance posed as actual worshippers of Apollo and Venus and the restRoman and Greek classical pantheon: some folk even claimed the gods survived the birth of Christ, but had had to downsize a bit and take menial jobsthere’s an essay on this by Walter Pater on this,a ballet, “The Gods go a-begging” to music by Handel,  a novel “The Cabala” by Thornton Wilder, and a funny short story by Lord Dunsany “The Exiles’ Club”. Remember that the passengers and crew of a Roman galley were reported by Pliny to have heard a voice calling over the sea at about the time of the birth of Christ “Pan, the great Pan , is dead!”

And re the fear about whether Myatt had the answers: don’t worry about that, because if you became a Moslem you’d have to believe in a prophetic camel and all sorts of oddities.
You’d also have to look up the perfectly historical business of the Satanic Verses - and this is nothing to do with Rushdie - and being a bright bloke you’d have to conclude that either Allah contradicted himself - which is unthinkable - or that the Koran is a hoax. Equally unthinkable.

Mary Whitehouse (!) wrote a book years ago which contains an interview with Myatt -

Q. Why did you sacrifice a cat?

A. Because I couldn’t get a baby.

The bloke is a total loony, but his conversion, if it’s genuine, doesn’t surprise me, seeing that a few folk from the old NF used to court Qaddaffi and the Ayatollah. And I won’t be surprised if it’s not a genuine spiritual rebirth, just a further projection of his old anti-semitism.

And of course if your mind is made up on the historical question about judaism and Christianity then that’s fine: you needn’t stop to examine their contents.

And its best that you do that first, otherwise you won’t really KNOW what you’re talking/reading about.

82

Posted by Templar on March 26, 2009, 10:25 AM | #

And Templar, what in your Catholic opinion is a just solution to the Jewish Question? A response by you touting the efficacy of converting all Jews to Catholicism may come across as glib, mind you.

Well, getting them to convert to Christianity would be ideal, I think, but obviously the ideal is rarely attainable as a practical matter.

Personally, I’d like to see them all moved to Israel, though I suppose that would likely create further problems with their neighbours considering the extent of the territory they currently control. At the very least I think all western nations have to impose some very strict controls on lobbying for Israel, and perhaps bring back quota systems to try and ensure that their Jewish populations do not exert power and influence disproportionate to their numbers, but I’m open to suggestions that don’t involve mass executions.

That’s the very definition of White Nationalism.

Funny, I thought that was biological determinism. White nationalism I would have thought would be more specifically concerned with the creation and/or preservation of White nations. smile

I can’t believe I’ve spent all this time going back and forth with an anti I thought was a misguided one of us.

And the fool grows ever more anxious to escape his interlocutor…

No wonder his arguments were all semantics, gibberish and double-talk.

Says the chap who insists that Christianity is a problem while simultaneously denying it has exerted any major influence on the development of White culture.

83

Posted by Templar on March 26, 2009, 10:27 AM | #

If you hadn’t noticed, I was the one who attempted to nail down Templar on points of importance, instead of wasting time arguing with him about trivia.  He has yet to reply to my Jewish Question question.  I wonder why?

I’ve been rather busy lately, I’m afraid.

Also, I would like to make it clear to all and sundry that I will be ignoring SM’s comments for the foreseeable future, as I don’t consider them to be worth the effort of addressing.

84

Posted by Captainchaos on March 26, 2009, 09:44 PM | #

SM: “‘Good czar’ is best, all agree. But ‘bad czar’ is so bad that we accept the dangerous ‘no czar’ system simply to prevent bad czar.

I’m not sure that is sound. That assertion was created by envious underlings looking to say anything against authority for whatever their reasons past.”

Uh, I guess Russian peasants were better off with Stalin than with no formal government.  I guess we are better off with the present race-replacement enforcing regimes than with no formal government. 

LOL!

Stupid fuck.

85

Posted by Neverwinter on March 26, 2009, 10:02 PM | #

And who here has read ‘Credo: A Book for the Very Few”?  The basics of the Imperium Europa vision were given there.  No doubt the upcoming “Imperium Europa” shall explain the whole Idea.

It is disheartening when a fellow racialist belittles or mocks Norman.  He has devoted his life to the freedom and prosperity of Malta and Europe.  His heart is true and his dedication is likewise.

Obtain and read the first book to understand the man.  He is no fool.

As for Constantin’s intro it can only be said that Norman obviously holds him in high esteem.  This does not mean that Norman believes or desires what Constantin believes or desires.  The coming book shall lay out Norman’s Vision in near totality.

I personally hail Norman as a hero.  He is a fighter and quite intelligent.  We need many more like him.  Hail Norman!

86

Posted by Captainchaos on March 26, 2009, 10:53 PM | #

I don’t doubt the personal virtues of Norman Lowell or his commitment to our race.  I do doubt the attainability of his Imperium vision.  Putin’s Russia almost certainly would never agree to be subsumed into such an entity.  Putin’s Russia would resent the attempt by such an entity to pull Slavic states away from its sphere of influence.  Putin’s way of doing things is not the Western European way, and it is certainly not Putin that will compromise his way of doing things.

Also, the genetic continuity of European’s unique peoples is better protected by dismantling the EU and reasserting individual nations, not retooling the EU on a grandiose scale.

87

Posted by Wandrin on March 27, 2009, 04:04 AM | #

It is disheartening when a fellow racialist belittles or mocks Norman.

I certainly wouldn’t want to mock or belittle anyone who is on the right side of the immigration debate even if I didn’t agree with them on any of the details. However I think the rebirth of nationalist political sentiment in Europe is partly a reaction to and unintended consequence of the creation of the EUSSR. I think it would be a tactical mistake for European nationalists to go against the grain of nationalist sentiment and be in favour of a giant Euro-state of whatever kind.

Obviously a place like Malta is in a tricky situation being very small and on the frontline of the invasion. They have to hope the bigger nations win their own battle against the enemy and then come help the smaller ones. If I was Maltese and writing books I’d probably aim more at linking Malta’s status as a rock of defence against previous islamic invasions and linking their religious and political history to that of the West to remind people outside Malta that it is part of (Christendom / The West / whatever you want to call it).

The simple fact is none of the European nations can win on their own in the long-term. If Britain or Denmark or whoever managed to save their own country but all the others lost then sometime in a century or two that saved nation would eventually be overrun by invaders. So if any of the European nations win their own battle then we’ll have to try and help all the others to win theirs as well. Apart from ethnic reasons it’s a simple matter of long-term self interest. And then if we get that far, however unlikely it may seem now, and the whole of Europe is retaken, then places like Malta won’t be forgotten.

88

Posted by SM on March 27, 2009, 05:31 AM | #

I guess we are better off with the present race-replacement enforcing regimes than with no formal government.

 

No such thing as “no formal government”.  Therein lies a root problem.

If attempted it simply creates a power vacumm which will be quickly filled (...most recently by demagouges who manipulated chrisendom’s feudal horde congenital stupidity and atavistic [downright fatal-flaw] tribal conformity).

I don’t know of any “tyrant” in history replacing his own country with another or “liberating” everybody’s females from the dirty dirty penis. That program is unique to the no `gubmint attempt.

You delusional, bully, self destructive conformist pea brain.

Reckon.

89

Posted by Captainchaos on March 27, 2009, 09:51 AM | #

“No such thing as “no formal government”.  Therein lies a root problem.”

Well now, of course people will come to mechanism of social control, based in hierarchy, that facilitate cooperation so they can live and pass on their genes.  It is the level of complexity of this, that one can reasonably refer to as being ‘vested in the State’.

“If attempted it simply creates a power vacumm which will be quickly filled (...most recently by demagouges who manipulated chrisendom’s feudal horde congenital stupidity and atavistic [downright fatal-flaw] tribal conformity).”

It is in large part our very pro-social conformity that allows us to construct a civilized, humane order - optimally for our own people.  Let that be the task.  The grain we have is sufficient to bake the bread we want.

“I don’t know of any “tyrant” in history replacing his own country with another or “liberating” everybody’s females from the dirty dirty penis.”

In case you hadn’t noticed I’m not a “Christer”.  When you die the lights go out [yup, it’s true].  Yet Christianity can be made to be adaptive, and we have no choice but to work with it, in the absence of our ability to extirpate it (the Bolsheviks tried, it didn’t work).  But then again there is always GW’s nebulous plan of breeding out the faith gene through eugenics, even though his revulsion to the excesses of Nazism probably surpasses my own; so how he manages to square that circle, you got me.  For you, scruples about means don’t come into the equation, just have the goon squad round the ‘em up and sterilize the motherfuckers, is what you would have done if push came to shove, am I wrong?

“That program is unique to the no `gubmint attempt.”

Trade in your shotgun, bud.  You’re spraying all over the place.

“You delusional, bully, self destructive conformist pea brain.”

LOL!

“Reckon.”

That’s good advice, try it sometime.

90

Posted by Gudmund on March 27, 2009, 11:32 AM | #

Attn:  CC

I think SM is “top” from Takimag comments - similar language, similar loathsomeness.

91

Posted by gorboduc on March 27, 2009, 12:31 PM | #

Hadn’t notice that GW suggested breeding out/removing the “faith gene”, whatever that is, apart from a symbol of his possessing a large dosage of the credulity gene,  apparently specially doctored to make ritual obeisance to Dawkins.
Is there a gene that ensures the ability to perceive truth? If so, how do we know? If “truth” can only be established by reference to some purely theoretical bit of biological teaching, that puts it on all fours with the materialist claim that there’s no objective reality, other than that produced by the movement of molecules and electric currents within the brain, which raises the question, how then do we (or perhaps just ‘I’ as this also raises the problem of solipsism) know that there IS a brain - or anything else?
And if there IS a faith gene, how do we know that the positions it encourages us to adopt aren’t the right ones?
A totally circular argument..
Presumably it’s the faith gene that enables us to accept what Norman says and all the White Supremacy stuff - but with that gene excised how should we regard him and his theories?
Perhaps the Obedience gene will then be emphasised. Hear and obey, untermenschen!

The faith gene - such nonsense!

If GW is a big cheese on this site, then can we all look forward to his/Huxleys Brave New World (of 100 flags. all waved by robots?)

I have expressed a few misgivings on the site about the new scientific racially aristocratic (thought- can you genetically manipulate or produce aristocratic behaviour, or isn’t it rather just the behaviour that aristocrats display?) - as I was saying, about the new scientific racially aristocratic UTOPIA which seems to be a desired goal, and if THIS is how the race is going to be saved, with a rag-bag of half-arsed SF theories, destroyed by the solvent of clear and rational philosophical thought - which romantic GW doesn’t believe in - about a century ago!

Like I said, reject God, get ignorant and lose coherence.
The proof is in the toshy drivel that MR has recently had the sheer bloody impudence to present as POETRY! The ARTS genes have certainly been burnt out here!
I’m off.

92

Posted by danielj on March 27, 2009, 12:47 PM | #

Don’t leave gorboduc without first telling whether or not you have your own corner of webspace!

We certainly seem to be ideologically compatible and there is a dearth of sensibility about the epistemological question here and it would be nice to have someone to chat with about it.

You can easily find my email.

93

Posted by Captainchaos on March 27, 2009, 04:19 PM | #

Gudmund, could be, I don’t know.  But I no longer believe SM to be who I insinuated that he was.  My heartfelt apology goes out to the man I thought I was dealing with.  Whoever SM is, he’s definitely a piece of shit.

Gordoduc, I suspect GW was speaking in anger from all the abuse he takes from liberal shitheads for promulgating the cause at the Guardian.  He speculates their irrational attachment to liberalism is a product of their faith gene.  If you want to make WN Christian friendly, and make Christianity WN friendly, then stick around and do just that.  It is a much needed service you would be providing.

94

Posted by Dasein on March 27, 2009, 04:53 PM | #

Gordoduc, I suspect GW was speaking in anger from all the abuse he takes from liberal shitheads for promulgating the cause at the Guardian.  He speculates their irrational attachment to liberalism is a product of their faith gene.  If you want to make WN Christian friendly, and make Christianity WN friendly, then stick around and do just that.  It is a much needed service you would be providing.

I’m also not sure what GW means by the faith gene.  I suspect he means the genetic background that predisposes some to religious faith.  Like any complex behaviour, it is going to involve a network of genetic factors and other variables (environment and maybe something supernatural, though I don’t see this as necessary).  Even though our genes have us on a leash, there’s still plenty of room for free will.  Information is separate from the medium used to carry it.  In understanding the genetic message, Christians may learn about God (http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/towards_a_god_that_can_save_us/).

Steve Pinker made the point that the faith on the part of liberal shitheads demonstrates the Law of Conservation of Moralization.  We’re the witches of yesteryear.

95

Posted by gorboduc on March 27, 2009, 06:26 PM | #

OK, sorry. Danielj, Captainchaos, Dasein.

But look, if you hold this opinion - there’s no God - is this a result of the “godless” gene, or the “faith” gene, telling you to have faith in Lenin or Dawkins?
If you then change your mind - as C.S.Lewis did when he converted in the space of one afternoon from atheism to theism, how is this explained by the working of the genes? Does one suddenly switch off/on, mutate, or die? Can the reception of arguments from other people start this genetic process? is it verbally triggered?
Is there a “change-of-mind” gene?
Cardinal Newman’s ‘Grammar of Assent” attempts to explain HOW beliefs are held.

Here’s a bit from the old Catholic Encyclopedia. It’s about Maria Alphonse Ratisbonne(1814-1884)

Though nominally a Jew, he was a radical infidel, a scoffer at religion, and, after the conversion of his brother Theodor, a rabid enemy of everything Catholic. On his intended tour to the Orient, he came to Rome, where on 20 January, 1842, he was miraculously converted to Catholicism in the Church of S. Andrea delle Fratte by an apparition of the Blessed Virgin. After his conversion he assisted his brother, Theodor, in founding the Sisterhood of Our Lady of Sion in 1843, was ordained priest in 1847, and entered the Society of Jesus.

If smart-arses want to claim this was a pretended conversion, that the man was an obvious Marrano and the whole transaction proves the Church is a jewish construct,  let’em produce the evidence.

It’s not hard to find lots of parallel narrations, beginning with the case of St Paul. (I don’t say the partial conversion of Prof. Anthony Flew is one such - better ask Bowden)

And I know there are plenty of cases where it works the other way round.

So how are these sea-changes accounted for by genetics?

96

Posted by danielj on March 27, 2009, 07:01 PM | #

Even though our genes have us on a leash, there’s still plenty of room for free will. 

I think GW would vehemently disagree with this but I would encourage him to proffer up his opinion on the matter again.

97

Posted by Captainchaos on March 27, 2009, 08:08 PM | #

“The God gene hypothesis proposes that human beings inherit a set of genes that predisposes them to believe in a higher power. The idea has been postulated by geneticist Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, who has written a book on the subject titled, The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes.

The God gene hypothesis is based on a combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies. The major arguments behind the theory are (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2.[1] (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels, and (5) this confers a selective advantage. However, a number of scientists and researchers are highly critical of this theory; Carl Zimmer, writing in Scientific American, questions why “Hamer rushed into print with this book before publishing his results in a credible scientific journal.”[2] In his book, Hamer backs away from the title and main hypotheses by saying “Just because spirituality is partly genetic doesn’t mean it is hardwired,”[3]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

98

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 27, 2009, 08:20 PM | #

I clicked on the video of CvH walking in a Moscow park (it comes up at the end of the video where he reads the poem):  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEHNzSosKnw .  The sound is very unclear but if you listen you can make out about half of what he says, including this:  “And now, today, many Germans recognize that Russia represents the future of white people.”  (Und jetzt, heutzutage, viele Deutschen [word here unclear] erkennen daß Rußland die Zukunft der weißen Völke darstellt.)  This of course is C’s odd Russophilia talking.  I disagree with it.

99

Posted by gorboduc on March 27, 2009, 08:38 PM | #

I’ve got no problems with the theory of the God gene as outlined above, any more than I have with eating, drinking, music, or seeing-what’s-there genes.
I thought that GW might have been suggesting that the God gene was a bad mutation, and needed in his view to be corrected or eradicated, so that we’d all be “cured” and standardised to his specifications.
Certainly if I were God I’d fix people so that they had a tendency- modifiable one way or the other by education and free-will - to believe in me.

Please, won’t you read C.S.Lewis “The Abolition of Man”?

100

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 27, 2009, 09:13 PM | #

Gorbo, the problem with Christianity as I see it is although race-replacement isn’t called for in it, it’s too easy to suppose the opposite, with the result that lots of white Christians nowadays are running around imagining they as Christians are called upon to change into Negroes. 

If it’s so hard for unconfused Christians to get the truth across (namely that Christianity doesn’t mandate race-replacement of whites with Negroes, Arabs, Mexicans, Chinamen, or what-have-you), Christianity may have to go the way of the Roman numerals which went out of use because although you could do things like multiply and divide with them, in order to do so you practically had to be a mathematical genius.  The Arabic numerals were so much easier to use.

The Roman numerals weren’t wrong.  They gave the right answer when you calculated with them.  It’s just that they were too hard to calculate with. 

Likewise, Christianity isn’t wrong:  it gives the right answer when you consult it — for example, it does not mandate race-replacement. 

But it’s so hard to get Christians to realize that truth, that Christianity, like Roman numerals, may have to be jettisioned in favor of a religion that’s much easier to use and at the same time get right.

A religion whose truths are too hard for the ordinary man to grasp and live by (one such truth being “race-replacement is NOT required by this religion” for example) is an unsatisfactory relgion:  such a religion cannot in the end do anyone any good.

101

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 27, 2009, 09:17 PM | #

jettisoned

102

Posted by VMAT2 aka The Faith Gene on March 27, 2009, 09:37 PM | #

Spare me, GW.  I promise I’ll stop making bad memes stick in the minds of the lemmings.  I’ll start being adaptive again.  It’s the right thing to do, if for no other reason than to stick it to the “Krauts”.  Spare me!

LOL!

103

Posted by Templar on March 27, 2009, 09:51 PM | #

But it’s so hard to get Christians to realize that truth, that Christianity, like Roman numerals, may have to be jettisioned in favor of a religion that’s much easier to use and at the same time get right.

I’m not convinced, personally, though I appreciate the sobriety of your argument. I think the problem is mainly in how Christianity is taught nowadays, a problem which could be fixed, obviously, but then again, the question of how much Christianity affects the Western zeitgeist, and how much the Western zeitgeist affects Christianity, is an interesting one to consider. Were the Crusades, for example, more an expression of the spirit of the age or of the spirit of the Church, and what would the answer say about our present crisis?

104

Posted by SM on March 27, 2009, 10:13 PM | #

Question:

Why did all these ... um fine citizens remain here —since this site has been promulgating, occass, pretty grand clade vs clade evolutionary paradigm since at least 2005? (I searched and there have been “darwinistic” based political arguments going pretty far back.)

What I mean is since there is a skim here that gets the big picture[tm] why have the creationist et al not already rebelled and left in disgust?

Now I don’t care that they don’t like me (bring it on: there is not enough fatal dueling anymore!), but why has my particular “pro Darwinism and eugenics politik” uniquely ruffled their feathers into a flurry of circled wagon clucking?...

———————————————-
We don’t need all the humans on the planet.

...“Every sperm is not precious. Every sperm is not good.”

(Maybe it’s statements like that that invoke their fire. lol)

——
Also…

The kinds of thing I have said are simple to get:

...The mass of common white folk christians—GETTING IT WRONG, especially when it comes to, quote, “Darwinism”—for the last few centuries is why we have the problems we have.

At what point does one change his failed tactics. At what point do others state he is daft for not doing so?...

=================
There is no ‘gene’ for things per se. “Gene” is a glib way of stating a premise.

There ARE differences in the tissues and etc bio chemistry between individuals; there are differences in perception, problem solving and prediction ability between individuals; the biochemistries are the roots of different perception, problem solving and prediction ability.

Genes turn food(“energy”) into those tissues and biochemistries. (Enviromental effects acting like sideswipes/“blind-sidings” on the food converting processes just further complexify the premise).

_________________________
====================
For some reason I am very tired at this site. I have been doing this hate speech polemics thing for decades and I’m just plain tuckered out. Pity.

Must be government rays pointed at my house.

Damn those Masons!

105

Posted by SM on March 27, 2009, 10:34 PM | #

I’m not convinced, personally, though I appreciate the sobriety of your argument. I think the problem is mainly in how Christianity is taught nowadays, a problem which could be fixed, obviously, but then again, the question of how much Christianity affects the Western zeitgeist, and how much the Western zeitgeist affects Christianity, is an interesting one to consider. Were the Crusades, for example, more an expression of the spirit of the age or of the spirit of the Church, and what would the answer say about our present crisis?

The crusades are definitely the spirit of the war like age.

Christianity does not cause war! (“Guns don’t kill people people kill people”, just like grass hopper kills grass hopper and germ kills germ—cause make believe god likes it that way.) Christianity is NOT what liberals denounce it as.

Liberals are infantiles who vent their bench warmer frustrations against the host society of reproductively able adult Males. All they say is simply a ‘chaos grenade’ not meant to make sense.

But the Northern European warrior—still wet behind the ears when it comes to the complexity and the dishonesty of city living—was used as mercenary cannon fodder by southern manipulators to fight THEIR southern wars for them. That is obviuos. (There is no god so therefore god could not have motivated any of it).

In Other word it is the continuation of degenerate dysgenic infantile rome using barabrians generals to flesh out their legions. By the crusade time period the vocabulary has changed for the reason word drift naturally happens.

———-
As far as the “modern problems” and “christianity” (christianity = southern city diaspora)...

Northerners are still gullible and now dysgenically bred too.

But we’re getting more saavy and Machiavelian all the time…

Hell by the time Britain falls, the survivors will be as tough and shrewd as the guineas et al (jews)...

106

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 27, 2009, 10:39 PM | #

“the question of how much Christianity affects the Western zeitgeist, and how much the Western zeitgeist affects Christianity,”  (—Templar)

I thought the Zeitgeist wasn’t supposed to affect Christianity.  Not in its fundamentals, at any rate.  The Zeitgeist demands partial birth abortions.  Does that make the Vatican start demanding them too?  No.  So why does the Zeitgeist’s demanding forced race-replacement make the Vatican start demand that?  Doesn’t the Vatican go by principles, and can’t it see that Christianity doesn’t require of all the white Christians on Earth that they turn themselves into Negroes or that they submit while government so turns them?  You’re Catholic, Templar?  What’s wrong with the Vatican then?

107

Posted by John on March 27, 2009, 10:57 PM | #

Christianity, with it’s overemphasis on afterlife and underemphasis of “worldly” matters, might have been an adequate religion when the world didn’t change much from decade to decade, a nation was a nation and the kind of world your grandson would inherit was not much different from the of your grandfather live in. Christians seem too willing to accept the destructive changes that have occurred in the last 150 years as “part of God’s plan” in part because it seems to match the prophecies in their last book.

As far ahead as TPTB can be unequivocally established to plan, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if it came to light that the Apocalypse was written as a predictive planning blueprint. If it was, it’s sure working on the “sheep” quite nicely.

108

Posted by Captainchaos on March 27, 2009, 11:08 PM | #

SM (Shit Monger): “As far as the “modern problems” and “christianity” (christianity = southern city diaspora)…

Northerners are still gullible and now dysgenically bred too.”

Do you write fortune cookie messages for a living?  LOL!  Knock the lead out, champ.

109

Posted by Templar on March 27, 2009, 11:11 PM | #

I thought the Zeitgeist wasn’t supposed to affect Christianity.

It shouldn’t, but that’s not to say it can’t. Christian men are still human, after all, and fully capable of being swayed by prevailing opinion, which is why the issue of how much the Church’s current attitudes towards things like war and interrogatory torture have been effected by secular trends, or vice-versa, is of interest to me.

Doesn’t the Vatican go by principles, and can’t it see that Christianity doesn’t require of all the white Christians on Earth that they turn themselves into Negroes or that they submit while government so turns them?  You’re Catholic, Templar?  What’s wrong with the Vatican then?

Does the Vatican demand such things? I’m not certain I’ve heard it make a pronouncement on race-mixing one way or the other, despite the mania of some bishops for immigration.

110

Posted by Wandrin on March 28, 2009, 04:48 AM | #

Everyone needs to pick the route that works for them.

In the current situation where mainstream Christianity has been hijacked by liberal values and is used as just another vehicle of anti-white pressure I can see a tactical advantage in rejecting Christianity for some other system, such as atheism or paganism, as long as it has some roots in western culture and history. But personally I’m (semi) Christian and don’t want to do that so I need another option.

One option is to look in the Old Testament. If you look hard enough you can find some lines somewhere that can be used to justify anything. Personally I dislike the Old Testament and think Christianity would be better if it stuck to what Jesus said so I don’t like this option. The trouble with my preferred “Jesus only” version of Christianity is it’s even worse when it comes to situations where you’re fighting for survival - it’s all meekness and turning the other cheek. Jesus doesn’t mention anything about ignoring the rules when you’re fighting for survival.

So I added them for myself.

Jesus rules for our own blood and our allies.
Fair rules for neutrals.
No rules for enemies.

I call it Crusader Christianity. It works for me but like I said everyone has to pick what works for them.

111

Posted by Dasein on March 28, 2009, 08:38 AM | #

Jesus rules for our own blood and our allies.
Fair rules for neutrals.
No rules for enemies.

Wandrin, I have arrived at similar conclusions.  The New Testament (in particular the Gospels) is an update to God’s rule book.  Jesus’ sacrifice is the announcement of altruism and inclusive fitness to any who will listen (Natural Law tells us that our behaviour must be healthy and adaptive).  Perhaps (obviously?) God was not happy at the way the Jewish race had been evolving and decided it was time for this update.  And rather than make this valid only for Jews, he offered this covenant to any race which would choose to adopt it.  Old Testament rules for enemies, as per Matthew 5:17-18.  What’s the goal of this game?  To know God- that’s what He wants for us.  He’s given us a way to achieve this through evolution by mating choices based on love (not sterilization and dehumanizing eugenics programs, although I am not saying that eugenic trends should not be encouraged).  That’s what got us this far.  That’s why miscegenation is fundamentally evil.  It wipes out the choices of our ancestors across thousands of generations.  Each race should be free to pursue its own evolutionary destiny.

112

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 28, 2009, 10:21 AM | #

“Does the Vatican demand such things?”  (—Templar)

Frankly, yes:  the Pope himself spouted bilge to that effect when he came to the U.S., prompting JWH at his WesternBiopolitics blog to call him, the Pope, “filth” and I agreed fully with that characterization.  Can you imagine that, calling the Pope “filth”?  Almost inconceivable but that’s the name his words justified.  No I can’t cite quotations because I haven’t kept them.  Catholic whites all over the world are being told, whether directly or “in so many words,” they have to accommodate themselves to race-replacement with non-whites, it is wrong to view matters in racial terms, etc.  Catholic priests in authority are everywhere endorsing a pro-integration line indistinguishable from that which the U.S. Jews have been ramming down white throats since the 1950s and ‘60s.  No I can’t quote chapter-and-verse right at the moment because I don’t keep lists of references on everthing, but I trust this is evident to all.  So yes, Catholicism, and the Vatican which at any given moment is responsible for Catholicism, are promoting race-replacement and actually allying themselves with those behind-the-scenes agents, organized Jewry and others, that are attempting to force it on whites worldwide (not on Jews, mind you, just on whites = Euros properly so-called:  Euros properly so-called are to be phased out as a race, leaving behind only mulattoes and half-caste Orientals and so on, and the Vatican has shown every conceivable proof it backs this plan one hundred percent).

113

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 28, 2009, 10:57 AM | #

Further to my comment two or three posts ago, the one to Gorbo:  consider that official Christianity picks and chooses, from among all those Christian concepts that are difficult to grasp, the ones it wants to make sure the common people “get,” and refrains from “insisting on” others.  It ranks the difficult concepts, the ones it’s hard to get across, in importance.  So if it wished, it damn well could make certain it drove home the point that Christianity did NOT require race-replacement, which is a simple truth — Christianity DOES NOT require it and you are still a perfectly good Christian if you question it — but either it doesn’t care about driving that particular point home, that Christians who resist race-replacement are perfectly good Christians, or indeed it actively favors race-replacement so naturally wouldn’t want to “stress” that particular bit of Christian truth so as to turn Christians away from continuing down the race-replacement path. 

Do you see my point?  Look at the concept of the Trinity.  The Trinity, the concept that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Ghost, are all one, that Jesus Christ is both God and man, etc., is an extremely difficult concept to “get” yet the Church not only makes sure people “get” it, it makes it one of the three or four absolute pillars of the entire Christian religion.  Or, for Catholics in particular, look at the concept that sexual abstinence until marriage is called for by Christian morality:  that’s not necessarily an easy concept to “get” yet the Catholics inculcate it.  So, there are concepts that are difficult to get that the Christians nevertheless make sure people get.  Why not the part about Christians not being required by Christianity to submit to government-enforced race-replacement?

My point is yes, Church authorities COULD mend what’s wrong if they wished, and make Christianity much more viable as a religion suitable for self-respecting, educated, righteous white people.  But they choose not to.

114

Posted by Templar on March 28, 2009, 01:41 PM | #

@Wandrin:

The trouble with my preferred “Jesus only” version of Christianity is it’s even worse when it comes to situations where you’re fighting for survival - it’s all meekness and turning the other cheek. Jesus doesn’t mention anything about ignoring the rules when you’re fighting for survival.

As I’ve said before, I think it really depends on who’s providing the interpretation of Christ’s teachings, since as Svigor mentioned a little while back, they’re so vague and cryptic on some points as to be interpreted almost every which way one wants. We’re told at one point to turn the other cheek to those who strike us, and to surrender our cloaks to those who would take them, and then elsewhere, commanded to buy swords, even selling our cloaks to do so if necessary.

@Fred Scrooby:

Frankly, yes:  the Pope himself spouted bilge to that effect when he came to the U.S., prompting JWH at his WesternBiopolitics blog to call him, the Pope, “filth” and I agreed fully with that characterization.  Can you imagine that, calling the Pope “filth”?

Not personally, no, but then I can’t really imagine caving to pressure from the King of France to condemn the Knights Templar either.

No I can’t cite quotations because I haven’t kept them.

Could you at least explain, if from memory if nothing else, what was said? I’d be curious to know.

My point is yes, Church authorities COULD mend what’s wrong if they wished, and make Christianity much more viable as a religion suitable for self-respecting, educated, righteous white people.  But they choose not to.

True enough. The real issue though is “why?” Why did the Church suddenly change the customs of nearly two millenia of tradition after WWII? Why are we no longer obligated to pray for the conversion of the Jews? Why can we no longer identify them as deicides? Whose idea was all this?

115

Posted by Wandrin on March 28, 2009, 02:31 PM | #

@Templar

As I’ve said before, I think it really depends on who’s providing the interpretation of Christ’s teachings, since as Svigor mentioned a little while back, they’re so vague and cryptic on some points as to be interpreted almost every which way one wants. We’re told at one point to turn the other cheek to those who strike us, and to surrender our cloaks to those who would take them, and then elsewhere, commanded to buy swords, even selling our cloaks to do so if necessary.

I may have missed those bits. The thing is I don’t want to reinterpret them though as I think they’re a good guide for general usage as they stand, or as they’re commonly supposed to stand. The personal compromise I prefer is just to apply the rules in a nationalist, in-group way. Then again I’m coming from a Church of England type perspective which potentially lends itself to that way of thinking.

116

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 28, 2009, 03:12 PM | #

“Could you at least explain, if from memory if nothing else, what was said?”  (—Templar)

These will get you started; you can do the “leg work” in looking up the original speeches and documents yourself.  To take these positions knowing the current state of immigration-related crisis and its attendant societal dislocations, and knowing the signs of actual social breakdown that are cropping up everywhere there is excessive incompatible immigration, the Pope is knowingly advocating the race-replacement of white people.

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=22001

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_8960784?source=rss

If your high school French is still serviceable you might look at this,

http://www.fdesouche.com/articles/4679 ,

which I commented on elsewhere at MR.com, here for example,

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/moslem_migration_a_tool_of_the_elites/#c63258 ,

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/moslem_migration_a_tool_of_the_elites/#c63280 .

The WesternBiopolitics blog is no longer active, so I can’t retrieve the specific excerpts or wording that JWH harshly criticized.

117

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 28, 2009, 03:19 PM | #

And the Vatican’s sin in regard to immigration is not just one of commission but also one of omission:  it still has not made an issue of clarifying that in Catholicism it’s perfectly OK to oppose excessive incompatible immigration.  In this time of demographic crisis that failure is inexcusable.  Those Catholics who question excessive incompatible immigration, those Catholics who oppose it outright, are perfectly good Catholics provided what they advocate is reasonable and humane.  The Vatican refuses to explicitly, publicly clarify that.

118

Posted by Templar on March 28, 2009, 05:11 PM | #

@Wandrin:

I may have missed those bits. The thing is I don’t want to reinterpret them though as I think they’re a good guide for general usage as they stand, or as they’re commonly supposed to stand. The personal compromise I prefer is just to apply the rules in a nationalist, in-group way. Then again I’m coming from a Church of England type perspective which potentially lends itself to that way of thinking.

I guess that only makes sense in light of present realities. I tend to think that the medieval Church had a fairly sensible approach to civilizational threats, and so I try to emphasize those attitudes and that history.

@Fred Scrooby:

And the Vatican’s sin in regard to immigration is not just one of commission but also one of omission:  it still has not made an issue of clarifying that in Catholicism it’s perfectly OK to oppose excessive incompatible immigration.  In this time of demographic crisis that failure is inexcusable.  Those Catholics who question excessive incompatible immigration, those Catholics who oppose it outright, are perfectly good Catholics provided what they advocate is reasonable and humane.  The Vatican refuses to explicitly, publicly clarify that.

Again though, why? What’s going on here?

Thanks for the links, by the way. I’ll be reading through them forthwith.

119

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 28, 2009, 05:39 PM | #

“Again though, why?  What’s going on here?”  (—Templar)

Your guess is as good as mine.

120

Posted by Captainchaos on March 28, 2009, 07:05 PM | #

GW: “Do you want to write Part Two?”

I don’t believe I’ve yet achieved a level of governing clarity that would merit my making a main post regarding a Philosophy of European Salvation, which is the kind of post I’m interested in making.  What utility does the struggle for personal redemption of European individuals have for the overall salvation of the European race?  How can this impulse that is dormant, waiting to be awakened, in those we need to carry the struggle to fruition be awakened?  How can we get the descent to clean their small corner of the world, enough of the descent to add up to securing the existence of our people, and to do this in a way that would eschew a too grandiose, too mandated by centralized authority, way, a palingenetic way?  You got me, if I’ve even come close to hitting the mark.

121

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 28, 2009, 07:32 PM | #

Your guess is as good as mine.

It’s pretty clear that Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli was making amends for signing the Reichskonkordat with those evil palingenetic ultra-nationalist gangsters. He caught plenty of heat from the tribe and the Commies:

Guenter Lewy, political scientist and author of The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, wrote:

  “There is general agreement that the Concordat increased substantially the prestige of Hitler’s regime around the world. As Cardinal Faulhaber put it in a sermon delivered in 1937: “At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with cool reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat expressed its confidence in the new German government. This was a deed of immeasurable significance for the reputation of the new government abroad.”

As millions of refugees without any home or place to go, wandered all over the Europe, Pius XII insisted that immigration is a natural right and duty. In 1946, he declared, that all people have a right to immigration, because the Creator himself demands access to material goods. In addition, compassion supports immigration rights. Conversely, no state which can support additional people, has a right to close its immigration doors without reason.[4]

  *
      o Natural law even more than mere compassion compels States to secure people a chance of immigration, because the Creator demands that the goods of this world should be at the service of all mankind. Therefore no state whose territory is in a condition to feed more people, has the right to refuse admission to foreigners without good and acceptable reasons.

Acta Apostolica Sedis, XLI, 1949, pp. 69-71

122

Posted by Templar on March 28, 2009, 08:10 PM | #

It’s pretty clear that Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli was making amends for signing the Reichskonkordat with those evil palingenetic ultra-nationalist gangsters.

No doubt.

As millions of refugees without any home or place to go, wandered all over the Europe, Pius XII insisted that immigration is a natural right and duty. In 1946, he declared, that all people have a right to immigration, because the Creator himself demands access to material goods. In addition, compassion supports immigration rights. Conversely, no state which can support additional people, has a right to close its immigration doors without reason.

Far be it from me to set myself up as superior in wisdom to a learned clergyman and statesman far older and more experienced than myself at the time in question, but I can’t help but think of G.K Chesterton’s condemnation, through Father Brown, of “damned nonsense and more than damned nonsense — nonsense that can damn”, which is really rather depressing, considering that by entertaining such criticism I’m putting myself in more or less the same place as Martin Luther…

123

Posted by Templar on March 28, 2009, 08:22 PM | #

Far be it from me to set myself up as superior in wisdom to a learned clergyman and statesman far older and more experienced than myself at the time in question, but I can’t help but think of G.K Chesterton’s condemnation, through Father Brown, of “damned nonsense and more than damned nonsense — nonsense that can damn”, which is really rather depressing, considering that by entertaining such criticism I’m putting myself in more or less the same place as Martin Luther…

On second thought, I take that back. It’s not like there haven’t ever been any reformers who managed their objectives without breaking with Rome, and I’m fairly certain that the destruction of the culture that allowed a given society to rise to the level where it could feed a surplus population constitutes a “good and acceptable reason” to any rational mind.

124

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 29, 2009, 01:15 AM | #

”The real issue though is ‘why?’  Why did the Church suddenly change the customs of nearly two millenia of tradition after WWII?  Why are we no longer obligated to pray for the conversion of the Jews?  Why can we no longer identify them as deicides?  Whose idea was all this?”  (—Templar)

”Again though, why?  What’s going on here?”

Here’s James Kalb’s take on some of that:

Q:  Both Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII condemned liberalism but it seems the Church has embraced it since the Second Vatican Council, in its defense of democracy and human rights.  The tone of Church social teaching has also focused more on influencing liberal institutions, and less on shaping individuals, families, and local communities.  How does one account for this shift in the Church’s attitude?

Kalb:  The Church apparently decided modernity was here to stay.  Liberal modernity looked better than fascist modernity or Bolshevik modernity.

[Liberal modernity] claimed to be a modest and tolerant approach to government that let culture and civil society develop in their own way.  So the Church decided to accept and work within it.

Also, the development of the mass media and consumer society, and the growth of state education and industrial social organization generally, meant Catholics were more and more drawn into liberal ways of thinking.  Hostility to liberalism became difficult to maintain within the Church.

The problem, though, is that liberal modernity is extremely critical and therefore intolerant.  In order to cooperate with it you have to do things its way.

The recent virulent attacks on Pope Benedict for many different reasons by the liberal elite illustrate that phenomenon perfectly.

For that reason, if there’s going to be joint social action today, it inevitably focuses on extending liberal institutions rather than promoting local and traditional institutions like the family, which are intrinsically non-liberal.  Many people in the Church have come to accept that.

( http://www.zenit.org/article-25495?l=english )

125

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 29, 2009, 02:58 AM | #

Kalb is wrong because he ascribes to liberalism characteristics that it never possessed. Liberalism is racist, ethnocentric and exclusionary. Non-discrimination/tolerance is a perversion of liberalism orchestrated by organised Jewry. The RCC aided and abetted it because it furthered the ethnic interest of Catholics. It was Catholics who were shut out by the immigration restriction imposed by Protestants in immigrant receiving countries and no doubt it was Catholics who were the vast majority of the displaced persons of WWII.

It’s little wonder that Pacelli insisted that immigration was a natural right, embracing tolerance and non-discrimination.

It appears more evident every day that the evils served upon us are a curse for the murder of the reborn German nationalism.

126

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 29, 2009, 08:50 AM | #

“Kalb is wrong”  (—Desmond)

I’ve gone from agreeing with Kalb one hundred percent to questioning his failure, as I see it, to recognize the immense role of organized Jewry, a role which takes us out of the medieval world miasma theories into Louis Pasteur’s world of germ theories.  Strong contemporary thinkers who oppose what’s happening have failed to recognize organized Jewry’s role:  Kalb, Sam Francis, Lawrence Auster, Alain de Benoist, Paul Belien, and the list goes on.  It’s not easy to see:  James Bowery said it took him seven years, I think was the number, of hard thinking about what’s wrong, before he saw it.  In my own case I didn’t really see it until around 2006 after thinking about this stuff since 2000. 

“because he ascribes to liberalism characteristics that it never possessed.”

I agree and it should be plain by now that a sane liberalism which rejects race-replacement is not only possible but once existed and can exist again provided Jewry’s lockdown can be thrown off.

“Liberalism is racist, ethnocentric and exclusionary.”

Again, such a form of liberalism is certainly possible.

“Non-discrimination/tolerance is a perversion of liberalism orchestrated by organised Jewry.”

Agreed.  Not just liberalism is perverted by them but also what is called socialism:  look at Proudhon’s French socialism and Spenglerian Prussian socialism compared to Jewish socialism aka Marxism/Boshevism:  the former two normal, healthy, happy, strong; the latter sick, perverted, miserable for everyone concerned, ruinous, nightmarish, ghastly, death-dealing, exterminating.  The Jews also pervert and utterly destroy conservatism of course:  one glance at “neoconservatism” tells one all one needs to know in that regard.  Whatever they put their Jewish stamp on, be it liberalism, socialism, or conservatism, is transformed into something unlivable for European-race peoples.

“It appears more evident every day that the evils served upon us are a curse for the murder of the reborn German nationalism.”

Agreed.  Of the two sides in World War II, clearly we backed the one least in our interest.  We should have declared that it was none of our business and let it play out as in 1870.  Most Americans, at least, wanted exactly that:  no involvement.  Unfortunately certain élites saw things differently, the same ones forcing race-replacement, homosexualism, partial birth abortion, no-fault violent racial crime, racial/ethnocultural self-loathing, and general Africa-worship on us now.

127

Posted by International Jewish Warmongers/Plutocrats on March 29, 2009, 12:03 PM | #

In terms of about the past 100 years of history, when various nations and peoples have attempted to assert their independence by trying to break free from the slave-chains of the international Jewish/Ziosupremacist money-masters, wars have been waged against them in order to beat them in to submission and so called ‘democratic’ puppet governments have been immorally installed to further dispossess them of their national sovereignty, steal their resources, and exploit their citizens under false claims of ‘open markets’ and ‘free trade.’

For instance, did you know that Saddam Hussein and the toppled Iraqi government had socialist origins under The Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party?  Most people do not know that Iraq was a socialist, secular, and reasonably advanced country until it was invaded, conquered, and ultimately wrecked by the United States of Israel.  Indeed, many countries had nationalist + socialist political and economic systems during the 20th Century (by popular/democratic demand of their citizens) until they were invaded, conquered, plundered, and ultimately controlled by the roving Jewish globalist plutocrats. 

It seems that as soon as a country manages to assert its national sovereignty along comes the USA, which is obviously under the strict control of the international Jewish Ziosupremacist money-master control freaks, who then proceed to wage war against them in an attempt to smash all semblances of independence and national self-determination in order to install so called ‘democratic’ governments and ‘capitalist’-’free market’ economic systems which are actually not at all free or capitalistic but merely composed of rootless and globalist Jewish plutocrats and parasites who seek to utterly control and exploit the citizens and resources of once free nations and peoples.

128

Posted by Friedrich Braun on March 30, 2009, 12:48 AM | #

A Spaniard miscegenating with a Swede or Dane is a form of race-mixing, of course, and ought to be rejected by all right thinking men and women.

http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/index.html

129

Posted by g on March 30, 2009, 05:36 PM | #

A bit late, now, Mr. Scrooby,
but I’ve been away.
YOU can’t “jettison” Christianity as it’s not your faith: presumably you’re going to try and force ME and my fellow-believers to “jettison” it.
I like the touch “it may have to be jettisoned”. This tells us nohting except that YOU would like to begin a persecution. Wherer does “have to” come from?
Then I suppose you’ll be ordering us to “believe” in some construct or project of your own.
Try it, you inquisitorial bastard!

I hope you don’t get your cod resident poet to provide the liturgy, although that might provide us with a bit of light relief!


LOL

130

Posted by Captainchaos on March 30, 2009, 06:11 PM | #

Gorboduc,

That’s good, you’re angry.  Use it.  You give a damn about preserving your race and your religion.  Man the fuck up and do just that.  There is no more intellectually serious site on the web to do it than here.

If I was told that my faith gene was to be bred out of me, and my progeny, my response would be, “The fuck you say!”  Not, “I’m taking my ball and going home.”

131

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 30, 2009, 07:56 PM | #

To g:

So Christianity is above reproach where culpability for the current race-replacement crisis is concerned? 

Can you show me where the Christians are better than the Jews in this regard?  I admit the Christians were too thick to invent the stuff in the first place — a goyischer Kopf will do that to you — but they certainly lost no time climbing aboard the demographic-death bandwagon once the Jews came up with the idea.

132

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 30, 2009, 08:04 PM | #

How would the Christians view this web-site, g?  I’m talking about the official Christians, not guys with their heads screwed on frontwards like the Kinists.  The official Christians would view this site the way Morris Disease, Bull Foxman, and Red Ken Livingston view it.

133

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 30, 2009, 08:07 PM | #

What religion are you?

134

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 30, 2009, 08:19 PM | #

“Then I suppose you’ll be ordering us to ‘believe’ in some construct or project of your own.”  (—g)

What does the Church order its flocks to believe, where race and government-enforced miscegenation are concerned?  You’re the expert apparently, so let’s hear it.  What’s the race catechism?  What’s the nation-state catechism?

135

Posted by gorboduc on March 31, 2009, 09:03 PM | #

Big shot in the NF (old days) said to me “I have more in common with a black Orangeman than with you, you Catholic idiot.”

Oddly enough, a trad Cath. had said to me a few weeks previously ” You and I have more in common with a black Catholic than with any of the NF’s white neo-pagans”

Versions of this little conceit/paradox seem to have been popular a few years ago.

Sub specie aeternitatis, black men can get to heaven as well as white men - although this reminds me of the old joke about the black guy who turned up at Valhalla. (This site’s TOO dignified to hear it, and you should all know it anyway)

The best of our European culture is religiously/spiritually inspired - yes, even the Edda! I resent the way the violent and commercialised black culture and the whining and commercialised jewish one are being manipulated to destro the European ones, but that doesn’t mean that a black or jewish person of good will can’t make a conscious choice to join OURS and fight for it, as seeing its superiority. Cases of religious conversion come to mind here.

136

Posted by Vlad on October 08, 2014, 03:31 AM | #

India, Pakistan, Iran, Central Asia etc… all these lands belongs to us, white man. We should invade and take over our lands from brown swarty subhumans. There should be one billion swede not one billion stinky indian or one billion german not one billion chink

137

Posted by Vlad on October 08, 2014, 03:41 AM | #

“We must support sexual unions between Russian women and German men, Spanish men and Swedish women.”

Mediterrian European have semitic and negroid blood in them. Why you supporting mixing Spanish men and Swedish women?

“Invading countries like Iraq and Iran would be noble pursuits if it were done to exploit these countries (for the benefit of the White race only) instead of “liberating” them”

Exactly.

138

Posted by Vlad The Impaled on October 08, 2014, 04:56 AM | #

Stupid comments Vlad; i.e., worthy of you.

Post a Comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Smileys

You must prefix http://anonym.to/? to gnxp.com links...
e.g., http://anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/...

Copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting
it just in case the software loses it because the session time has been exceeded.

Remember my personal information

Next entry: Down Google’s Memory Hole: Usenet

Previous entry: Alain de Benoist’s preface to the Croatian edition of Sunic’s “Against Democracy and Equality”

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Also see trash folder.

Thorntroll commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/19/14, 07:40 PM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/19/14, 09:45 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/19/14, 12:21 AM. (go) (view)

voznich commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 09:48 PM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 09:07 PM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 08:59 PM. (go) (view)

TD commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 08:18 PM. (go) (view)

Carolyn Yeager commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 05:51 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 04:01 PM. (go) (view)

Carolyn Yeager commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 03:50 PM. (go) (view)

Carolyn Yeager commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 03:20 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 02:58 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 01:19 PM. (go) (view)

Carolyn Yeager commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 01:09 PM. (go) (view)

Carolyn Yeager commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 12:46 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 12:14 PM. (go) (view)

mirror image commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 10:00 AM. (go) (view)

eyeofthestorm commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 07:43 AM. (go) (view)

National Socialist commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/17/14, 08:46 PM. (go) (view)

Carolyn Yeager commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/17/14, 07:11 PM. (go) (view)

NationalSocialist commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/17/14, 05:41 PM. (go) (view)

Carolyn Yeager commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/17/14, 04:37 PM. (go) (view)

NationalSocialist commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/17/14, 12:39 PM. (go) (view)

Carolyn Yeager commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/17/14, 12:21 PM. (go) (view)

Franklin Ryckaert commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/17/14, 04:59 AM. (go) (view)

voznich commented in entry 'A Labour of ... well, not hate exactly, but certainly scorn' on 10/17/14, 03:58 AM. (go) (view)

mike commented in entry 'A Labour of ... well, not hate exactly, but certainly scorn' on 10/17/14, 02:46 AM. (go) (view)

Eurocide commented in entry 'None dare call it White genocide' on 10/16/14, 01:22 PM. (go) (view)

neil vodavzny commented in entry 'Race & faith – part 2' on 10/16/14, 06:52 AM. (go) (view)

Mick Lately commented in entry 'A Labour of ... well, not hate exactly, but certainly scorn' on 10/15/14, 12:08 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'A Labour of ... well, not hate exactly, but certainly scorn' on 10/15/14, 10:58 AM. (go) (view)

jamesUK commented in entry 'Black Lies in White Nationalism: Hitler didn't instigate war, modestly sought appropriated territory' on 10/14/14, 03:52 PM. (go) (view)

Franklin Ryckaert commented in entry 'Black Lies in White Nationalism: Hitler didn't instigate war, modestly sought appropriated territory' on 10/14/14, 02:20 PM. (go) (view)

Morgoth commented in entry 'A Labour of ... well, not hate exactly, but certainly scorn' on 10/14/14, 01:03 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Black Lies in White Nationalism: Hitler didn't instigate war, modestly sought appropriated territory' on 10/14/14, 11:36 AM. (go) (view)

General News

Science News

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Anti-White Media

Audio/Video

Controlled Opposition

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa

affection-tone