Jun 24, 2015

The Continuing Role of Christian Churches Working against the Interests of Aryan Man

via Aryan Myth and Metahistory

For those who think that the semitic religion of xtianity is or ever has worked in the interests of the Aryan peoples one only has to consider the latest piece of hypocritical rhetoric from Pope Francis:
 "I invite you all to ask forgiveness for the persons and the institutions who close the door to these people who are seeking a family, who are seeking to be protected,"
  "These brothers and sisters of ours are seeking refuge far from their lands, they are seeking a home where they can live without fear."
This not the first time that he has sought to meddle in the affairs of sovereign states. About a year ago he had this to say:
"This humanitarian emergency requires, as a first urgent measure, these children be welcomed and protected. These measures, however, will not be sufficient, unless they are accompanied by policies that inform people about the dangers of such a journey and, above all, that promote development in their countries of origin."
Curiously I do not see the Roman pontiff opening the gates of his all-male Vatican City to the world's flotsam and jetsam. Indeed try breaking into the Vatican City, of which the Pope is the head of state and see what happens to you! All this from the man who has made it illegal to report sex crimes against children in his state and has threatened those who leak or receive secret information from the Vatican with a 2 year prison sentence.

Hypocrisy and anti-European policies are not however the preserve of the Church of Rome. The Archbishop of Canterbury (Church of England) has made similar comments:
“We can’t say this is one country’s responsibility, the one nearest, that’s not right. 
“This is nothing about the European Union, I’m talking about countries across the region, we need to share the burden. 
“Of course we have to be aware of the impact of immigration in our own communities but when people are drowning in the Mediterranean, the need, the misery that has driven them out of their own countries is so extreme, so appalling that Europe as a whole must rise up and seek to do what’s right.
“It will be demanding and that’s why the burden must be spread across the continent and not taken by just one country or one area.”
"We can't overburden communities, we have to be realistic about that. But at the heart of Christian teaching about the human being is that all human beings are of absolutely equal and infinite value and the language we use must reflect the value of the human being and not treat immigration as a deep menace that is somehow going to overwhelm a country that has coped with many waves of immigration and has usually done so with enormous success. 
"It is part of the strength and brilliance of this country that we are so good at this, and I would hate to see us lose that."
Of course Dr Welby would say that wouldn't he? It is remarkable how positive the descendants of immigrants are about the alleged "enormous success" and supposed benefits that immigrants bring to the countries that they invade. They keep telling us this time after time! Dr Welby (original family name Weiler) is the grandson of a jewish immigrant and has the temerity to tell the rest of us to allow ever greater numbers of immigrants to flood into our overcrowded countries. Perhaps he could open the gates of his clerical palace and let a few of them live with him? Who knows, the experience may enrich him!

A healthy Aryan society would not permit all this to continue but would in fact seek to reverse immigration (legal or illegal) to ensure that only Aryans lived on Aryan soil, the soil that their ancestors died defending which today's generation of traitors freely give away. The resources of the Royal Navy (which we all pay for, whether we wish to or not) should be used to prevent these invaders from breaking into Europe, not assisting them! A border force which welcomes the intruder instead of repelling him and making an example of him is not fit for purpose.

All this goes to show that xtianity is a sickness which has weakened the resolve and health of the Aryan peoples of Europe (and further afield). Only a strong warrior religion is needed in this dark age of the Kali Yuga to awaken our race to the peril and slow genocide that awaits them if they continue to allow this state of affairs to continue. A religion of the mythos of the blood! Within a period of 50-100 years our people will be a minority in our own lands. Minorities deprived of the sovereignity of their own lands (the Palestinian Arabs in the rogue state of Israel and the American Indians being cases in point) all because generations since 1939 have allowed this to happen.

It's Not Good to Be King

via The Audacious Epigone

A naif might think that the putative benefits provided by white privilege and membership in the patriarchy, combined with the Potato Heading of the West, would see non-whites and women running from their oppressed statuses to enjoy the benefits that naturally accrue to white men.

Curiously, the contemporary high profile cases of race and sex changes involve whites 'becoming' non-whites (Dolezal) and men 'becoming' women (FauxcahontasJenner). These don't appear to be exceptions to prove the rule, either. There has been a pronounced flight from white evident in the US Census over the last several decades, and people from ancestries conventionally considered to be white, such as Middle Easterners and North Africans, are pushing for the creation of non-white categories to self-identify themselves as.

In 2004, the GSS asked respondents to choose from ten descriptors to answer the question "which is most important to you in describing who you are?" Respondents were also asked to select the second and third most important descriptors from the same list. Race/ethnicity was one of the options. The following table shows the percentages of respondents, by race, who identified race/ethnicity as the most important, second most important, or third most important aspects of how they identify themselves (n = 1,185):

RespondentR/E important

Another option among the ten provided was gender. The percentages of respondents, by sex, who identified gender as the most important, second most important, or third most important aspects of how they identify themselves (n = 1,201):

RespondentGender important

Quite the conundrum. It's almost as if being white and being male, rather than conferring tacit benefits upon a person, actually has a deleterious effect on one's social status and perceived moral worth.

Parenthetically, these data are over a decade old. I suspect the white and male identification deficits are even greater now than they were then.

GSS variables used: SOCID1(2)(3), SOCID2(2)(3), SOCID3(2)(3), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10)(15-16), SEX

Dylann Roof and Political Violence

via Radix

My hope had been to say nothing about the shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, and the alleged perpetrator, Dylann Roof. This didn’t derive from an unwillingness to face a difficult subject; I generally find it distasteful to drag someone else’s pain into a political discussion. 

Then again, the Charleston shooting, like every media event, quickly became an information war. The winners have been those who most effectively fit what happened into their pre-existing narrative. This began with the cheap moral grandstanding of politicians and media personalities, who self-righteously condemned an act that everyone on earth found appalling. It spiraled into a debate over gun control and then to demands to remove the Confederate Battle Flag, which, for the time being at least, still flies at the South Carolina State House.

As I write, it appears that the shooting has become the tipping point in this decades-long controversy. Roof’s crime, of course, had nothing at all to do with the Confederacy, or how best to honor those who died in a lost cause. That so many have justified removing the flag on the basis of the shooting demonstrates the power of symbolism and narrative over history and fact.

Moreover, it is necessary for us to talk about the meaning of this event, and its political after-effects, for the reason that it was not a “senseless act of violence,” much like John Hinckley Jr. apparently shot Ronald Reagan in order to impress Jodie Foster.
Dylann Roof was, most likely, suffering from a severe mental disorder, and he also might have been on psychiatric medication, either of which could have precipitated his actions (or not). Nevertheless, his “manifesto,” if genuine, reveals that Roof conceived of his murderous act as a kind of politics. Much like Anders Breivik, Roof wanted to send a message. Indeed, he felt compelled to do so—“I have no choice.”
Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.
There is a strange quality to this writing, which putatively marks Roof’s last words before the attack. He is in a rush to get on with the bloody business, and even apologizes for typos. Nevertheless, what he published was no insane screed, the kind of thing in which madness is palpable. For our movement’s sake, it would have be better if Roof had produced something that was crazy or stupid, and thus easily dismissed.

Roof might fit the bill of a “loser” or “reject”—a high-school drop-out, he lived a life of trailer-park poverty, one in which, it should be pointed out, he developed friendships with African-Americans. But his writing indicates that he was capable of critical thought and had seriously pondered the implications of race on American society.
We owe a few things to anyone in Roof’s state. He deserves a fair trial, for one, and we should also try to take his words seriously and try to understand him, if not approve of him.

He writes,
Only a fourth to a third of people in the South owned even one slave. Yet every White person is treated as if they had a slave owning ancestor. This applies to in the states where slavery never existed, as well as people whose families immigrated after slavery was abolished.
In seeking a scapegoat, the media has centered on the Council of Conservative Citizens, and in particular its website, in which it links to stories about Black-on-White crime, most of them from local news organizations and most of them ignored by the mass media.

But Roof dug deeper than that, and recognized that things like slavery, Jim Crow, and the Confederacy—or, in other contexts, the Holocaust and fascism—are not so much historical facts as symbols of collective guilt, overhanging all aspects of society. A White person who immigrated to South Carolina from Poland in 1980 is haunted by the same specters as a direct descendant of Jefferson Davis.
Now White parents are forced to move to the suburbs to send their children to “good schools”. But what constitutes a “good school”? The fact is that how good a school is considered directly corresponds to how White it is. I hate with a passion the whole idea of the suburbs. To me it represents nothing but scared White people running. Running because they are too weak, scared, and brainwashed to fight. Why should we have to flee the cities we created for the security of the suburbs? Why are the suburbs secure in the first place? Because they are White. The pathetic part is that these White people dont even admit to themselves why they are moving. They tell themselves it is for better schools or simply to live in a nicer neighborhood. But it is honestly just a way to escape niggers and other minorities.
Roof’s feeling is that so much of the “American way of life” and “American Dream” are shot through with lies and delusions. These painful truths about America, which Roof stumbled upon, became a burden to him, a burden he could not bear, at the least not alone. And he must have known that, even if he survived his violent attack, his life would effectively be over.

“Doing Something”

Whether political violence is considered to be legitimate and necessary—or illegitimate “terrorism”—is determined by its success and symbolic impact. We forget that the vaunted “Founding Fathers” could have, so easily, been remembered as dangerous eccentrics, who rebelled against their rightful (and quite liberal) monarch out of personal ambition or avarice. In turn, the Confederacy could have been remembered as a just, Jeffersonian order, if it had achieved military victory.

Whatever the case, Roof’s actions have been disastrous to the extreme. It’s hard to imagine a worse political symbol than firing upon unarmed, peaceful people in a church. For that, he has achieved nothing but ignominy.

In my years as a writer and organizer, I’ve heard a familiar refrain coming from young and old: “When are we going to do something!?" This was, in effect, the question Roof was asking himself, obsessively.

These “doing something” suggestions have, in my experience, never involved violence; instead, there have been vague notions of running for office, engaging in protests, or releasing political agenda or new constitutions. The assumption is that talk is cheap, and that holding up a sign or having an official title is more impactful than writing. (The history of the world says otherwise.)

That’s not to say that many of us don’t dream of The Day, when everything will change. For Identitarianism is, after all, a revolutionary movement, one that envisions a new type of society, something different and higher than our current dispensation, an “old-new land,” to borrow a phrase from Theodor Herzl.

But any “visionary” movement must be backed by hard realism. We must recognize the immense moral thrust that drives political correctness, globalism, egalitarianism, and all the rest. In other words, we must be realistic about “why they hate us” and not believe that some new candidate, or new data point, or policy argument could change any of this.

We must also recognize that, at the moment, any kind of extra-legal or violent action—no matter how brilliantly conceived—would bring to Identitarianism the shame and horror that will forever accompany the name Dylann Roof.

In building a new culture, we are doing what we should be doing, and we are doing the only thing we can be doing.

Or as another writer advised: Keep calm. Ride the Tiger. Dream of the Day.

How Should White Nationalists Respond to the Church Shooting?

via The Daily Stormer

“Jews do it so we should too”
is not a valid argument
There has been some debate as to what the appropriate position to take on the Charleston shooting is.

While I will not apologize for something which had nothing to do with me, I am opposed to the actions based on principle.

I have always been opposed to non-defensive violence, and there is nothing more bizarre than shooting a bunch of women in a church. If Roof had done some type of Charles Bronson Death Wish vigilante action against actual criminals on the street (which could have been done using the exact same amount of effort), we would be having a different conversation. The people he attacked were by far the least threatening members of the Black community.

If the act was meant to be symbolic, then what was it meant to symbolize?

What could possibly be the reasoning or justification for this act?

I am not condemning these actions out of a desire to not be linked to them. The SPLC is already blaming me for this, saying Roof was a commenter on the site. Obviously they are going to blame our ideology. There is no way of avoiding that. But my own ideology does not have anything to do with shooting up a church. If faceless internet posters using proxies from unknown locations believe that makes me a coward, I am comfortable with that.

Anonymous persons pushing the idea that one of the only people in this movement willing to use his real name and face to promote this type of information is a “coward” because they are against shooting old women in a church very much looks like a Jewish attempt to try to push confused people into promoting this type of thing.

If this shooting did have something to do with our ideology, he would have chosen an actual enemy target. These Black he shot did not even have criminal records, which is something the majority of Blacks have. As such, I don’t accept that it had anything to do with our ideology, and if he wouldn’t have killed people with race war as the stated reason, he would have killed people for some other stated reason.

Roof’s Black friend says that he wasn’t even a racist.

Having said this, I agree with those saying we should not respond to the media defensively. Pointing out that we had nothing to do with it is simply a statement of fact. I have reported on this story as I would any other story – by giving the real truth of the matter. The truth, in this situation, is that this shooting relates to the mental state and drug use of the shooter.

What this shooting really does is give us the opportunity to point out the fact that Blacks commit exponentially more crime against us than we do to them, and the obviousness of this is clearly why the media is allowing this story to drop out of the news cycle so quickly.

Obama Spouts-Off in His Typically Clueless Fashion about the Charleston Church-Shooting

via National-Socialist Worldview

"At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries." 
Obviously Obama didn't bother to check any facts before saying this. 
You'd think he'd at least have some recollection of Anders Breivik (Norway) if not Baruch Goldstein (Israel). Both of those incidents seemed to have a motive in some way analogous to that of yesterday's shooting -- racial conflict.
Incidentally, Obama himself has exacerbated racial conflict in the United States by repeatedly rushing to support paranoid accusations every time there has been a racial controversy, with the result that many Blacks have gotten the  idea that they no longer have to obey authority and follow rules, and some have even been motivated to murder police and random White people. There is no doubt that Obama has greatly exacerbated racial conflict in the United States. The church-shooting in South Carolina, given the shooter's statement that Blacks were "taking over the country," seems to be a ramification of that.
Obama then qualified his statement by saying that such mass-violence did not occur "with the same kind of frequency" in other advanced countries -- but so what? Breivik and Goldstein each killed many more, in much less populous countries, than the nine out of 350 million people killed by narcotic-abuser Dylann Roof in the Emmanuel A.M.E. Church.
Obama's use of the term  "advanced countries" is prejudicial. That means countries not dominated by Black or Brown people. South Africa and Zimbabwe (the former Rhodesia) certainly have very serious problems of violent crime, and one could have cited them to Obama as counterexamples to his claim, except that those countries are no longer to be counted as advanced, as they once might have been, when they were under White rule. Black and Brown countries therefore get a pass. There is no point in citing to Obama what happens in those countries because they have the excuse of not being "advanced."
This map produced by an agency of the UN represents homicide rates for the year 2012, with the darker blue indicating the higher murder-rate. With a few exceptions, the general trend is that a racially darker country appears as a more violent country. Almost every Latin-American and almost every Subsaharan country has more murders per capita than the USA. If the contribution of US Blacks is subtracted, the difference is increased.

According to the FBI  most of the murders that happen in the United States every year are committed by perpetrators identified as African-American. The overwhelming majority of Blacks murdered in the USA every year are murdered by other Blacks. The FBI reports that in the year 2013, out of 2491 murders of Blacks, 2245 -- 90% -- were committed by Blacks. (Most of the 189 that  the FBI attributes to "White" offenders were probably committed by Hispanics, since the FBI counts Hispanic offenders as White, even though many have Negro and other non-White ancestry.) Black violent crime, especially against other Blacks, is the real violent crime problem in the USA.

 A study by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, on "intentional homicide by country" (cited on Wikipedia) lists countries according to annual homicides per 100,000. The annual homicide rate in the USA is 4.7 per 100,000. That's the same as Latvia, and less than some other Eastern-European states.

 But: if one subtracts the African-American contribution to the US homicide rate (which is approximated by halving it then multiplying by 8/7), one finds that the non-Black homicide-rate in the USA at about 2.7 is less than the rates for Taiwan and for Europe as a whole (both at 3.0 per 100,000). If the Hispanic murder-rate were known and could be excluded, the rate for an almost entirely White USA would surely be lower still.

 The bottom line is that there is no especial problem with violent crime in the United States, other than the violent crime that comes from the Black population. The notion that there is such a problem emanating from White males is the creation of selective, agenda-driven reporting. Thousands of murders happen in the USA every year. An event like the racially motivated church-shooting in South Carolina is a rarity and an aberration, and not of much importance in itself.

 The shooting is of interest not because it is typical but because it is unusual, and because it can be used as propaganda for for further browbeating Whitey, who is only too ready to accept guilt.

The Parochial Western Left

via Henry Dampier

Since the end of World War II, both sides of the Iron Curtain proclaimed to be internationalist. This tendency only consolidated after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We counselled our students to ‘think globally, and act locally.” The future would be one of increased global trade and cooperation under a framework of international law, with a peace guaranteed by the ‘hyper-powerful’ American military. Nuclear weapons would prevent the outbreak of overt hostilities between major powers.

This belief, while still pervasive, is fading away, but contemporary Western leftists — that is to say, the entire thinking-writing-and-speaking class, has turned its gaze inward, preferring to ‘act globally and think locally.’ This local thinking combined with rash global action has lead to the debacles in countries as far afield as Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and the Ukraine.

The way that ‘act global, think local’ works is that strategists, mostly in America, apply their local thinking about their own societies — usually a pastiche of egalitarian ideology, tinged with sentimentality, without the internal consistency of even a system like Marxism — and then apply it globally, while ignoring it in their immediate area.

So it is that a State Department bureaucrat who sends her child to a private school to protect her from bad influences coming from local Blacks at the public schools, can then support a pro-democracy policy abroad which she subverts at home through her own actions.

Similarly, at the same time as America faces increased economic and political competition from states dominated by a single ethnicity and inegalitarian political structure — like China — the former country doubles down on its ideological commitments to deny reality, pushing a multicultural ideal which no longer makes any decent geopolitical sense.

If you’re administering a global empire, it makes at least some sense to bring in some foreigners to your universities to be trained in global Americanism — so that they can administer the holdings. If there is no global empire anymore, it’s just importing a lot of incompatible people. Given that modern Americanism has come to resemble an ideological commitment to the destruction of the American empire, the political training that happens at American universities seems to do little other than strengthen a fifth column that has become so dominant that it’s hard to find educated people who aren’t, in some way or another, seeking to undermine the American national interest — whatever that means anymore.

The parochial left is losing influence abroad at the same time as it’s gaining in power domestically. While this is good news for foreigners, it’s bad news for the rest of us, as democracy-promotion goes local, having been frustrated everywhere else.

S. Africa Returns to Apartheid-Era Flag, Citing Black-on-White Violence as the Reason

via Alternative Right

The "Rainbow" flag: A symbol of
anti-white hatred to many Afrikaners
In response to the brutal murders of thousands of white farmers and their families which have taken place all over South Africa since Nelson Mandela's election in the mid-90s, high ranking African National Congress officials announced Tuesday that the country would outlaw the famous "Rainbow" flag, which has flown over the Parliament building in Pretoria for the past 21 years.

The country will return to the so-called Prinsevlag, the official flag it flew prior to the ANC's ascension to power in the historic election that signified the end of Apartheid in 1994.

This step will be taken out of deference to the numerous white victims of black violent crime since the majority-black country became a full democracy two decades ago.

The so-called "Prinsevlag," symbol of Apartheid, will fly again in SA

According to ANC spokesperson Zizi Kodwa, who spoke to reporters this morning, the time for this transition was long overdue.

"Really, the insensitivity we have shown to the families of these farm murder victims-- many of whom were raped and tortured in the most horrific manner imaginable before they were killed-- is just reprehensible," Kodwa said. "These were not isolated events, either. Nearly three thousand people-- men, women, and children-- have been killed by roving gangs of black thugs in the last 20 years. Yet through all that time, the ANC refused to remove the flag that symbolized black violence in the minds of the embattled white minority."

But now it's a new day for the Rainbow nation, Kodwa indicated.

"Change is never comfortable, but in this case, it is necessary," he said. "We cannot simply ignore the feelings of our fellow citizens and human beings. If our white brethren feel discriminated against and threatened, we ought to listen to them with an open mind, and do what is proper to ensure that they know that they are welcome in the country that we all share, black and white together. Quite simply, this is a teachable moment."

According to Kodwa, President Jacob Zuma was inspired to make this change upon hearing that the American state of South Carolina  planned to take the Confederate battle flag down from its capitol building following the fatal shooting of nine black churchgoers by a young white man last week.

"It only makes sense," Zuma reportedly told Kodwa. "If the mass murder of nine people necessitates such a change for them, then isn't the mass murder of three thousand people an indication that we ought to make a similar change?"

Zuma also reportedly apologized for singing the anthem "Kill the Farmer" at a recent public event.

"I can see how some people might have gotten the wrong idea there," Zuma said. "And I guess it might have been a little tacky to celebrate the murder of farmers in the midst of a time when farmers are getting murdered left and right... Sorry about that!"

Zuma: now repentant about promoting the murder of white farmers

Paralyzing Alienism as Judgment on the Afrikaner

via Faith & Heritage

“For the invisible things of him, that is, his eternal power and Godhead, are seen by the creation of the world, being considered in his works, to the intent that they should be without excuse: Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was full of darkness. When they professed themselves to be wise, they became fools . . . without natural affection.” – Romans 1:20-22, 30b (1599 Geneva Bible)

As a South African citizen living abroad for about three years, I often get inquiries from interested parties concerning the situation of the Afrikaner-Boer people in South Africa. Internationally, a lot of people are hungry for knowledge concerning the contemporary state of the white minority in South Africa, especially amid the complete lack of truthful information provided by the mainstream media. Some of my more pleasant personal experiences in these conversations have been that a surprising number of people are themselves generally unsurprised, as well as sympathetic towards the Boers in South Africa, when hearing about the ongoing genocide. Only on a few occasions have my paths crossed with those extreme leftists who believe whites deserve what they’re getting because of apparent historical injustices. Nonetheless, despite the sympathy, most still see the way forward to a peaceful South Africa not through healthy, biblical ethnonationalism, but by intensified cultural Marxist, egalitarian convictions in the minds of the people. That this strategy is based on false presuppositions and is therefore unworkable has been explained and proven innumerable times here on Faith and Heritage. Nonetheless, although unacceptable, it remains to be expected from a Western society infiltrated and ideologically dominated by cultural Marxism since the 1960s. Among those people I come across who do actually hold to the biblical view of race and nationhood, I’ve noticed that one of the most surprising and astonishing facts for these right-minded people is when I mention that a majority of whites in South Africa have to a great extent embraced the cultural Marxist worldview. They rightly suppose that isolation from the global propaganda machine up until 1990 (thanks to apartheid) and – based on the results of studies elsewhere – that decades of experiencing life as a white minority in a third-world African country should be enough to make at least a race-realist of every white South African.

The latest opinion polls conducted by the South African Reconciliation Barometer tell a rather different story, however:
  • Approval of interracial marriage among white South Africans increased from merely 14% in 2003 to 39% in 2013. Ironically, during the same period, approval of interracial marriage by non-white South Africans actually dropped from 60% to 51%.
  • Between 2003 and 2013, the percentage of white South Africans admitting to mistrusting people of other races dropped from 22% to 19%.1
Although it is undoubtedly encouraging to see that a majority of white South Africans (at least as of 2013) still disapprove of miscegenation – especially in our era with its insane drive for political correctness – another even more recent study in 2014 suggests that over 60% of young white college students approve thereof.2 Given that most whites in South Africa actually attend college (partially because affirmative action policies incite whites to aspire for overqualification), the current status quo does not bode well for the future of our people. Combine this with the growing trend among some of the most popular and influential Afrikaans celebrities to abuse their fame to launch “anti-racism” campaigns, and it becomes a very bleak and confusing picture indeed.

Although when compared to some Western European countries, these statistics would probably still look encouraging, one has to add that, especially in light of the government’s unashamed institutional discrimination against white people as well as the current genocide being committed, they still at first seem inexplicable. However, when viewed in relation to other tendencies evident from recent opinion polls, they start to make more sense, as I will continue to explain.

Consider that during the late 1980s, 92% of Afrikaners were still members of Reformed Churches; church attendance is estimated to have been well over 80%. A very recent poll conducted among Afrikaners (February 2015) shows that those claiming to attend church on a weekly basis had dropped to 38%. The same poll also showed that opposition to abortion and homosexuality among Afrikaners had dropped to all-time lows of 57% and 46%, respectively.3 All of this points to bigger factors contributing to the contemporary identity and ideological development of white South Africans than merely first-hand experience with the creational laws as manifested in nature. This brings us back to the text quoted from Romans 1 at the start of this piece.

The apostle Paul, writing to the faithful congregation about legal righteousness before God acquired through faith in Christ as Lord and Saviour (1:16-17), then elaborates on the gravity of the issue by relating to God’s righteous judgment and wrath upon the unrighteous sinners who are outside of Christ (vv. 18-32). Paul starts off by pointing to the overarching epistemological flaw committed by the unrighteous due to their sinful nature as the root of their sinful lifestyles and worldviews (v. 18). For the sake of reiterating its importance, he also repeats this in verses 25 and 28. Pointing out the universality of natural revelation, he continues to say that all humanity is without excuse regarding the gospel’s call to repentance (vv. 19-23). The apostle continues to explain that because of this epistemic suppression of truth and willful ignorance regarding the Source of all truth, God has given the unrighteous over to their uncleanness and their vile passions (vv. 24, 26a). Hence when a people or culture hardens itself against God, in due time he withdraws his restraining grace, by which he in certain circumstances limits the full outworking of total depravity in the lives of sinners. By releasing a people from his restraining grace to more deeply fall in sin, judgment upon them of course also increases accordingly. In the Old Testament, one of the finest practical examples of this (albeit in the case of an individual) can be found in God’s dealings with the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmose III, who refused to grant liberty to God’s people (Ex. 7:3; 9:12; 10:20). Paul also refers back to this in his stunning exposition of sovereign grace in Romans 9. Nonetheless, the Old Testament also bears witness of this Divine modus operandi in God’s dealings with nations (Ex. 20:5; Ezek. 15).

In his rhetorically Hellenistic paraenetic listing (vv. 26b-31) of the sins into which an apostate or degenerate people fall when God releases them to their vile passions, the apostle includes sodomy, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murder, deceit, choosing of the side of evil, whispering, backbiting, proud boasting, hating of God, inventing of evil things, disobedience to their parents, lack of understanding, covenant-breaking and mercilessness. Towards the end of verse 31 he also includes a sin which in the original Greek reads αστοργους, which the Geneva Bible and King James version rightly translate as “[being] without natural affection.” The a-prefix in the Greek serves a negating function prior to the word “storgé”, which literally means “love of kindred.” Paul therefore explicitly lists alienism as a fruit of a degenerate society.

What the opinion polls like these among Afrikaners (and the entire West) reflect regarding changing views and norms on miscegenation, sodomy, abortion, etc. is therefore nothing else but God’s bringing about of his infallibly promised judgments on apostate peoples who have suppressed the divine truths revealed to them and their ancestors. Sadly, it seems to quite often be the case that, as the attacks on our people’s religion and culture intensify, resistance actually wanes even further. This illogical paradigm of continuing paralysis can only rightly be understood and explained in terms of God’s purposeful judgments upon apostate nations. We can, however, take comfort in the fact that God’s judgments are indeed purposeful, nonetheless, for we can and must always hope that through judgment God will, in due time, raise up a godly generation from among our people again. In the meantime one can only pray that the current age in Western history, characterized by its degenerate zeitgeist, comes to a swift end.

Money for Nothing: The World of Super-Secretive Hedge Fund Managers

via Kevin Alfred Strom

Listen Now

David Tepper, the highest paid
hedge fund manager in 2014
Most of their names are unknown to the public. Some even manage to stay off the quasi-official lists of the richest or highest-paid men, despite having paid themselves billions or hundreds of millions of dollars per year for many, many years. (Perhaps they’re blowing it all on cocaine or gambling or trips to Jeffrey Epstein’s pedophile island, so they really have no income — but I doubt it.) They are the owners and managers of secretive, largely unregulated, millionaires-only mutual funds called hedge funds — “funds” which are overwhelmingly controlled by Jews.

Hedge funds own or control a larger and larger portion of the economy these days, they are unaccountable to the public, and they constitute, through the use of newly-invented and constantly-morphing financial instruments called derivatives, yet another means by which huge sums of money can be “created” out of nothing — and through which the real wealth earned by honest folks can be stolen on a gargantuan scale.

One seasoned observer of the financial scene stated recently: “I continually come across the names of Jewish plutocrats — many of them multi-billionaires — whose names I have never heard of before. Or, if I have seen them, there was no information to provide context, or so little that I’ve forgotten who they are. You’d have to put a lot of time into compiling lists of these people and then try to keep track of them in order to know what’s going on.

“Many such individuals are ‘investors’ — typically, hedge fund managers. In addition to being virtually unknown to the public at large, including the educated public, their firms and the manner in which they acquired their fortunes are effectively black boxes. You can’t figure out how they made or how they make their money. You’re led to believe they’re financial ‘geniuses’ of some sort, and that’s it.

“Many of these men are also ‘philanthropists.’ They funnel lots of money to the Jewish community, politicians, and Left-wing, anti-white foundations and social causes. George Soros is the most well-known example; he exemplifies the breed. He even gave money to Noel Ignatiev, a Jewish Communist academic advocate of White genocide. But exactly how did Soros amass his fortune? Something about shorting the British pound, and being a ‘genius’ stock investor through his hedge fund. Pretty vague.

“Of course, we’re spared journalistic ‘muckraking’ and vicious attacks upon these plutocrats. Back in the Old America, we never stopped hearing about America’s Sixty Families, the Super Rich, blah, blah, blah. In the past even the great unwashed knew all about the ‘evil’ J. P. Morgan, William Randolph Hearst, Andrew Mellon, Carnegie, Henry Clay Frick, and John D. Rockefeller. But no one today knows anything about their Jewish replacements, including their names. [Even the relatively aware and deprogrammed have, typically, only heard of Rothschild and Soros.] Not only do these men vacuum social resources and wealth from the rest of society, but through their political contributions and tax-advantaged ‘philanthropy’ they channel it into [anti-White] racist and communist causes.”

Most of you have heard of George Soros — the billionaire “investor” and hedge fund owner who destroys people’s savings and funds revolutions round the world. But how many of you have heard of David Tepper? — Steven A. Cohen? — John Paulson? — Carl Icahn? — James Simons? — Larry Robins? — Leon Cooperman? — Daniel Loeb? — Eddie Lampert? — Nelson Peltz? — Daniel Och? — Israel “Izzy” Englander? — David Einhorn?  — Seth Klarman?  — Marc Lasry? These men are the top movers and shakers of the financial world, yet few have ever heard their names. And all of these men are Jews.

Out of the top 24 hedge fund managers, 17 are Jews. Out of the top ten hedge fund managers, eight are Jews — 80 per cent. Jews are approximately 2% of the US population. Therefore Jews are over-represented among hedge fund managers by a factor of 40 times, or 4,000 per cent. Could such an over-representation possibly be a coincidence? If the managers are so overwhelmingly from one ethnic group, what does that likely tell us about the even more secretive ownership of these funds? And when one group constitutes 80 per cent. of the executives of an industry, particularly when that group is as ethnocentric as the Jews, you may be sure that the same group’s actual practical control of the industry is not a jot less than 100 per cent.

What is a hedge fund? Hedge funds started many decades ago, and their purpose then was to act as a “hedging” device to protect investors in case their main investment “headed south.” Thus, a hedge fund in those days might put a part of its assets into short-selling gold futures if the main investment being “hedged” was gold mining stocks. If the gold market tanked, the futures contracts would shoot up in value, limiting potential losses. If the main investment was one that rose along with interest rates, then it might be hedged by a position in a security or derivative that went up when interest rates fell — again, limiting possible losses.

But hedge funds these days are seldom if ever used for hedging other investments. They attained their current — and growing — massive valuations for quite different reasons and are now used for quite different purposes. When (largely Jewish) Wall Street swindling and trickery caused public outrage starting with the great stock market crash of 1929, regulations were put in place to put limits and rules on what the money men could get away with. There were many reporting and disclosure and ethics requirements imposed on ordinary stocks and mutual funds. And the money-men didn’t like that. But the regulators didn’t put many restrictions on what could be done with hedge funds, which weren’t sold directly to the general public. So the Jews, who bow to no one when it comes to clever, Talmudic ways to get around the letter of the law, figured out ways to “qualify” millionaire investors only as purchasers of new “hedge” funds they created — thus evading all the new rules and regulations. Investopedia describes hedge funds as “mutual funds for the super rich.”

Hedge funds can be highly leveraged compared to ordinary, regulated mutual funds. Thus they can make risky bets with “borrowed money” — that is, money that is created out of thin air by the banking system, another Jewish operation I’ve discussed on this program. Hedge funds can also invest in highly speculative “derivatives,”  which are really just contracts to pay based on the price or other behavior of an underlying asset. Investopedia describes derivatives as follows (emphasis added):
“A security whose price is dependent upon or derived from one or more underlying assets. The derivative itself is merely a contract between two or more parties. Its value is determined by fluctuations in the underlying asset. The most common underlying assets include stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies, interest rates and market indexes. Most derivatives are characterized by high leverage. Futures contracts, forward contracts, options, and swaps are the most common types of derivatives. Derivatives are contracts and can themselves be used as an underlying asset. [Therefore, derivatives can be created out of thin air, and their “value” can even be based on the behavior of other derivatives. Then these derivatives in turn can be used as a so-called “underlying asset,” and other derivatives can be based on them. There is in theory no limit on the depth to which this process can be taken. This is remarkably similar to the banking swindle in which money is created out of nothing. In the case of derivatives, Jews can write such “contracts” all day long, issuing these valueless pieces of paper to themselves, then assigning a “value” to them and selling them in exchange for real wealth. — K.A.S. ] There are even derivatives based on weather data, such as the amount of rain or the number of sunny days in a particular region.” Maybe I should create a derivative based on how many lies the SPLC tells.

David Tepper in his college days
David Tepper in his college days
How much money are we talking about here? There’s a lot we don’t know about hedge funds, since many of their operations are secret. But we do know a few things. The highest-paid hedge fund manager last year was David Tepper, the Jew who runs Appaloosa Management Limited Partnership. He was paid $4,000,000,000 in 2014, dwarfing any industrial CEO you can possibly think of. That’s four thousand million dollars per year — or $1,923,000 per hour based on a 40-hour week. And that’s just one man at one hedge fund for one year. If the owners of Appaloosa are willing to pay their manager four billion dollars every 52 weeks, imagine the wealth they control.

The relatively well-known George Soros came in second, with an annual take of $3,300,000,000 in 2014, or $1,586,000 per hour. James Simons came in next at $2,500,000,000 a year, or $1,200,000 every hour. John Paulson was paid $2,400,000,000 a year, which comes to $1,154,000 an hour. Steve Cohen, who heads SAC Capital Advisors, made $1,400,000,000 last year, which amounts to $673,000 every hour. These are the five highest paid hedge fund managers at this writing. Cohen, Paulson, Simons, Soros, and Tepper are all Jews. One hears a great deal from the leftist press that “executives make too much money” and that income inequality is such a problem that $250,000-a-year CEOs and small business owners need to be taxed to the hilt. But, for some reason or other, these Jews who make $250,000 every eight minutes aren’t even on the radar.

The total dollar value of all hedge fund assets surged to almost $3 trillion this year. That’s approaching one fifth of the entire gross domestic product of the United States of America — and growing. That’s huge — and it’s a whole “industry” (that’s not really an industry at all) of which most Americans are entirely unaware.

But even that is nothing compared to the wealth-sucking “derivatives” that these Wall Street scammers have created out of thin air. These have been and are being created with abandon both within and outside of hedge funds. (If you had the right to create millions or billions in “wealth” just by writing contracts on pieces of paper, how many contracts would you write?) Even Time magazine — a creature of Jewish corporate America if ever there was one — is forced to admit the scale is almost unbelievable:
“While there’s no way of knowing for sure, estimates of the face value of all derivatives outstanding tops a quadrillion (1,000 trillion) dollars, or more than 14 times the entire world’s annual GDP. By comparison, the total value of all the stocks trading on the New York Stock Exchange is roughly $15 trillion. Indeed, the New York Stock Exchange itself is being acquired by an up-and-coming derivatives exchange.”

So now you know, ladies and gentlemen, how your wealth has been stolen. How Jewish fraudsters and tricksters who do no creative work, and no productive labor, have figured out ways to — as my researcher friend put it — “vacuum” up the wealth and assets honest men created. Now you know the means by which the genocide of our race and nations has been funded. And now it is your responsibility to do something about it.

Radicalized by Wikipedia

via Counter-Currents

You spend much of your day in the great outdoors, and you have observed that the sky generally looks blue. Yet in newspapers and on television the sky is always red.

You notice the discrepancy between what you know and what you are told, and since, in this episode of The Twilight Zone, you are sufficiently strong-willed not to accept an obvious falsehood, you refuse to comply with the media’s systematic mischaracterization of the sky’s true color. You also realize that something is very wrong.

Many racialists have experienced an initiating revelation of this sort. We notice that on some important subject we are being lied to, and that the lies are not merely false but obviously false, so obviously false that it would require actual stupidity, or some willed equivalent, to believe them.

My own revelation came in response to affirmative action. Various authority figures and liberal learned elders informed me that affirmative-action preferences do not really constitute racial discrimination against members of our race. Since I am not a moron, I knew that I was being lied to on an important subject. It is arithmetically impossible to construct a system of racial preferences that does not entail racial discrimination.

The beginning of Dylann Roof’s racialist illumination came, if we can trust his online manifesto, from reading the Wikipedia article on the Trayvon Martin case. “I was unable to understand,” he writes, “what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right.”

George Zimmerman’s innocence is, much like the hotness of the sun or the blueness of the sky, not a debatable proposition but a certain fact, despite diligent efforts by television reporters, with malice aforethought, to convince the public otherwise. Any accurate summary of the case, like the account that Roof found on Wikipedia, will lead a rational observer to side with Zimmerman over Martin. A jury in Florida properly came to the same conclusion.

Since Roof is not a moron, he knew that the legal system and the dominant media were jointly, with some assistance from President Obama, attempting to convict and imprison an innocent man, and he found that fact disturbing, as any moral person would.

He became even more disturbed when he discovered, through the modern miracle of a search engine, that Black-on-White crime is statistically common and White-on-Black crime comparatively rare: “I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?” Despite abundant evidence of a real pattern of Black violence against Whites, the media had elected, as part of their longstanding effort to sustain a false pattern, to publicize the death of a Black thug instead.

It is worth stressing again that none of this should be debatable. George Zimmerman was rightly exonerated on the evidence. Belief in his guilt would require either literal stupidity or a willed effort to ignore physical evidence.

And even if Zimmerman had been guilty, and even if we were able to accept the doubtful proposition that Zimmerman is a light-skinned German rather than a mixed-race Hispanic, this make-believe instance of White-on-Black violence would remain atypical. Interracial violence is, as matter of statistical fact, disproportionately Black-on-White. Anyone with an internet connection and an inclination, as Roof put it, to “type in the words ‘black on White crime’ into Google” will soon discover the truth. Pat Buchanan, relying on 2007 crime statistics, reports that “a black male was forty times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.”

Roof’s conclusion that something is very wrong was therefore unavoidable, given his willingness to seek out evidence rather than avoid it. The crime statistics he found, on the website of the Council of Conservative Citizens and elsewhere, are true. Most violent interracial crime, as the Council reports, is Black-on-White. On this subject Roof could have avoided racialist sources and consulted instead the professional antiracist Tim Wise, who has acknowledged that “there are more black-on-white interracial crimes than white-on-black interracial crimes.”

These facts were not invented by devious “racists” attempting to deceive the gullible; the real deceivers are those in the media and in the racial-grievance industry who deviously promote a vision of victimized Blacks routinely assaulted by hate-filled Whites. To manufacture evidence for their false vision they do not hesitate to propagandize for the imprisonment of obviously innocent men, such as George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson.

Dylann Roof’s crime in Charleston was about as contemptible as any crime could be. He not only murdered innocent people; he also murdered them, as he has apparently acknowledged, after they had welcomed him into their church and had shown him kindness and Christian fellowship. His crime merits the maximum penalty, and he will surely receive it.

Yet it is impossible, despite his terrible crime, to deny the intelligence behind the manifesto he apparently wrote, and it is impossible not to share his sense of disturbed surprise at a politicized media behemoth that so systematically and maliciously misrepresents the truth. All of Roof’s racialist thoughts, up until the moment he decided to become a killer, were rational and insightful.

Although multiracialism is a powerful ideology propagated by a determined elite, it is also manifestly false, and in our era the truth is often difficult to suppress, despite the best efforts of our masters. Roof stupidly and wickedly chose to assist them, by providing a genuine example of anti-Black racial crime in place of the false examples that they were previously forced to manufacture. It nevertheless seems likely that his experience of finding the truth concealed behind antiracist lies will become increasingly common. The beginning of racial illumination often requires only a willingness to notice the obvious, and the power of the dominant media to conceal the obvious is in decline.

Being right doesn’t mean we’ll win, but it certainly helps, and a political system that must rely on transparent falsehoods suffers from a tactical disadvantage, no matter how unassailable it may sometimes appear.

Why Didn’t You Keep Your Cohen Name?

via Majority Rights

J in crypsis as White role model, she specializes in teaching betrayal, insolence and negrophilia to White girls and a message of “resistance is futile” for White males.
Following-up on Mick Lately’s proposal that we look at the full throttle psychological warfare against Whites in media (as in the Halifax ads here and here), it is worth taking a look at what she (Whitney Cohen, er Avalon) is doing…

She is the one in the Cheerios commercial. Andrew Hamilton gives background on Saatchi and Saatchi, the advertising firm behind the Cheerios ad:
Posing as a White woman in the Cheerios ad is Whitney Avalon, real name Cohen.

In her crypsis as a White role model, she specializes in teaching betrayal, insolence and negrophilia to White girls and a message of “resistance is futile” for White men.

She is the pig in crypsis as a White woman, specializing in demoralizing Whites.

Here are her videos which are supposed to be funny but are so laced with contempt for Whites that the only thing that comes-through is her jealousy for European beauty and ability which would compete with her. She will do anything to drag it down.
Here she is displaying her jealousy and contempt for Adele
...and Mary Poppins
Jews vs Cinderella (blondes)
“Our” expensive taste - “It’s hard being ‘White’ with expensive taste



The Red Beard of the Aryan Thunder God

via Aryan Myth and Metahistory

The Thunder Gods of the Aryan peoples are usually portrayed as sporting long and often red beards. As Jacob Grimm states in his Teutonic Mythology Volume 1:
"The German thundergod was no doubt represented, like Zeus and Jupiter, with a long beard. A Danish rhyme still calls him 'Thor med sit lange skiag' (F. Magnusen's lex. 957). But the ON. sagas everywhere define him more narrowly as red-bearded, of course in allusion to the fiery phenomenon of lightning: when the god is angry, he blows in his red beard, and thunder peals through the clouds. In the Fornm. sog. 2, 182 and 10, 329 he is a tall, handsome, red-bearded youth: Mikill vexti (in growth), ok ungligr, fridr synum (fair to see), ok raudskeggjadr; in 5, 249 madr raudskeggjadr. Men in distress invoked his red beard: Landsmenn toko that rad (adopted the plan) at heita thetta hit rauda skegg, 2, 183. When in wrath he shakes his beard: Reidr var tha, skegg nam at hrista, scor nam at dyja (wroth was he then, beard he took to bristling, hair to tossing), Saem. 70."
Grimm goes on to state:
"This red beard of the thunderer is still remembered in curses, and that among the Frisian folk, without any visible connexion with the Norse ideas: 'diis ruadhiiret donner regiir!' (let red-haired thunder see to that) is to this day an exclamation of the North Frisians. And when the Icelanders call a fox holtathorr, Thorr of the holt, it is probably in allusion to his red fur."
Walter Keating Kelly in his Curiosities of Indo-European Tradition and Folk-lore states:
"Indra's beard was golden; Agni is invoked in the Vedas as the god with the golden beard and golden teeth. Fire and the 'red gold' are associated ideas in all Indo-European languages. Thor's beard was red, and it thundered and lightened when he blew in it. His hair too was red, and that such hair and beards were much admired when he was there to set the fashion, may be inferred not only from general considerations, but more particularly from the extreme aversion which was conceived for them when Christianity came in. Rother-bart, Teufelsart, 'Redbeard, devil-steered,' is a German proverb; and the more to insult the memory of the fallen god, it was fabled that he and the vilest of men, the arch traitor Judas, had hair and beards of the same colour."
The Thunder Gods of the Balts and Slavs likewise sported red beards. It is for this very reason that beards went out of fashion in the post-conversion period and were (and to a certain extent still are) associated with heathenism. Anti-beard prejudice is still a factor today and most people who are prejudiced against beards do not consciously understand why. It is an unconscious prejudice brought about through centuries of xtian conditioning. As a mark of respect and reverence to Thunor, one of the primary deities who I feel a strong personal attachment to I wear a bead and wear it long. It is not only a statement of our Germanic heathen faith but a rejection of the superficial and anti-traditional mores of the herd. It also has the added psychological factor of invoking a certain degree of fear and respect in one's enemies. Scientific studies will of course tell you that beards are disliked (real beards that is) by women but this is of little consequence as the women of the herd are part of the prostituted and race-less and culture-less masses. They form no part of the nation of Woden.