Sep 2, 2015

Being “Nice” Will Not Save Us

via Counter-Currents

I try not to follow news of black crime in America, because there is too damn much of it, it is depressingly stupid and savage, and I made my mind up about blacks long ago. But on August 26, I could not tune out the live on-air murder of two white journalists in Roanoke, Virgina — reporter Alison Parker (24) and cameraman Adam Ward (27) — by a paranoid, hateful black man named Vester Lee Flanagan II (41), professionally known as Bryce Williams, a failed news reporter who showed clear signs of personality disorders and had a history of filing bogus complaints for racism and sexual harassment (he was homosexual).

Alison Parker and Adam Ward
Flanagan’s crime was meticulously premeditated. He filmed the murders and uploaded the video to his Twitter and Facebook account. No, I did not watch it. The screen capture above was horrifying enough, prompting me to make another fledgling foray into the meme wars, by adapting Harold Covington’s mantra: “If white people had a country of our own, this would not be happening.”
Two hours after the crime, Flanagan faxed ABC News a 23-page suicide note and manifesto explaining his actions. ABC has quoted from the document, but at this writing it has not been released to the public. Flanagan also called ABC and confessed.

Police used Flanagan’s cell phone signal to locate him. After a brief chase, Flanagan’s car went off the road, and he committed suicide. Police found several license plates and disguises in the car, further evidence of planning.

By all accounts, Alison Parker and Adam Ward were nice, liberal, anti-racist white people. And Vester Flanagan, far from being a victim of racism and homophobia, was actually a privileged beneficiary of affirmative action and the willingness of whites to repeatedly give him jobs and the benefit of the doubt. So why did he decide that his former colleagues were racist crackers deserving of death?

Vester Lee Flanagan
Vester Lee Flanagan
To say that Flanagan was “crazy” is an evasion. He clearly had some sort of personality disorder. But what stoked his paranoia and resentment into a murderous rage is the false ideology of political correctness about race. Political correctness is just a form of lying and injustice. The basic lie is that blacks are equal to whites in every way, such that one would expect that both races would be equally represented among society’s winners and losers.
When this lie conflicts with reality, the politically correct lie again to exculpate blacks from responsibility and blame all their failures on whites. Black underrepresentation in the professions and overrepresentation in prisons are attributed to white malevolence, i.e., “racism.” And since overt white racism is in short supply, blacks are encouraged to use magnifying glasses and tweezers to find “microagressions” to complain about.

For instance, Vester Flanagan believed that his coworkers were racist for eating watermelon at work. Other racist provocations were phrases like “swing by” a location, which perhaps connoted apes swinging from trees, and getting “out in the field,” which apparently triggered ancestral memories of picking cotton. Alison Parker was even accused of racism for having a friend who lived on Cotton Hill Road in Roanoke.

The lesson here is that, try as we might, white people are never going to be able to placate blacks by being “nice.” On average, blacks are inferior to whites in intelligence, impulse control, planning for the future, and a host of other traits relevant to success in white civilization. Thus they are always going to be underrepresented among winners and overrepresented among losers. I won’t say “even if they were treated fairly,” because in truth blacks are given a whole host of unfair privileges, and for all that, they are still the sorriest race in America.

The only real solution is what White Nationalism stands for: truth about racial differences, justice in assigning rewards and responsibility, and a nice white country, for if white people had a country of our own, this would not have happened. The North American New Right advocates nationalism for all nations, i.e., the creation of racially and ethnically homogeneous homelands for all peoples. If you support that idea, then support the people who are advancing it with a donation today.

White Girl Attacked and Disfigured by Five er . . . Youths

via Alternative Right

In Shreveport, Louisiana, a white girl in a bikini gets catcalled, then assaulted, by five, er... youths while sitting in her boyfriend's car at a gas station. The ensuing attack causes permanent disfigurement to the girl.

The story fails to gain national attention, though it does get mentioned at Huffington Post, where commenters fume about the evils of patriarchy and the depredations of "rape culture."

The Oak, a Sacred Aryan Tree

via Aryan Myth and Metahistory

Throughout the Aryan world, the oak tree was considered sacred to the Thunder God. Anything that has been struck by lightning was set apart as holy unto Him and regarded as such by our ancestors. People who were struck by lightning and survived according to J.T. Sibley in her remarkable book The Divine Thunderbolt. Missile of the Gods:
"were usually believed to have gained special powers from the sky god, especially the gift of divination or an ability to communicate directly with the gods, and especially with the sky/thunder god."
No doubt such people went onto be the shamans of their tribes. Apparently those people who died after being struck by lightning were not allowed to be cremated (the natural rite of our ancestors) as this would be considered a sacrilege to the Thunder God. Instead they were probably buried.

Trees are particularly vunerable to lightning strikes, most especially the oak tree. According to the author wood from a lightning struck tree is much sought after (and indeed still is) and was used for the "construction of temples, altars, tools of worship, amulets and charms, idols of deities or spirits, in folk medicine, and so forth." It would be a good idea for my readers to seek out such wood and use it as part of their rites and for the construction of amulets of protection. As an aside I am awaiting the delivery of a special Thor's Hammer specially hand forged for me from old iron taken from a lightning struck bridge. Such an item should be considered thrice holy, being of iron (sacred to Thunor), blessed by lightning and in the form of a Hammer. I can think of little which is more sacred than that!

The oak is 60 times more likely to be struck by lightning than for instance a beech tree. As I have demonstrated before the oak in etymologically linked to the name of the Aryan Thunder God, *Perkunos or *Perkwunos, *perk being the Indo-European root for oak, from which we derive the Latin Quercus. Some scholars including the author of the aforementioned book consider the central European Hercynian Forest (which includes the Harz of northern Germany) to be derived from this root via the Proto-Celtic *erquu(n)s. No doubt this great vast forest endured many such lightning strikes and in the course of time the Teutons, Celts, Balts and Slavs came to strongly associate the oak with the supreme Sky and Thunder God. This is particularly the case with the Baltic and Slavic names of the deity which more closely resemble the original name, ie Russian and Czech Perun, Latvian Perkons, Lithuanian Perkunas, the Prussian Perkonis but also the Estonian Pikker, Old Indian Parjanja and the Germanic Fjorgyn. 

According to Miss Sibley Odin's spear Gungnir was "modeled on Tyr's spear", a conclusion that I also came to independently some time ago. Tyr was the original Sky God and His presence can be detected back into the mists of pre-history. In turn Tyr's spear was based upon the oak-shafted spear of Zeus or Jupiter, oak of course being also sacred to this latter God.

In the Baltic lands bronze idols of the Thunder God would be placed under oak trees, a custom worthy for us to emulate today, providing of course that the tree is in a secluded place, out of the way of prying eyes and hands. Donar's Oak in Hesse was felled by the xtian missionary and cultural vandal Boniface in the 8th century CE. Wood taken from the oak was then used for the construction of a church.

Oak is represented in the Northumbrian/Anglo-Saxon rune Ac. The Celtic Ogham also has a few (stave) related to the oak-Duir, etymologically linked to Druid via *dru-wid, "knower of oak-trees." (The Book of Ogham, Edred Thorsson).

Symbolically the oak has long been associated with the German people and featured on the Iron Cross. It is of course also associated with England. However the following countries also celebrate the oak as their national tree: Serbia, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Moldova, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Wales, Galicia and Bulgaria.

Yvette Cooper in La-la Land!

via Western Spring

When politicians make stupid pronouncements such as that made yesterday by Labour Party leadership contestant and current Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, the least they could do is offer to foot the bill for the largess they so clearly wish to be seen doling-out!

An old acquaintance of mine many years ago, once said that if we are to be forced by liberals and Marxists to have mass immigration into Britain, there ought to be an ‘Immigration Tax’ levied solely on those people who are in favour of such immigration. The tax would be to cover the costs of the housing, welfare, health and educational benefits needed by the immigrants allowed in, and anyone who objects to mass immigration would be free of such a tax. Ignoring the cultural and social implications of non-White immigration, this would of course be a thoroughly sensible suggestion, and anyone advocating Third World aid for example, could also have a similar additional tax levied upon them also, so that only those in favour of Third World aid would have to pay for it.

One wonders how much longer the likes of Yvette Cooper would be calling for Britain to take in more immigrants and for us to do more overseas, if it was only her and the rest of the liberal-Marxists elite who were paying for it, and if it was to be in their exclusive neighbourhoods that the immigrants would be housed?

In a speech to the Centre for European Reform in London, Yvette Cooper said of the immigrant invasion of Southern Europe: “This has become a humanitarian crisis on a scale we have not seen on our continent since the Second World War. Yet we seem paralysed to respond.

“And it’s not just us. All Europe is struggling to respond. We can’t carry on like this. It’s immoral, it’s cowardly and it’s not the British way.

“We have to step up to the plate. This has become a test not just of Europe’s values, but also of the EU’s resilience and ability to respond, and so far our continent has been found still wanting”.

Ms Cooper called upon politicians of all parties to support a ‘national mission’ to change attitudes, end the fear of the ‘politics of immigration’.

We are indeed facing a humanitarian crisis on a scale not seen since the Second World War, but it is we Europeans who are becoming the victims of determined people who want what we have and who are prepared to risk their lives and break our laws in order to get it, and use force if necessary.

Some claim to be ‘fleeing’ tyrannical regimes in their homelands, however it is evident that no-one is stopping them from leaving their homelands. They have simply packed up all the belongings they can carry and have deserted their homelands by whatever means are at their disposal.

Some claim to be escaping poverty, yet who is responsible for the lack of wealth in their homelands? Who is it that is responsible for the conditions of poverty in which they lived?

There is the automatic assumption on the part of people like Yvette Cooper, that we must of course let these poor people share in the relative wealth that we have, an assumption predicated on the false notion that we have done nothing to justify our relatively greater wealth, just as the immigrants have done nothing to justify their poverty, but this is not so!

Our forebears began during the last Ice Age, to occupy an ice bound wilderness at a time when, in common with the peoples of the rest of the world, we had a stone tool technology and a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. There was in civilizational terms a ‘level playing-field’ at that time. In the intervening 35,000 years, we have created a modern high technology society and have evolved the capacity to feed ourselves, whereas the peoples of Africa and much of Asia have not. Therefore, when the question is asked whether we as a people have conducted our lives in a way that justifies the higher standard of living that we have, the answer should be a resounding ‘yes’!

Furthermore, when the question is asked whether the immigrants currently invading Southern Europe are as a people responsible for the poverty and the tyranny to be found in their homelands, the answer should also be a resounding ‘yes’!

There is no moral onus upon us to surrender the benefits of European citizenship to people who simply demand it and who demonstrate that they are willing to use deception and/or force in order to extort the benefits of European citizenship from us. And let us make no bones about it, when people force their way into our country and demand to have the benefits of citizenship, they are morally little different to the mugger who stops his victim in the street and who uses intimidation and the threat of violence to rifle through his victims pockets, taking what he wants.

The situation regarding immigration has become a ‘crisis’, but not because of the way in which the peoples of Europe have responded. It has become a crisis because people who might in different times have queued and gone through the appropriate channels in order immigrate into Europe have decided to smuggle themselves past our boarder controls or to physically break through them. In terms of the methods used, they have made the transition from being legal immigrants to become invaders.

Despite the fact that some employers become richer by employing migrants and by doing so are able to depress wages, it should be clearly understood that mass immigration into Europe and into Britain makes each of us poorer on average monetarily and because of the racial, cultural and religious differences, our lives are made increasingly dangerous, especially when the immigrants concerned are drawn from peoples among whom violence is too readily resorted to when they don’t get their own way.

Her pronouncements yesterday demonstrate that Yvette Cooper is not a fit person to lead our nation and we must hope that she never gets the chance.


* NB: Obviously not Yvette Cooper’s actual words, but based on an old nursery rhyme and the kind of childish nonsense one might expect of her.

The "Wake-Up" Moment Is Total Destruction

via Henry Dampier

History is full of dead civilizations. Few apart from a few archaeologists much cares about who the Etruscans were or what gods they worshiped, but the Etruscans mattered a lot to the Etruscans before they were destroyed by military invasion. The Etruscans are mostly significant because of the civilization that absorbed them afterwards.

Anyway. No one gets weepy over the Etruscans like they get weepy over dead lions. They’re a long-extinct people.

Some mixture of economic declines and military & naval losses resulted in a string of rolling catastrophes for them which they weren’t able to recover from. They lost their independence and coherence to their stronger neighbors, in stages. It’s certain that the Etruscans were aware that they were in decline, but there was no period of time during which awareness would have made much of a difference at all in their collective fate.

In democratic politics, agitators tend to see raising mass awareness as the critical antecedent to the resolution of some political problem or another. This is so solidly believed that ‘raising awareness’ often becomes the sole end of an agitation. The idea is that the people will ‘wake up,’ demand action, just action will happen, and the world will be improved. It’s often the case instead — just about always — that the demanded action is stupid and destructive, because the enthusiastic masses have no idea how to manage anything at all.

Agitation is usually something that’s better directed against your enemies, which is what it’s typically used for even when some idealistic cover story or another gets adopted. The point of agitation, properly understood, is to undermine the authority of some state or another that you want to destroy. It’s not something that results in an improvement, properly understood.

In a universal suffrage democracy, mass agitation isn’t actually quite so important as it sometimes seems. The way to get a law passed is to bribe politicians to pass the laws that you write, and then those politicians will use the bribe money to agitate the party faithful to keep them in office. Politicians challenge one another for a chance to be a channel for that bribery. They will also sometimes get the chance to serve on helpfully labeled committees and caucuses that tell bribers from different industries whom they should funnel money to, for convenience purposes.

Bribing officials must always happen for private advantage at public expense, because otherwise there would be no motive to do it — and the advantage must come at the expense of some group.

Occasionally, the politicians will create or expand bureaucracies which will actually do the work of governing. Those bureaucracies tend to be immune from the effects of public opinion, even when it’s nearly unanimous. This tension makes it so that the state continually bleeds off legitimacy over time. The politician says “you, the people, are the sovereigns here — I will do what you ask of me in return for your votes.” After the election, the politician is not actually capable of doing what he promised, and the bureaucracies will actually rule.

Politicians have the right to perform ‘oversight’ on bureaucracies, which means that they can hold televised meetings in which they make a big show of ceremonial authority over bureaucracies which they can’t actually execute on.

Popular sovereignty is the legitimizing myth, which the actual process of ruling in a modern state then undermines. After this happens, the people whose job it is to generate that legitimacy — the press — have to stoke up more demonstrations of popular sovereignty. People marching around in the street, yelling, and burning things has come to be identified with popular sovereignty, which, come to think of it, is appropriate considering democracy’s historical record. There’s no such thing as actual popular sovereignty, but it’s easier to pretend that there is when you have mobs of ‘the people’ manifesting themselves to burn things down and complain.

This is a recipe for constant civil conflict, and constant civil conflict weakens a civilization against external enemies, and those external enemies will eventually overwhelm it. Awareness of this does nothing to stop the process.

DanielS Thinks White Rights Advocates Should Adopt a "Leftist" Approach

via Majority Rights

In the years since it was first posted there has yet to be any argument to refute its value to organizing the perspective of interests in whole and fundamental parts for those who care about European peoples. Though its further detail and application would provide benefit, it has not yet gained the currency it should have among WN, who mostly continue to argue that they are “of the right wing”, against “The Left” or “neither left nor right”, thereby foregoing organization in their power, and reacting as our enemies would have it.

The White left thesis may not have gained currency for another reason - it had a very short time (about 4 hours) as a leading article when first republished at Majority Rights before J. Richards posted a sensationalistict, highly conspiratorial and tabloidesque story, with ridiculous imagery leaping forth (the photoshopped arms on this man seem to parody the image just below on the White Left article) - distracting from the careful discussion that the White Left thesis deserves.

Next, for this essay to be understood properly, it needs the context of being published alongside the Kant essay (his moral system as coherence, accountability, agency and warrant). In fact, for the purpose of the Kant essay to be understood, it also needs this juxtaposition; but while important, it is a primary step at this point to the highly relevant arguments which the White Left essay makes. So as not to not distract from these more relevant concerns thus, I place the Kant essay secondly and under the fold, only advising that philosophically, theoretically, it is antecedent for a proper understanding of the history of European philosophical requirements. Finally, republication will provide occasion to shore-up minor errors that should not be passed-on as these essays are a worthwhile resource.

When our advocates call our enemies The Left, they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

In an interview with Dr. Sunic, Professor MacDonald says, “these neocons, their only interest is Israel. [Otherwise] they tend to be on the Left [?]. They still are on the Left [?] when it comes to immigration. All these things are just really leftist.” [?]
Dr. Norman Lowell says that “the Left” [?] has shipped industry and with it, jobs, to China.

In his article Women on the Left, Alex Kurtagic discusses some of the same subject matter that I had dealt with in a previous article, and to which I have given some consideration over the years – among that, sorting out different kinds of feminists in relation to White interests. In concluding that these “leftists” [?] have nothing to offer women, he places feminists in the same category: de Beauvoir, who did indeed fashion herself a leftist of sorts (taking women as her advocacy group, and Marxism as her guide), but was not Jewish; and Friedan, who was Jewish, but more liberal in what she promoted than leftist.

In an interview for Alternative Right, Kurtagic goes on attacking “the leeeft, the leeeft, the leeeeft,” and I cringe, not for the reasons that he may think; i.e, he may think that I am lamenting an attack on a centralized economy, or open borders multiculturalism, PC “enrichment”. Maybe he would think that I am waxing nostalgic for the Soviet Union where he and Sunic had the misfortune to grow up, or that I want to take away private property? Maybe he thinks I am cringing because I want to jealously limit his horizons, tell him what kind of art and architecture that he can have? Maybe he thinks I want everybody to be equal or treated equally? No, I am cringing because another perfect Jewish trick is being promoted to the detriment of White people.

These counterproductive ambiguities are circulating among our best advocates – hence the need of clarification and definition emerges salient. It is not about competing with them and showing them up; it is about getting the framework of our advocacy correct.

Naming the Jew can be risky business indeed and that assuredly accounts for why White advocates have used code words: e.g., liberals, non-Christians, leftists, etc. I submit that if one is in a situation where it is too dangerous to name the Jew, then liberal – at least in terms of its fundamental meaning, viz., openness to other groups of people – is the better code word as it also encompasses those problems of ours that are truly not of Jewish making but of our own. And that the Left is the worst code word. That is the subject of this thesis, for reasons that I will elaborate shortly. Agreed, the charge of liberalism is problematic, with a decided image problem, it has one appearing stodgy and logically entailing ground yielding conservatism in response; thus, another term should be supplied – but not the Left.

When one does have to confront the Jewish question more directly, but is in danger, not free to speak in just any way, one of the best strategies for defending against charges of anti-semitism should be to distinguish between “virulent” and “relatively benign” Jews in accordance with Faussette and Bowery’s theory regarding the cycle of Jewish virulence. Jews, long a people without a nation (beginning with Babylonian captivity and for nearly 2,000 years after that), developed an uncaring, parasitic relation to their host nations, particularly among the elites of their vested interest. After a period of consolidating the wealth of a nation to themselves, the most ‘virulent’ ones escape over the border for a new host country to exploit, while the relatively ‘benign’, situated and accountable ones are subject to the wrath of the host nation’s people who realize belatedly, “’the Jews’ did this to us!” This perpetuates the cycle as the virulent elite bribe their way into a new country, gain farther sympathy, critical absolution and pseudo-justification for their exploits as they point to what ‘they do to us’: the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the pogroms, the Roman occupation.

With this distinction however, we should be able to mitigate the charge of anti-semitism, noting that our large grievance is with the virulent elite (as well as with White traitors, especially those in influential positions) not with those Jews normal, situated and accountable to a local culture. Nevertheless, as anybody who has experience will tell you, the pattern of antagonism and indifference to European interests exists not only among Jewish elitists, but in them as a whole. Thus, we need to discriminate against them and separate from them as an entire group, even if some are worse than others and should be looked upon as more criminally liable.

. . .

As with most normal White people, liking my people and myself, I spent most of my life saying that I was neither Left nor Right, if those terms emerged as an issue.

For good reason: as with all normal White people, I’d been repulsed, had a very strong aversion to identifying as leftist. I saw rabid Jewish advocates of non-Whites along with anti-White Whites and heard them called “THE Left” all my life. Yet, I looked at what was being called “the Right”, and I could not quite do that either – it meant that one would be an ignorant hole by definition. I use this vulgarism deliberately to demonstrate that you can indeed, define a term through the pattern of its use in common parlance. Note that a person will be called a hole when they harm others when they do not have to; or, when they let people harm them when they do not have to. That’s characteristic of the Right for a reason – they’re not accountable; they wish to believe in their sheer, objective innocence and not accountable to an encompassing, but delimited “we”, as such.

However, with our struggle’s growing recognition of the disregard of our people in more difficult circumstances, middle, working class and more, their increasing awareness having shown in the Wall Street protests; moving to understanding of the consequences of corporate plutocracy’s quest for cheap labor; its transgression of borders; its relation to the military industrial complex - growing recognition that this is not in our interest as Whites – our need to not identify as rightists becomes acute.

At the same time, with the population explosion threatening to overwhelm our demographic and our environment, it is also of acute importance to not identify with the phony “Left” either, which is really just more catastrophic liberalism, if you look at it. That understood, I have come to the realization that saying one is neither Left nor Right is an inarticulate halfway point to extricating oneself from promulgated Jewish definition of the terms. That once one sorts out Jewish perversion and corruption of the terms, that the Left is the best way for us to identify as White advocates.

When our advocates call our enemies “the Left” they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

Our advocates are obfuscating the agency of Jewish machinations hiding behind a twisted definition of “the Left.” The Left has the moral high ground and the label, Left, has the appearance of that moral high ground because it is supposed to be socially accountable, even if it is a misnomer: which it is, in Jewish application of the term – leftist classification indeed, for Jews, non-Whites, and anti-White Whites, but prescribing obsequious, cataclysmic liberalism for Whites. With that, they are obfuscating the motive of Jews to define us as Rightists and their motivation to drive us there when we react to this misnamed liberal prescription.

At the same time, our advocates are obfuscating our other large problem – our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretense of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability – that is Rightism.

While Jews will use this argument too, that they are simply better, meritorious, when it serves their interests, Jewish political planners and academics generally want to maneuver us into a rightist position because it leaves us naive, organizationally weak, amoral, and unaccountable to our own as a relational class of people. White traitors also want us to be rightists so that they can avoid accountability.

Finally, in calling “the Left” our enemy, our advocates obfuscate the means of solution by creating an aversion to what we need – a social classification of ourselves as a people, a full class of people. The Left is always about social classification if you sort out abuse of the term.

Understood how the term is deployed when clear, “The Left” is a function of systemic classification, designating a group of people the interests of whom are to be looked after as a class – protecting against outsiders, e.g. “scab” union busters and plutocratic exploitation of labor. We classify ourselves as Whites for highly analogous reasons: to protect ourselves from opportunistic outsiders and from elitist exploitation and indifference.

If our philosophy is correct, as White advocates, we are leftists - that is because we are advocating a people, not objective facts. We are not simply describing facts, independent of interactive involvement and consequences. We are, if we are good White advocates, saying, “if a tree falls in the woods and there are no White people left to hear it, to talk about it, at least, it may make a noise, but may as well not for all it matters.” We are taking a people-centric perspective and a White-people-centric position, specifically. We are acknowledging that nothing exists outside of interaction and how facts count must be negotiated between people. As mammals, caring about closer personal relationships, as we do, we most crucially care about White people.

In fact, the moment we refer to ourselves as Whites, or indigenous Europeans – when we refer to ourselves as a people - we are classifying, we are parceling a relative classification of ourselves socially and that is the reality. Whereas the Right, inasmuch as it pursues objectivism independent of interaction, social interaction, and a negotiation of how things count, is always something of an illusion.

If Kevin MacDonald looks at two DNA strands and says, this one is Jewish and this one is White, he must address at least one colleague with this information, in seeking agreement. In some cases, data will be agreed upon by nearly 100% of people and that will generally be called, “objective.” A few may disagree, but they will be considered crazy. Nevertheless, the data, the observation and how it counts, occurs in social interaction (or it may as well not occur at all).

Moreover, to identify who we are as a full social class would give us the moral high ground and powerful organizational function at once. Whereas, when we are made averse to the term Leftism, we are obstructed from accountability to the relative classification of ourselves and others as a people – a classification that takes into account processes, all stages of development (within the lifetime) and evolution (beyond the lifetime); a classification that makes an important difference as it takes into account and respects our paradigmatic differences, differences that make a difference from other groups; our qualitative form and function, systemic pattern, its ecological disbursement, niche differences, logics of meaning and action understood as vastly different from non-Whites; that can make us more cooperative among ourselves and less conflicting with non-Whites when practicality is the better part of valor.

The White Class: viz., persons of native European descent, with interests relative to its class as such, would entail two-way accountability straight away, from those on top and from those in developmental, marginalized stages; i.e., to our relative, relational interests, irrespective of whether White traitors and non-Whites, those outside the White Class, are more or less “objectively” capable. Non-Whites might be allies, but they are not in the class. White traitors are traitors, their abilities only making them more offensive. The White Class, The Indigenous European Class (with its subcategories, yes), would define who we are and to whom we are largely accountable
Coming back to our first big problem in calling “them” the “Left.” ...

When our advocates attribute Leftism to our enemies, they are not addressing the agentive Jewish machinations against our people, but rather attributing the problem to an ideology or less, a devil word, the “Left.” This obfuscates the fact that Jews are classifying themselves and looking after their own interests, hiding their own agency in promoting hyperbolic liberal ideas and antagonism to Whites – promoting those outside or antagonistic to the White Class as “marginals” come to “enrich” us. Jewish agency is hidden behind the attribution of “the Left” – whether the agency behind economic Marxism or the cultural Marxism of PC.

Our second big problem obfuscated by calling our enemies, ‘the Left.’ Our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretense of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability.

Whether of religious speculation which seeks to establish its pure innocence, a clique of scientistic elitists who seek to establish the pure objective warrant of their discoveries, or the pure might-makes-right of the quasi-individual and the corporate “individual” of U.S. law, the Right is characterizable as a quest for objectivism which would make quick work of accountability –  through a naïve wish to be innocent through objectivism or worse, through a cynical wish to avoid accountability through a pretense of objectivism.

The White Leftist perspective would not begrudge persons who do some things better their due, their difference, so long as they are accountable to the relative interests of the class; however, people tend to want to believe their success is more a result of their sheer independence than it actually is – the Right is pseudo objectivist, faithfully, slavishly leaving nature to its own devices – “we are caused”, pseudo detached from the social, anti-social, therefore unaccountable and inhumane as such – “that’s just the way it is”, according to nature. Failing that, the Right can and will often seek to evade account in the elusive and insensible speculation of religion.

Michael O’Meara does make an excellent point that self-destruction is inherent within many of the Western ways that Jews are already exploiting – I would say viz., objectivism, scientism, technology, liberalism, Christianity, universalism, capitalism – these things which pose as “innocent” are largely naïve or disingenuous by definition in not calling for accountability to relative and subjective interests as a White class; and narcissistically not recognizing the relative/subjective interests of others (e.g., Muslims, Blacks, Asians) as a class. Given that, we would be susceptible to destruction and to being taken advantage of - it would leave us vulnerable to a destruction of our own making or to other groups, Jews or not (Note that I have relativized this notion since the first publication, as it is over stated to say that it is a necessary consequence – these are, however, inherent susceptibilities, which are not entirely a corollary to Jews).

While understandable, the wish to transcend relative and relational interests of the class, into the innocence and power gambit of sheer objectivist pursuit creates a narcissistic, hyper-relativistic upshot. In pursuing innocence of pure criteria, void of relative, relational and subjective interests, we limit accountability, reduce comparisons between people to singular, non-qualitative criteria, - e.g. “equality/non-equality” which compares everything and provides insufficient distinction all at once - falsely comparing, blending what are in fact paradigmatic differences, incommensurate logics of meaning and action between various peoples – typically to disastrous effect.

The Right is enamored of enlightenment objectivism, which reached its height in Descartes’ quest for a fixed logic transcendent of nature; and its depth in the empiricism of Locke, who tried to find fixed foundational laws within nature. Locke was motivated by empiricism as an argument against the English Aristocratic class, which he resented for its superior educational opportunities. He asserted thus, that as each individual has the same perceptions, social classifications are a fiction of the mind which should be prohibited in favor of civil individual rights – that prejudice against classification of peoples was written into the U.S. Constitution, rupturing relations and developmental processes, leaving us weak to collectively organized enemies, such as Jews.

The means of solution

Kant tried and failed to resolve the problems of Cartesianism and Lockeatine empiricism by integrating it on universal foundational principles. It is rectified indeed, however, with the hermeneutic process, an optimizing, tacking back and forth as need be between verification of smaller units of analysis, such as our DNA and its relation to our environment, to the more protracted and patterned facets of our DNA’s expressions, relations encompassed in social classification; the answer in a word, is to re-establish the relative and relational interests of social classification – a people-centric perspective: a tree may make a noise when falling in the woods but if there are no (White) people left to hear it, or talk about it, it may as well not make a noise for all it matters to us – thus, we re-assert Whites as a Classification in particular, The White Class comprehending those of native European extraction, their sub-nations, regions (and not others) as the means and the solution.

At the same time, we observe the correction of the Darwinian unit of analysis, that the organism plus environment is the unit of survival – the organism which destroys its environment, it’s habitat, destroys itself.

For Kant, who had not rid himself of Cartesianism, good will was to treat every individual as an end in itself. For us, rather, the White Class and its environment ought to be treated as the relational, relative end in itself – it is those who fight on behalf of Whites, who tactfully flee on behalf of Whites or who stealthily infiltrate on behalf of Whites; those who respect the quality of differences that make a cooperative difference among the White class and toward other peoples who are of good will; it is a view of niche and pervasive ecology, as opposed to narcissistic comparisons of equality which entail unnecessary competition, reciprocally escalating diatribe and war. Succinctly, a White Class would call for more accountability to and from our individual members; and a more general sort of accountability to environment and non-Whites as a class – that we neither exploit them nor abet their over-population and incursion upon us.

Relative, relational separatism is always possible, is a first step, as well as our ultimate aim. If some of our members are better in some ways, and it helps, great! But we do not need that argument for separatism. In essence, we want to be separate, not to lord ourselves over and exploit others. That is a difference between White elitists and White Leftist Separatists, The White Class.

Alison Parker's Father Vows to Take Revenge on Gun that Killed His Daughter

via TradYouth

The media cover-up of Black-on-White crime is so blatant and pervasive that you’ve pretty much got to walk up to the media while they’re filming and shoot them live on camera to get any coverage. Even then, it’s necessary to film a backup copy yourself and publish it directly to your social media account, then send a series of faxes and tweets clearly and directly stating that you’re committing a racially motivated hate crime against Whites.

After going through all that trouble to get the point across, surely the media and greater public will pay some long-overdue attention to the fact that Black-on-White violence is pervasive and epidemic, with Black males committing over 90% of the interracial murders and over half of all murders, despite being less than a tenth of the population?


In fact, even the father of the victim will keep plugging his ears and pretending that it’s really just some minor policy issue, that the killers aren’t accountable for their killings, but rather their instruments of choice. Andy Parker, the liberal politician whose daughter was mercilessly gunned down by a Black man boiling over with racial hatred of White people, is going to respond to the tragic death of his intelligent and beautiful daughter by ensuring that future victims are slaughtered less efficiently and effectively, perhaps with the knives and blunt force objects South Africa’s Blacks more frequently rely upon due to their strict gun control policies.

Perhaps after we ban guns, we’ll need to ban tires shortly thereafter.

I try to step out of the political back-and-forth and attempt to empathize with multiculturalists from time to time. Try to imagine how much conditioning, self-delusion, and social dread one must feel in order to continue pretending away the obvious problem of Black criminality when even one’s own flesh and blood has succumbed to it before your very eyes.

And Mr. Parker is certainly no outlier. A typical response to Black-on-White rape is to turn against the phantasm of “rape culture” in innocuous White fraternities. A typical response to being displaced and politically cuckolded by minority and immigrant populations redistributing one’s wealth is to retreat into libertarianism, deluding oneself into thinking that some impotent abstractions are going to serve as more than a mere fig leaf against the timeless phenomenon of inter-tribal resource competition.
“I’ve got to do something going forward that makes her life meaningful and will always be with me. And this is the way to do it,” Parker told AP in an interview earlier this week.
Demand that Obama and the political system respond at least as forcefully to the statistically real problem of Black-on-White violence in America as it does to the statistically irrelevant problem of White-on-Black violence. Better yet, demand that both Whites and Blacks be allowed to self-segregate into distinct and autonomous communities which would allow the potential victims to find safe harbor from the escalating racial strife and negate the stated motives of both the Charleston and WDBJ killers.

Make Alison’s life meaningful by demanding that the rest of the media and the federal government cool it on the rhetoric that fueled Bryce’s descent into a paranoid fever of vengeful mayhem. Make Alison’s life meaningful by making this a turning point where we stop having a fruitless and interminable conversation about “gun crime” and start having a conversation about racial discord, searching for pragmatic ways to ameliorate it.

In the wake of Dylann Roof’s horrific crime, the flag he claimed was summarily torn down and set on fire. The Black homosexual’s rainbow flag will receive no such opprobrium or vilification. In the wake of Dylann Roof’s horrific crime, peaceful White Advocates were stalked, harassed, and threatened to a positively criminal degree for the supposed similarity of their ideas to Roof’s. The Black homosexual’s ideas won’t be challenged in the wake of his very calculated, lucid, and politically-oriented crime. Hell, the Black homosexual himself is already excused as having supposedly been mentally ill.

The guilt has been firmly planted on the junk pistol he relied upon to realize his political goals, even by the victim’s own brainwashed father.
“Each time you think there’s a tipping point, with Sandy Hook or Aurora, and nothing gets done,” he said. Parker was referring to the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, that killed 26 children and educators and the July 2012 killing of 12 people in a packed theater in Colorado.
Note the media’s framing. For Black-on-White crime, the motive is always supposedly “random” or “insane,” and the parallels offered are other gun crimes. Imagine a media where the slant went as follows…
“Each time you think there’s a tipping point, with the Knoxville Massacre or the Snader Sister Slaughter, and nothing gets done about Black-on-White crime…”
You’ll never see it framed that way, of course. While I reject the conspiratorial claims that many of these tragedies are staged to push the elites’ agenda to disarm the American public, there’s no doubt that there’s an open conspiracy to exploit each and every tragedy to insure that folks of  both races, White and Black alike, are less capable of defending themselves against both federal tyranny and escalating interracial violence. Never will you see this government or its media or the men like Andy Parker who are deeply enmeshed in the government and media’s elite circles addressing the root problem. You’ll never hear them admit that America’s approach to racial diversity–forcing them to integrate and encouraging minorities and immigrants to blame Whites for their disappointments and frustrations, are fueling this death spiral of escalating interracial tension.

LEGION Summer Camp 2015

via Legion Martial Arts Club

The third Legion camp.

Legion Martial Arts Club is a private self-development community based in Great Britain but attracting attendees from around the world.

We bring people together for regular events which cover many things including personal development, self-discipline, self-defense, fitness, survival skills, hiking, career and business excellence and much more.

You can apply to join Legion via the website:

The Legion promotes national improvement through self improvement. We strive to embody the Promethean spirit which is the hallmark of our people. A Legionnaire takes control or his destiny, he never hides behind victimhood, he takes ownership of his failures and successes and measures himself in relation to his will to fail as many times as necessary in order to achieve the final victory.

A Legionnaire is a man of destiny whose path leads him inexorably to take on new challenges, scale new personal heights and become an avatar for our people in an age of decay.

Jewish Activist and “Constitutional Crusader” Glenn Greenwald Demands Lawlessness on Immigration

via The Occidental Observer

"Ethnic" Activist, Glenn Greenwald
I write this piece with a heavy heart. As I have previously written, I have long held a great deal of respect for the lawyer, constitutional expert, and brilliant polemicist Glenn Greenwald. Seen from Europe, his articulate defense of civil liberties and a peaceful foreign policy presented a tantalizing alternative of another America to that of the swaggering, neoconservative-dominated administration of George W. Bush. But, as time goes on, the evidence mounts that Greenwald is marked by ethnic biases, conscious or not, which lead him to engage in vicious attacks against Anglo-American identities and, most seriously, to condone illegal immigration that is enormously threatening to the traditional peoples of the West.

Greenwald is an interesting writer and, I believe, is still useful in certain respects. He began his career defending the free speech rights of White Nationalists pro bono and, to this day, his defense of free speech and crusade against the Surveillance State benefit us all.

Greenwald’s trademark writing style is herem or excommunication: The uncompromising, vicious, and indeed sometimes excessive denunciation of hypocrites, liars, and violators of stated moral, legal, or constitutional principles. Unlike the typical Talmudist however, Greenwald will found his sermon upon a powerful and meticulously-detailed case — typically citing Western legal principles as much as the opponent’s previous incriminating statements.

However, the trouble is in Greenwald’s selectivity in targets and his utterly misleading depiction of who wields power in the West. Greenwald, as a rule, has been admirably consistent in condemning both Republicans and Democrats for violations of the law, such as illegal wiretapping under Bush, or the vast Surveillance State and aggression against Libya under Barack Obama. Greenwald has even stuck by perceived constitutional principle when this radically clashed with his liberal friends, namely defending the Citizens United interpretation of the First Amendment (which was perceived as giving “unlimited free speech to corporations”).

But there is one subject on which Greenwald’s usual fury is completely absent: Immigration. Uncharacteristically, Greenwald has yet to write on Obama’s executive amnesty decision refusing to enforce federal law and allowing millions of illegal aliens to remain in the country, even as courts have found the decision unconstitutional, whereas he has made strong attacks against executive overreach — one of his trademark issues.

On the contrary, in a recent hit piece against presidential candidate Donald Trump, Greenwald apparently for the first time expends his righteous indignation defending the lawlessness of illegal immigration and the refusal to enforce the nation’s laws. It’s all there:
The Republican presidential candidate leading every poll, Donald Trump, recently unveiled his plan to forcibly deport all 11 million human beings residing in the U.S. without proper documentation, roughly half of whom have children born in the U.S. (and who are thus American citizens). As George Will noted last week, “Trump’s roundup would be about 94 times larger than the wartime internment of 117,000 persons of Japanese descent.” It would require a massive expansion of the most tyrannical police state powers far beyond their already immense post-9/11 explosion. And that’s to say nothing of the incomparably ugly sentiments that Trump’s advocacy of this plan, far before its implementation, is predictably unleashing.
You’ve got to love the euphemistic tear-jerking (“human beings . . . without the proper documentation” with children, as opposed to lawbreakers), the completely misleading comparison to wartime Japanese internment, the hyperbole, his pretense to occupying the moral high ground (“ugly sentiments”) without even discussing the legitimate financial, political, and ethnic interests of Americans, and the implicit call to self-censorship against opposition to immigration or pointing out Hispanic crime.

Greenwald goes on to defend the anti-American, Hispanic ethnic activist and Univision TV man Jorge Ramos’ recent heckling of Trump (which he terms “commit[ting] journalism”) and condemning the candidate’s move to physically remove him. There follows more tear-jerking as Greenwald quotes Ramos saying: “This is personal. . . . [Trump]’s talking about our parents, our friends, our kids and our babies.” Greenwald goes on to refer to Trump as “a dangerous, powerful billionaire-demagogue spouting hatemongering nonsense about mass deportation.”

On the crucial issue of immigration — an  issue critical to the future of White America and indeed to the United States in general as any kind of coherent nation — Greenwald the righteous constitutional scholar is explicitly siding with lawlessness. The interests of America, much less White America, never enter his mind.

Greenwald vs. “Our Tribalism”

I have long been disturbed by Greenwald’s wider gratuitous attacks against traditional American and WASP culture. He has attacked “religious fanaticism” among Evangelical Christians as “a huge factor” driving America’s support for Israel, ludicrously suggesting that the Jewish factor is slight because Jews compose only 1.4 percent of the American population. Of course, what matters is not Jewish votes, but ample Jewish-Zionist money funding both political parties, as even mainstream Jews like Matthew Yglesias and the highly-useful Philip Weiss have documented. Greenwald of course does not mention Jewish ownership of Hollywood or of so much of the mainstream media in building support for Israel. He confuses cause and effect. The fact is that the brainwashed, dull-witted pro-Israel goyim masses are of little importance compared with the money and media-cultural influence of Israel-obsessed Jewish oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban.

Greenwald has written somewhat inanely on the semantics of terrorism committed by the misguided White Nationalist Dylan Storm Roof as opposed to Islamist terrorism. He has written derisively of the “Puritanical” — another traditional White American culture — response to the leaking of personal details of members of the Jewish-founded adultery website Ashley Madison. Now I am no Puritan and I think people should have some privacy for their inevitable moral weaknesses. But, in effect, Greenwald’s argument contests the very principle of any social shaming of bad behavior, encouraging the kind of social atomization which leads to maladaptive behavior, particular in the lower half of the IQ bell curve.

One of his books, Great American Hypocrites, is a powerful indictment of the hypocrisy of the dog-whistling Republican establishment, but is also a wider attack on the (overwhelmingly White) subculture of Christian, rural, Red America — the traditional bogeyman of Jewish intellectuals and their abhorrence of populism among White Americans.

Most misleading however has been Greenwald’s repeated use of the word “tribalism” to denounce Western imperialism in the Middle East:

While the leading lights of the West love to celebrate themselves as beacons of civilized, progressive rationality, their overriding mentality is just the crassest and most primitive form of tribalism: when Our Side does it, it is right, and when Their Side does it, it is wrong. No matter the esoteric finery in which it drapes itself, that is the primitive, banal formulation that lies at the heart of the vast, vast majority of foreign policy discourse in the West. So often, those who fancy themselves brave warriors for rationality and advancement by demonizing Islam are just rank tribalists whose own national, religious and cultural loyalties are served by doing so.
The argument then is one of condemnation of Western chauvinism. But does Greenwald really think Western nationalists caused the wars in the Middle East? Greenwald is specifically referring to the supposed “tribalism” of the loathsome former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. But that begs the question: What tribe does Tony Blair, or for that matter George Bush or Barack Obama, serve? They certainly don’t serve the interests of Whites.

There’s a very simple litmus test for whether “tribalist” White America really ran the United States: There would be far less immigration and European-Americans would not be on the verge of becoming a vulnerable minority, against their will, in the very country which their ancestors founded for them. But if the White majority does not rule America, well then, who does? The short ancestor is a deracinated corporate oligarchy which is about one third Jewish and whose Jewish component is unbelievably over-represented in the critical choke points of influence: the news and entertainment media, the financing of political campaigns, and presidential administrations generally. That little clique forms the “tribalists” which Blair, Bush, and Obama have to pander to, certainly not Western publics in general.

Chomsky and Greenwald: A Shared Ethnic Blind Spot

Glenn Greenwald with Noam Chomsky, a stated intellectual influence.
Glenn Greenwald with Noam Chomsky, a stated intellectual influence

I am struck at the similarity between Greenwald’s conceit and that of the world’s favorite intellectual pseudo-dissident/New York Times #1 intellectual, Noam Chomsky. Greenwald has frequently quoted Chomsky’s famous moral dictum:
My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason than that; namely, I can do something about it. So even if the U.S. was responsible for 2 percent of the violence in the world instead of the majority of it, it would be that 2 percent I would be primarily responsible for. And that is a simple ethical judgment. That is, the ethical value of one’s actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences. It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century.
This is sound moral reasoning. But there is a problem: It appears to consider the U.S. as a homogeneous mass equally “responsible” for the crimes of the U.S. government. “Us” is the U.S. as a whole. But “us” could just as easily be one’s economic class or ethnic community. Chomsky and Greenwald never think of themselves as part of an astonishingly influential Jewish elite which, concerning immigration, multiculturalism, and policy towards Israel, has undeniably had a critical impact. In the case of Chomsky, this ethnic blind spot is so great that he has even denied the impact of the copiously-documented Israel lobby, instead ludicrously arguing that U.S. support for Israel is grounded in imperial self-interest.

Chomsky and Greenwald spread the blame for the evils of American foreign policy over White America as a whole, rather than restrict it to the particular ethnic and political elites responsible. There is vituperative denunciation of “Western tribalism,” “Evangelicals,” and “our” selfishness — which may all be factors — and yet complete silence on the elephant in the room that is Jewish-Zionist money and media-cultural bias. This is a blind spot Chomsky and Greenwald seem to share, even though both men are indeed highly critical of Israel.

Greenwald’s Foundations: A Jewish milieu and Nuremberg

I can only speculate as to Greenwald’s psychological motivations, which may be unknown and unconscious even to him. He is certainly in the long and destructive tradition of Jewish intellectuals of the left, and he may well be driven by the same ethnic resentments of so many Jewish intellectuals against the traditional peoples and culture of the West, combined with a bit more honesty about Israeli brutality. Certainly the uncompromising emotional intensity of his attacks against opponents in general and European-American culture in particular are characteristic.

Greenwald’s power networks are significantly, though not entirely, Jewish. He has taken some risks in taking on the mainstream liberal, conservative, and neoconservative establishments, and has needed powerful friends to do this successfully. His rise to global fame saw many steps: joining the significantly-Jewish liberal website Salon, speaking before far-left Socialist gatherings and writing for the Libertarian CATO Institute (founded by the Koch brothers and Murray Rothbard, now run by Chairman Robert Levy and Vice President David Boaz . . .), joining the left-wing British Guardian, working generally closely with the Jewish-led ACLU, before finally joining Franco-Iranian tech oligarch Pierre Omidyar following the coup that was his reception of Edward Snowden’s NSA leak.

The lawyers working with Greenwald in the Oscar-crowned documentary CitizenFour are overwhelmingly Jewish. In one article on Obama’s failure to shut down Guantánamo Bay, Greenwald exclusively cites Jews in support of his position (Ken Roth, Ben Wizner, Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders . . .). I mention these examples to suggest that he works in a substantially Jewish civil liberties milieu. Such an environment would be conducive to the development of ethnic biases against non-Jews and, in particular, against WASPs and traditional American culture.

On a philosophical level, Greenwald’s great weakness is in a certain selectivity in his fundamental legal foundations. Greenwald cites essentially two sources in defining the legitimate use of power: The U.S. Constitution and the Nuremberg Military Tribunal. On the Constitution, Greenwald conveniently forgets that the Founding Fathers, whom he loves to quote, conceived of their system of government as functioning only in an ethno-culturally homogeneous European-derived nation (see Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln . . .) and that indeed many were already hostile to the misanthropic aspects of Jewish culture.

Greenwald’s citing of Nuremberg is also problematic. Admittedly, he does so because the current Western regimes base their legitimacy on Nuremberg, which he then uses to condemn the “wars of aggression” being waged by Western governments in the Middle East. This is a noble argument. But, more fundamentally, Nuremberg was an illegitimate example of “victor’s justice” (something recognized by many leading Americans at the time) which has since been used to demonize any attempt by Western peoples to defend their legitimate ethnic interests by association with the Holocaust.

Greenwald appears to have gone for this narrative hook, line, and sinker. Indeed, he frequently mocks all symbols of and appeals to patriotism and national identity (even finding puerile fun in mocking the British monarchy’s decorum). As he wrote on a British minister’s (admittedly dubious) defense of new censorship legislation:
[S]he evades the question completely, repeatedly invoking creepy slogans about the need to stop those who seek to “undermine Our British Values” and, instead, ensure “we are together as one society, One Nation” (I personally believe this was all more lyrical in its original German).
I happen to be a strong advocate of free speech. But why does Greenwald seem to think that an elementary a statement as “we are together as one society, one nation” is “creepy” or Nazi-esque? Is Greenwald opposed to all sense of nationhood and political community?

I doubt Greenwald will read this article but, if he does, I hope he understands it as a good-faith invitation to reflection and self-criticism, as opposed to a personal attack. But on the off chance that he does read it: Glenn, read a bit of Mondoweiss, take to heart the politically incorrect writings of the Founding Fathers, be a bit more critical of the weaponized “Nuremberg narrative,” and, most elementary of all, defend the law you claim to serve concerning immigration!

You also claim to serve justice and the weak. Well, let me be so bold as to suggest that, today, the traditional peoples of the West are in a position of weakness and a supreme injustice is being committed against them: The handing over of their homelands, against their will and their existential security, to other peoples with historic grudges against them. Let all men of good will fight for the righteous cause that is the European peoples’ right to life.

Michael Moore's Cultural-Marxist Narrative of American History, Refuted

via Faith & Heritage

A while back, a well-known OPC minister and personal friend of mine posted the following video clip of Michael Moore’s “A Brief History of the United States of America” on his Facebook wall.

Of this video my pastor friend said: “This link was sent to me by a young college student who hesitatingly referred to herself as ‘the only white person in the class’ of a local community college history course.” In order to forward it to the pastor after class, she had found it again on YouTube by word-searching the phrase, “America history cartoon white people suck.” She forwarded it to the pastor because she was offended by it; she wanted advice on how to handle such an anti-White atmosphere as she encountered in class. The pastor likewise floated the video on Facebook for the same reason – because he thought it outrageous:

The resulting commentary which ensued on his Facebook wall was all but unanimous in the opinion that the video represented a gross distortion of American history. That is, until a young Black attendee of the pastor’s church weighed in. Confident in his social superiority, he affirmed the accuracy of the video and issued blanket rebukes to all the Whites who had commented ahead of him. At which point all the candid critics of the video fell silent, or fell in behind the young Black, applauding his courage and the de facto superiority of his ethnic perspective.

The following critique of said video is a tidied-up version of the response I posted in that thread.

First, the Puritan fathers didn’t leave England for “fear of being persecuted.” They left because they were persecuted. Their priority wasn’t to assuage any irrational fear, but rather, to find a land where they might establish a more godly society so that their children would be free to obey God in public life.

Similarly, the Pilgrims didn’t kill the Indians out of irrational fear. Upon arrival in the New World, the Puritans sought to evangelize the Red man, but the reaction of the Red man ranged from indifference to frequent campaigns of genocide. Of the London divines, Gray and Symonds are noted to have viewed the conquest of this continent as a direct parallel to Israel’s conquest of Canaan, to be pursued principally by violence (see Gray’s 1609 sermon, “A Good Speed to Virginia“), but the majority demurred: “Daniel Price, Richard Crakathorpe, George Benson, Robert Tynley, and Richard Eburne held the founding of Virginia a part of the divine plan for the conversion of her benighted people, who were to be raised to ‘civility, and brought to Christ,’ not exterminated.”1

This was the case not only in Virginia, but also in New England:
[T]here were missionary efforts to convert the Indians of New England to Christianity. As early as 1643 Thomas Mayhew labored for the conversion of the Indians of Martha’s Vineyard Island, and a Narragansett sachem to whom he applied for permission to preach to his tribe replied: “Go make the English good first.”2
These labors on behalf of the Red man were pursued in spite of preceding campaigns of genocide against the Whites:
In 1622 the Indians, under leadership of Opechancanough, Powhatan’s brother and successor, massacred three hundred and fifty of the Virginia colonists, and reduced eighty plantations to eight [only after which] [t]he whites began a terrible war of revenge against the savages.3
Nonetheless, from the beginning, men such as John Eliot spent decades of their lives learning Indian dialects, translating the Bible and the Catechism into Indian languages, and preaching to the Red man in his own tongue. These are not the actions of irrationally fearful men bent on genocide, but the courageous and merciful acts of men seeking to disciple the nations of a heathen race.
Yet the genocide campaigns against the Whites only increased in frequency and intensity:
In 1675 the Wampanoag prince, Metacomet, commonly known as King Philip, the son and successor of the good Massasoit, commenced a war of extermination against the white people of New England . . . and many of the whites were massacred. The whites were soon aroused, and seized their arms, while the savages desolated the English settlements on the Connecticut river . . . the following year (1676) the Indians were subjugated.4
One early attestation well contrasts the Christian self-scrutiny of White settlers acting in self-defense over against the Indians of Virginia who were animated by the darkest of motives:
Shortly after the settlement at Jamestown in 1607, a ship from England was sailing up the James River to Jamestown Island bringing settlers and supplies. The passengers and crew observed a canoe, which was being frantically paddled by an Indian woman and seven children, emerging from behind a point of land. Behind the canoe was a ship’s boat, manned by husky White men who were just as furiously rowing their craft which was steadily gaining.
The ship’s boat caught up with the canoe almost under the bow of the ship, and the interested passengers and crew gasped as a sailor in the bow of the ship’s boat leaned over and with his pistol shot the Indian woman. The ship’s boat rammed the fragile canoe and rode up over it, forcing it down into the water and throwing the children into the river. They watched in horror as the sailors used their oars to hold the children under water until they drowned.
The incoming ship landed at Jamestown and its passengers disembarked, full of protests and condemnation at the brutal sight they had just witnessed. Then they were told the rest of the story.
The Indians’ god was named Okee, or Kiwassa. He was a mighty and terrible god, a god the Indians feared. He spoke to the Indians in thunder and lightning. Night, blackness, and pain bespoke his presence.
His food was pain. The more the pain, the longer and more excruciating the pain, the more satisfied and happy was Okee. To turn this consuming wrath from themselves, the Indians did all they could to give their god what he wanted, pain, from someone else.
As to a “good” god, there was no such being. If there were, there was no reason to worship or conciliate such a deity, since he would not injure them. This Okee was another matter entirely. He had to be pacified or he would turn on the Indian for the pain he craved.
Once a year, twenty of the handsomest children, aged 10 to 15, were painted white and placed at the foot of a tree. Then, savages armed with clubs formed a narrow corridor through which five men were to pass, carrying off the children. As the braves passed through the corridor with the children in their arms, they were severely beaten by the multitude to elicit pain, but the carriers carefully shielded the children. The children’s turn was to come. The children were then cast into a heap in a valley. The actual things that were done to the children were well-kept secrets, but this much we do know, Okee sucked their blood until they were dead. The god Okee loved pain and sucked blood.5
The pain of someone good was better than the pain of someone bad; that of the strong and brave better than that of one weak. But pain of any sort was demanded. Indian women and children were the ones delegated to administer this pain. Their craft was state-of-the-art. They were past-experts at their allotted tasks.
The pain of a White man was, in the eyes of the Indians, better than the pain of an Indian. Therefore, every White settler was eyed as a potential gift to Okee. When fate, trust, cupidity, or stupidity delivered a White captive into Indian hands, he was imprisoned but treated with kindness and well cared for. He was carefully fed, building his strength to withstand the trials to come.
When at last judged to be in his strongest physical condition he was taken to meet Okee. He was bound, usually to a stake in the center of an Indian village. The Indian women and children were released to practice their carefully-learned craft on him. They were masters at their work.
The skin on the prisoner’s face, eyelids, lips, tongue, and private parts was slowly and excruciatingly removed. Splinters the size of toothpicks were inserted into the bare muscle tissue and lighted. With care and patience, a White man could be kept alive sometimes for three excruciating days. Then his entrails, those that would not cause immediate death, were removed.
On rare occasions when tortured prisoners were recaptured while undergoing torture, they always begged for a quick and merciful death – never release. What was left of the man was a ragged screaming bundle of scorched and burnt nerves and flesh – the perfect meal that satisfied Okee best.
The Indian woman and her children executed under the bow of the incoming ship below Jamestown Island had been surprised torturing a White captive in the manner described above. They fled by boat, were caught, and were given a quick, merciful death, something they had not given their victim.
The passengers and crew quickly came to understand that Indians were not sunburned White men. They were savages bred to their way of life for a thousand generations by a god that demanded that different laws be obeyed. The colonists made quick adjustments in their thinking to improve their chances of survival in a strange land, a land made savage by inhabitants as cruel and evil as anything encountered by the children of Israel when they went into the promised land.
The men in the longboat acted as Phineas [Numbers 25:1-12] would have acted.6
And the Indians were not exterminated, as Mr. Moore alleges, for that was not the settlers’ objective. In fact, there are far more Indians today than there were then: eminent historian, scholar, and missionary to the Indians R.J. Rushdoony reports that prior to the coming of the White man, “The Indian population was small, perhaps at most 250,­000 to 300,000, and perhaps even less than half that number.”7 Compare this with the 2013 census which recorded 3,797,970 Amerindians in the U.S. alone.8 Far from a genocide, these figures seem to confirm a massive proliferation of the Indian population under the circumstance of White hegemony. And even if we granted the outrageously inflated estimate of Indian numbers in pre-columbian North America bandied about by leftists — 18 million — we realize that by dealing with the whole of the continent, that figure includes the Aztec empire. But if we count the descendants of those Aztecs in our tally, we are talking about 54 million within U.S. borders alone as of 2013.9 And even if it were proven that American Indian populations have dwindled, the presence of smallpox (for which Europeans provided Indians with vaccines) and of intertribal Indian genocide would serve equally well as helpful explanations.

Underlying the whole issue is the question of whether our settlement of the Americas was an ethical enterprise. Moore’s video implies it was not. His view is in keeping with the zeitgeist, which holds European colonization to be the original sin of mankind.

But think about it – when the White man arrived, he found an open wilderness owned, according to the rarely encountered Indian denizens, by no one; because the Red man had not even the concept of property. Like Bedouins or gypsy rovers, the Indians merely camped in a valley until they exhausted its resources, and then moved on to the next. The Indian’s presence in the land was transitory and rootless, without parcel or boundary. They were vagabond savages absent deed, territorial claim, or legal theory of property. Following Christian law, Europeans merely claimed the vacant, ownerless territory bestowed to them by Providence.

Moore extends our people’s irrational fear to witch hunts, but the facts oppose him here as well. In the first place, there was not one solitary witch burned in America. There were eighteen executions by hanging (one of whom was a minister of note) and one accidental death by peine forte et dure (stone weight), applied to induce a close-lipped defendant to enter a plea of either guilty or not guilty. None of which was due to their becoming irrationally afraid of one another, as Moore alleges. I dare anyone to read Reverends Cotton and Increase Mather’s writing on the subject,10 or the minutes of the trials without sympathy for the people of Salem. They were living through an event that made The Exorcist look mild by comparison. The eyewitnesses are numbered in the hundreds: judges, learned men, and the most eminent Puritan divines testified that they witnessed genuine xenolalia and fluency in dead languages by possessed children, hands seeming to rove beneath the skin of bewitched persons, telekinesis, multiple voices emanating from one person at a time, and feats of inhuman strength by young girls. Prolonged levitation and even flight were witnessed by large assemblies of people. Even so, Rev. Increase Mather stressed the observance of “Blackstone’s formulation” when he wrote:
“It were better that Ten Suspected Witches should escape, than that one Innocent Person should be Condemned.”11
For all their endeavors to clear people of charges, the fact was that witchcraft was in deed present. So much so that the people of the town had turned a blind eye to soothsayers and renowned families of fortunetellers for generations. By the time of the trials, the court was faced with well-known dynastic covens sometimes three or four generations deep. As The Standard History of the World sums up the intrigues at Salem:
The great English divine, Richard Baxter, pronounced a disbeliever in witchcraft ‘an obdurate Sadducee’ . . . [and] a century later Sir William Blackstone, the eminent legal authority, declared that to deny the existence of witchcraft is to deny divine revelation.12
Contrary to Michael Moore’s overall theme of Whites’ mistreating other races, the only convicted person to have been pardoned for her crimes by the Salem court was Tituba, the slave woman from Barbados. The court reasoned that while the White girls whom Tituba coached in witchcraft knew better, Tituba’s African background and ignorance actually made her less culpable. Thus was she spared the penalty suffered by her White counterparts.

We need not justify their every conclusion, but we must reject Mr. Moore’s parody pawned off as history.

Moore briefly, but still clearly, imputes the same mindless fear to the American Revolution. But it wasn’t fear of the British which inspired America to fight for her independence. We fought, as the 1765 Stamp Act stipulated, because the crown proved “deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity”; because the king was systematically depriving us of the free exercise of our God-given rights, self-defense included. So the Declaration of Independence includes an indictment of the crown, besides such things as taxes and admiralty courts, for refusing to defend the colonies from the “merciless Indian Savages.” For all his theological foibles, Jefferson faithfully relayed the Knoxian social theory upon which our republic was founded: “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.”

Our forebears didn’t pass the second amendment to grant them the ability to keep guns. The right to bear effective arms is the primary right of self-defense written of by all the canons of common law.
The colonists in America held attitudes similar to the English regarding self-defense. First, the founders were committed to maintaining an armed populace. For instance, Patrick Henry stated during the Virginia Convention that “The great object is, that every man be armed.” Richard Henry Lee, a delegate to that convention, wrote that “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” George Mason even equated slavery with the confiscating of weapons: “Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man . . . to disarm the people.13
Consonant with the Catechism, the common law held right to be the child of law: Christian men understood the right of arms therefore as an inverse corollary of the sixth commandment. If we hope to prevent murder, we must defend innocent life effectively.
In conclusion, the individual right of self-defense has had an illustrious past. From Moses to Jesus, and from Blackstone to Madison, legal experts have affirmed the exercise of this right. The right of self-defense has also been incorporated into the Declaration of Independence, America’s National Charter. Most importantly, the right of self-defense is part of the law of nature and of nature’s God, which gives it its unalienable status.14
Contrary to Moore’s presentation, African slavery didn’t arise after the war of Independence, but well prior.15 And we know there is no causal nor even connotative connection between that trade and the bearing of arms, because the institution of slavery is much more ancient than firearms.

The English crown had arranged trade in rum, sugar, and Blacks out of Barbados for reception at Plymouth colony. They also arranged a lush trade in Irish slaves.16 The slave trade was conducted out of London and Amsterdam by Jewish merchants, not Pilgrims or Virginians.17 As the preamble to the Virginia constitution attests, the king “prompt[ed] our Negroes to rise in Arms amongst us, those very negroes whom, by an inhuman use of his negative, he hath refused us permission to exclude by law.” This was likewise testified by Madison, among many others: “This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British merchants. The British Government constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it.”18 The state of Virginia was the first governmental body on earth to declare the slave trade illegal,19 but her various restrictions were vetoed by the king of England.20 The familiar argument of the crown was, ‘Let us stock the plantations plentifully with Africans, not only that they may be good customers for our manufacturers, and producers for our commerce; but that they remain dependent and submissive. An Englishman who emigrates, becomes the bold asserter of popular and colonial rights; but the negro is only fit for bondage.’21 And even those Jewish merchants with whom the crown colluded against America didn’t “kidnap” Africans with nets; contrary to the public schools’ silence concerning Blacks’ own culpability in enslaving their kinsmen, these merchants bought them from the African chieftains, as slaves had been the universal currency across Africa from time immemorial. The alternative to sale for most of them was that they would eventually go into the stew pot.

African servitude in America didn’t come without reward for the slaves. They worked the fields seasonally, as is typical of all agrarian workers, and had all Sabbaths off. The rest of the time they were allowed to hire themselves out to neighbors for odd jobs to earn money and build their own estates.22 The Black slaves of the South were better off by every standard of measure than any Black population on earth, and even better off than the White wage-earning populations in America and Europe.23

And it wasn’t White fear or oppression that inspired the slave revolt. The slaves attacked the Whites because they were still “half-savage blacks . . . some of whom could still remember the taste of human flesh and the bulk of them hardly three generations removed from cannibalism.”24 The slaves were moreover incited as Unitarian agitators from the North, otherwise known as Carpetbaggers, continued stirring them up to genocide the White populace as they had recently done in Saint-Domingue, now otherwise known as Haiti. As Reverend Thornwell wrote at the time, “The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders – they are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, jacobins on the one side, and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In a word, the world is the battleground – Christianity and Atheism the combatants; and the progress of humanity the stake.”25

Other than the bands of renegade Blacks dispatched in the wake of Sherman’s genocidal March to the Sea, the “Please don’t kill me, big black man” segue in Mr. Moore’s cartoon is fictional. The only cases where something like that may have happened would have been cases where the very old, the very young, the infirm, and the women suffered. The able-bodied White men were already dead.

After the war’s end, the Black people didn’t “just want to live in peace.” That was the beginning of the Reconstruction era. All those who lived through it attested that violence during “peacetime” Reconstruction was worse than the violence they experienced in wartime. The Blacks (with the approval of the federal government) were intent upon doing to the Southrons what was done to the Whites of Haiti: annihilation. That is when the small bands of remaining able-bodied White men formed units to defend the defenseless women and children. So came the Ku Klux Klan, without which the White population would have been genocided completely.

The NRA was founded by Union military men after the war to foster better White marksmanship in the North and amongst Blacks in the South,26 so as to better punish the Southrons who had proven the superior  marksmen during the war. Moreover, this strategy would also keep more Blacks in the Southern states, so the White regions in the North would not be inundated by Black migration.

The objective of the Klan wasn’t “shooting and lynching black people,” but protecting their families from those bent on murder, pillage, and general mayhem, be they white, black, or anything in between. The racial statistics on lynching reveal that one out of every four persons lynched in American history were White. In many states, no Blacks were lynched at all, only Whites. Which proves that lynching was not a racial policy per se, but a means of redress for serious crimes in a time when the federal government had resolved itself on war against America and, to that end, unleashed a horde of savages against non-combatant women and children. Lynching, then, was the last resort of a besieged people to preserve the judicious administration of justice. Any racial disparities emerged from the disparity of the races committing the crimes, not from some irrational goal of the lynchers to target Blacks irrespective of guilt.

Besides being notoriously uncivil, the civil rights movement was not about rights – at least not directly. It was about granting Blacks government-created privileges to deprive Whites of the exercise of their God-given rights (otherwise known as “unalienable rights”) of free association and property. Blackstone’s comprehensive commentary on the law offers no definition for the term “civil rights” but rather uses it to define “private wrongs.”27 Which is to say that the canons of common law conceived of no public or governmental application of the concept. But in the context of American history, everyone recognizes the phrase “civil rights” as particularly bearing upon the African people in our midst. The entire design of that movement was, following the precedent set in the War Between the States, top-down: civil rights were asserted by the federal government against the sovereign states and the people’s God-given rights. That’s why all the amendments to the Constitution prior to the war were constraints on federal power, but all after the war did the opposite, constraining the states and the people. The advent of civil rights was the abolition of actual Rights in favor of arbitrary privilege. In keeping with that inversion of law and ethics, civil rights proponents use the terms “White privilege” or “White supremacy” as euphemisms for all the God-given rights long aforehand recognized as necessary consequents of Christian Law.

It may seem impolitic now after decades of Marxist social programming, but Blacks and Whites having reserved seating on public transportation actually mitigated friction and lessened violence. Truly, if we want a view into how benign assigned seating is, we need only reflect on the like phenomena of handicapped parking, gender-specific restrooms, the girls’ choir, VIP passes, groomsmen, captain’s quarters, judge’s chambers, family businesses, seats of honor, and so on. Far from the devil multicultists portray it as, discrimination is an essential part of our every institution, without which Christian society cannot function nor even exist. And Red Rosa Parks didn’t take it upon herself to do what she did, but was proven to be a communist agent of the infamous Highlander Folk School acting under orders to stir up unrest and violence against Whites.28

Albeit, the video does tell the truth, if mockingly, about White flight to the suburbs: after the color line fell, we left the cities because it wasn’t safe for our women or our children to be surrounded by Blacks. I realize Leftists like Moore would be scandalized to hear anyone state that fact openly, but it remains a fact nonetheless. It still isn’t safe for Whites to live cheek by jowl with Blacks. Federal crime statistics confirm it – the levels of violence visited upon Whites living in close proximity to Blacks is statistically witnessed nowhere else for us but in theaters of open warfare.

The thesis of Mr. Moore’s cartoon is that Whites are uniquely depraved, paranoid, and violent because we remove our children from the likelihood of rape, murder, and mayhem. On such premises, we should rather just move to Compton. But Michael Moore doesn’t do that. He lives in an all-White, gated community with bodyguards. Because it’s safe.

This underlying issue of “fear” is the framework upon which Mr. Moore lays his narrative. That is, he portrays our unalienable rights of self-defense, property, association, and self-determination to be psychosis. As is the prerogative of every cultural Marxist, he smears all Christian ethics by way of pathology. Make no mistake: he is inveighing not only against the White man, but against his Occidental worldview: Christianity.

Of course, this invocation of “fear” as a shameful pathology is only ever attributed to the White man. When other peoples are described as living in fear, theirs is never portrayed as neurotic or baseless. Their fear is ever presumed credible and warranted; but astoundingly, the fear expressed by non-Whites is categorically laid at the feet of Whites too! Isn’t that Mr. Moore’s point, after all – that informed and intelligent people (non-Whites) have every justification to fear Whites? But Whites fear everything without justification?

This is the definition of hypocrisy.

Mr. Moore clearly feels no compunction about lying in the service of that hypocrisy. But this too has long been the patent tactic of Marxism: for the Marxist, words are not a vehicle to convey truth, only to further the agenda.


  1. Alfred A. Cave, Lethal Encounters, p. 42
  2. Israel Smith Clare, The Standard History of the World, 1930 edition, p. 2935
  3. Ibid., p. 2932
  4. Ibid., p. 2935
  5. The author here cites Virginia: A History of the People by John Esten Cooke (New York, 1883), p. 28
  6. Richard Kelly Hoskins, Vigilantes of Christendom, chapter 3: “Virginia,” pp. 65-67. Hoskins does not cite other sources, so his telling may be apocryphal, yet whether or not it is, John Esten Cooke’s attestations deem such an account to be highly intrinsically probable, hence reflective of such Indians’ motivations. For Cooke testifies that the Indians worshiped Okee as an evil god who delighted in the suffering of children and innocents (Virginia, pp. 28-29), they seeing no need to propitiate a good god who would not cause them injury anyway.
  7. R.J. Rushdoony, “What Is Overpopulation?” See also his “Myth of Over-Population” lecture transcription.
  8. Of the 2013 U.S. population of 316,497,531, 1.2% was American Indian, hence 3,797,970.
  9. Ibid. Take the “Hispanic or Latino” category – which can, admittedly, include a number of blacks and others identifying as Hispanic, but predominantly refers to Mestizos. This figure of 17.1% would yield a population of 54,121,078.
  10. This source can also be acquired here.
  11. Increase Mather, Cases of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits, page 66.
  12. Israel Smith Clare, op. cit., p. 2936
  13. Eric M. Pratt, “Self-Government and the Unalienable Right of Self-Defense: Restoring the Second Amendment“: “The Colonial Approach
  14. Ibid.
  15. See this link concerning slavery in Massachusetts, for example.
  16. See this interview with Michael Hoffman.
  18. The Constitution a Pro-Slavery Compact; or, Extracts from the Madison Papers“, p. 43.
  19. R.L. Dabney, A Defense of Virginia and the South, p. 50
  20. Ibid., p. 47
  21. Ibid., p. 54
  22. Steve Wilkins and Doug Wilson, “Southern Slavery As It Was
  23. George Fitzhugh, “The Blessings of Slavery
  24. Frank L. Owsley, “The Irrepressible Conflict,” I’ll Take My Stand, p. 62
  25. James Henley Thornwell, The Rights and Duties of Masters, p. 14.
  26. 10 Surprising Facts About the NRA That You Never Hear
  27. George Rutherglen, Civil Rights in the Shadow of Slavery, p. 41
  28. See this article on “Red Rosa,” which also outlines the previous escapades of another opponent of the bus laws, Claudette Colvin.