Mar 7, 2016

The Psychology of the Judeocritic

via Counter-Currents

Édouard Drumont
It is a standard canard to describe critics of Jewish power, privilege, and ethnocentrism (otherwise known as “racism”) as somehow psychopathological. One term that is often used is “obsessive.” Of course, Jews tend to be far more interested in themselves than their critics are, but this self-regard is never stigmatized as “obsessive.” But still, there is no point in denying that some anti-Semites are as obsessive, monomaniacal, and self-defeating as Captain Ahab.

The best Judeocritics do, however, have a very healthy trait that can be described as obsessiveness, although I prefer to describe it as scrupulousness and fair-mindedness. Such writers do not want to be unfair, vulgar “anti-Semites” picking on a small, hapless minority out of (as the Jews tell us) envy or various psycho-sexual complexes.

The most influential anti-Semite in human history, Adolf Hitler, himself professes in his famous book to have been deeply conflicted for months at a time. Anti-Semitism had to be absolutely factual, legitimate, and grounded, or would be a terrible crime: “The whole thing seemed to me so monstrous, the accusations so boundless, that, tormented by the fear of doing injustice, I again became anxious and uncertain.”[1]


The critic then wishes to show, in good faith, with meticulous detail, and as definitively as possible, that his grievances are legitimate. The trouble is this very goyishe attitude itself only really works when one is discussing with people of good faith. “One false theory will falsify a hundred facts,” G. K. Chesterton is supposed to have said (I cannot confirm it). In any case, it takes infinitely less energy to tell an (unfalsifiable) lie than to prove a truth. That is the fundamental truth underlying the prosperous political economy of Talmudism and its secular offshoots, most notably liberal Zionism (in brief: “Ethno-state for me, multiculturalism for thee”).

But the good goyim, in their irrepressible goyish-ness, are stubborn indeed. They insist on enmeshing themselves in the tangled web of lies, truths, and half-truths put before them. The struggle to tear these apart progressively drives the goy mad. Indeed, all his efforts can simply be countered by the simple assertion of another lie. An uncontrollable rage rises in his soul (what evolutionary psychologists call the “cheater-detection mechanism”[2]).

Martin Luther
The great Protestant reformer Martin Luther wrote in his inimitably-titled book On the Jews and Their Lies: “If I had to refute all the other articles of the Jewish faith, I should be obliged to write against them as much and for as long a time as they have used for inventing their lies — that is, longer than two thousand years.”[3]

The two volumes of Édouard Drumont’s La France juive, a best-seller in its day and long the reference anti-Semitic work, runs to 1,200 pages. Unfortunately, I have not been able to read La France Juive to examine its merits as the Jews of the so-called “League Against Anti-Semitism and Racism” (LICRA) have succeeded in suing to ban the book, which had recently been republished by Alain Soral. This was an astonishing, absurd, and rare decision by a French court to censor . . . a century-old historical document. Were Drumont alive today, no doubt he would note that this remarkable decision precisely reflects the power of the ethnic networks he denounced and proves that the Jews fear his big book is of such quality that it would enlighten the goyim and make them restless.

After Mein Kampf, Hitler for a time planned for a second book dedicated entirely to the history of the Jews. Even during the war, in October 1941 during a most critical phase of the invasion of Russia, the German Führer assured listeners that he had not ceased to document his grievances: “I have numerous accounts to settle, about which I cannot think today. But that doesn’t mean I forget them. I write them down. The time will come to bring out the big book!”[4] We will never read Hitler’s memoirs.

macdonald2Professor Kevin MacDonald’s four weighty volumes on the Jewish question are models of scholarly seriousness and meticulous documentation. In visibly good faith, the venerable Anglo-American tradition of scientific empiricism – in its characteristically dry and objective language, armed with endless quotes, statistics, and scientific studies – is brought to bear on the world’s most privileged, and indeed unmentionable, ethnic group. And MacDonald continues to sacrifice himself, soldiering on to study and write about the most disagreeable subject of Jewish ethnocentrism, to document every double-standard and every bit of false propaganda. We reap the benefits.  In our disenchanted age, only science retains the prestige to convince people of an unambiguous “truth.”

For how long must the good goyim struggle in this disagreeable business? Forever? At least until the entire rotten structure of lies and hypocrisy is brought tumbling down and the European peoples, and in particular European-Americans, are, again, free to determine their own destiny.

There are dangers in becoming obsessive. Every topic must be given the just measure of attention. The work must go on.

1. Adolf Hitler (trans. Ralph Manheim), Mein Kampf (London: Hutchison, 1969), 52. Hitler’s general account of his “greatest inner struggles” in awakening to anti-Semitism and his account of Jewish power are remarkable, and one can see why little attention has been given to them in popular culture and the media.
2. This mechanism, we are told, was evolved among hunter-gatherer tribes to facilitate survival. Given the peculiar conditions of the Ice Age, I suspect this mechanism has a peculiar form among northwest Europeans, making them rather trusting in general but perhaps uniquely ruthless when the mechanism is triggered.
3. Martin Luther, On the Jews and their Lies (1543).
4. Jonathan Toland, Adolf Hitler (Ware, England: Wordsworth, 1997), 703.

You Hate Big Government? Why Do You Vote Like You Do?

via Angry White Dude

You’re mad as hell and you’re not going to take it anymore, you say? You hate the Republican Establishment, you say? It’s time for them all to go, you say? So why did you vote for your sitting Congressman again? You know, the one that does exactly as he’s told by the Establishment? The one who never really does anything year after year? You know, the one who sucks? Yeah, him. Oh, and by the way, Republican voter of the status quo, you suck too!

One common thread runs throughout the country in 2016. America is pissed and wants change in Washington! Conservatives want either a billionaire knife-fighting businessman with zero political experience or a tried and true conservative Senator from Texas to right the rapidly sinking ship of state. Democrats want a tortured ex-hippie buffoon socialist or a tortured ex-hippie criminal buffoon socialist to replace a buffoon socialist…fill in the blanks yourself. Stupid Republican Voters (SRV’s) want whatever BS loser the Establishment feeds them.

Super Tuesday has gone the way of the Michael Moore here in Texas and what AWD knew would happen has happened. With all the anger and gnashing of teeth about changing Washington and teaching the Establishment a lesson, Republican voters here re-elected EVERY SINGLE SITTING CONGRESSMAN! No challenger came close! It’s as predictable as leftist celebrities saying they’ll leave the country if Trump is elected when everyone knows they won’t.

AWD hears from his congressman every two years. A few weeks before the primary vote, I am assaulted by mailers from him. He blankets conservative talk radio with ads filled with half-truths or outright lies. My two personal favorites this year were “he put a stop to Obama’s gun grab!” and “He heard illegal aliens were receiving welfare and put a stop to it!” Oh, he did? Really? Well, no. Not really.

My congressman is in his 80’s and has been in Congress since the 80’s. I’m sure he will be in Congress until he is 160 if he can figure out a way to make it that far. He votes the way the Establishment wants him to vote. He doesn’t stick his neck out or get anything done. He’s a pawn to GOP leadership. Bought and paid for. And he will stay in Congress until they carry him out at room temperature.

And the same goes for every single North Texas congressmen. They make no waves. They play their parts and lie about all the great things they’ve accomplished for Texans. But we know they would rather eat their spleen on MSNBC than ever step down from office and allow someone with guts and new ideas to have a chance. They are worthless.

Pete Sessions got over 60% of the vote in his Texas district and he has lived in Orlando for years!

I haven’t paid attention nationally to see if any other sitting Congressmen lost their primary races. My guess is you could count them on zero fingers. Congressmen are reelected at a rate of 99%. They have set up the rules to protect themselves. Because there is only one thing every politician cares about. Reelection. And everyone who is elected into Congress knows they are now riding on the lifetime gravy train.

So if you hate what Washington has done to America but you voted for your RINO Congressman for another two year term to continue our destruction, well, you suck. No offense, I’m sure you’re a nice person and all. But you suck. You are an accomplice to the murder of America. And you’re part of the problem.

There are just a handful of Congressmen worthy of our continuing votes. The rest should be run out of town on rails or worse. The Founders never intended lifetime career politicians. Unending, absolute power makes men corrupt. And corruption destroys liberty as well as republics.

So the more things change, the more nothing changes. Meet the new Congress, same as the old Congress.

You SRV’s can now go back to Dancing With The Stars. You’ve done your damage.

Hate Crime Hoaxes and the Evolution of Truthiness

via Right On

With hate crime hoaxes and rape accusations being debunked at a lightning fast rate, you'd think the Left would throttle back on their war against White America. Their unwillingness to do so signifies a disturbing, Orwellian trend in the modern West.

The disadvantage to getting all my news from social media is that I occasionally miss stories that I’m uniquely positioned to call bullshit on. The recent hate crime hoax at my alma mater, the State University of New York at Albany, is a case in point. Three Black women assaulted a White girl on a bus, then had the chutzpah to claim that they were the victims of a lynch mob led by White men screaming racial slurs. Their lies inspired a hissy fit on Twitter and supportive comments from Hillary Clinton. The retraction? Zip.

The time I spent at UAlbany was one of the biggest wastes of my life. I transferred there due to the supposed strength of their English department, instead finding a gin-soaked student body and professors so delusional they’d accept 2 + 2 = 5 as an argument provided I had citations in MLA format. Albany itself is a depressing mix of prefab suburbia and ghetto, populated by the meanest, most antisocial people I’ve ever met in my life. The idea that a town full of government flacks, small-time politicos, and two-digit IQ co-eds would be a hotbed of anti-Black bigotry is so laughable it shouldn’t have made it out of the local papers.

But alas, the Left never lets the truth get in the way of a good story. That’s the only way to explain why they continue pushing clearly fraudulent stories of White male perfidy, even as the Internet deflates them like a fat boy stomping on a balloon. Ahmed “Clock Boy” Mohamed was a patsy for President Obama, who wanted to gin up support for bringing Muslim rapefugees to the U.S.; the UVA rape case was lurid erotica for feminists to touch themselves to. Yet the Left continues to push these blatantly fake stories and more without any attempt at fact-checking. What gives?

Part of the reason why hate crime hoaxes and fake rape stories proliferate is the click-driven nature of modern publishing. As Ryan Holiday wrote in Trust Me, I’m Lying, the 24-hour churn of the Internet prevents news outlets from being thorough. Any Website or newspaper that takes the time to actually confirm the truth of what they’re reporting will get scooped by Buzzfeed-style clickbait factories, forcing everyone to be equally loose-lipped.

But it’s more than this. The Leftist commitment to their anti-White, anti-male narrative is so strong it overrides all forms of logic. For example, in response to the UAlbany hoax, Albany Times Union columnist Chris Churchill claimed that despite this story being a lie, White racism is still a plague in American society. When Rolling Stone was finally forced to retract “A Rape on Campus” a year ago, numerous feminists made a point of reaffirming their belief that White college fraternities are rape factories in disguise. The Left’s constant denial of reality has advanced to the point where it could legitimately be called a mental disorder.

There’s a word to describe this behavior: “truthiness.” A decade ago, satirist Stephen Colbert coined that term, defined as “the quality of seeming or being felt to be true, even if not necessarily true.” He intended it as a slam on conservatives for their refusal to accept the global warming hoax and other Leftist bugaboos, also famously joking that “reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

As Vox Day put it in SJWs Always Lie, SJWs always project. Leftists spend their entire lives running away from hatefacts, to the point where they’re leaning on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media networks to censor discussion of them. Leftist millennials are so repulsed by opposing views that they need to hold group therapy sessions to assuage their butthurt, and more aggressive SJWs are actually lashing out in violence against conservatives.

The Left’s increasing aversion to the truth isn’t merely a reflection of our degenerate age, it’s a reflection of brain damage among a growing segment of the population. The writer Anonymous Conservative (aka Michael Trust) has extensively cataloged scientific research showing that Leftists and conservatives have significantly different brain structures, with Leftists having atrophied amygdalae, the portion of the brain that regulates fear response. Narcissists also possess underdeveloped amygdalae, to the point where it’s possible to trigger them via “amygdala hijacks.”

Narcissists are defined by their lack of a sense of self and their construction of a false reality to hide this fact from everyone. In lieu of developing an identity, they seek the adulation of others, otherwise known as narcissistic supply. Puncturing a narcissist’s false reality leads to narcissistic injury, possibly narcissistic rage if they’re incapable of plugging the holes.

The Left’s slide towards open authoritarianism is nothing more than a mass of narcissists trying to keep the Big Bad Bigots from popping their bubbles. The excessive coddling of millennials – helicopter parenting, social media, and political correctness – has created a generation so averse to struggle that they suffer panic attacks from reading blog posts. Their embrace of truthiness in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is part of their descent into madness.

How much longer can Western societies tolerate a congregation of weenies who wilt at microaggressions and demand trigger warnings on class syllabi? The Muslim invasion of Europe – with its concomitant straining of social and economic capital – will likely herald the end of the Age of Hypersensitivity. Whether it will end with a nationalist renaissance or an Islamic dark age remains to be seen.

A Deeper Understanding of Who We Are and What We Must Do

via Western Spring

“It doesn’t take much to erase a White family line. Just have no children or too few children. Or, just mix White genes with non-White genes”

Despite PC revisions of history that state otherwise, America was founded by the indigenous White people of Europe in the European Diaspora and it became a great nation largely due to the genes of these people as they adapted to a new environment with thousands of miles of open space that allowed them a freedom of action and thought that was often difficult to achieve in their old European countries where social pressures often kept them within narrow intellectual confines.

Today, these European descended White people in America are being told they must sit in the back of the bus and that they must not join together as a distinct people. Indeed, they are told that they must not even notice differences in different peoples or even think of themselves as a distinct and different people–even though the largest organ in their bodies (their skin) screams out their differences and their mutations.

Every assembly or meeting of these European Whites must now look like the Star Wars Bar, lest these people be called racists and similar terms by the haters of all things White.

These White  Europeans in America are daily being conditioned to believe that their natural genetic identity should be discarded and be replaced with just about any other identity such as “American” or (we kid you not) even superficial things such as which sports team they root for. The goal is to destroy them as a distinct people–to not let them awaken to their genetic unity.

They are taught that America became great because of abstract concepts such as “freedom” or because of its Constitution or the Bill of Rights or this or that. We even hear highly paid so-called conservative radio talk show hosts say such things and we never hear them give credit to the people or to the genetic formula that made these people. And, that’s where the real credit lies. That’s where it always lies with all living things. Genes matter.

As we White Europeans, on our distant shore, watch, we see the nation we built being swamped by peoples unlike us and we hear many of “our own people” tell us that this is a good thing. It’s a good thing that we are being exterminated and replaced? Our genocide is a good thing?

Former Florida governor, and more recently failed presidential candidate, Jeb Bush told an interviewer that the Republican party must reach out to more minorities because demographics are against “old white men.”

Well, Jeb Bush is a good example of one of the ways in which White people are being destroyed: first by incorrect ideas and then by the actions that follow such incorrect ideas.

JEB Bush Family

JEB Bush is a miscegenationist and he is married to a non-White Mexican woman. His children were once called “those little brown ones over there,” by his father, former President George H. W. Bush.

As I’ve written before, a Mexican American talk show host once even said that the new George Bush (Jeb’s son) looks more like the Mexican American talk show host than he looks like the Bush family.  And, the guy is right. Genes matter. And, they matter more than anything else about any organism. How could it be otherwise?  Genes are part of the blueprint or recipe to make each type of life as it is.

It doesn’t take much to erase a White family line. Just have no children or too few children. Or, just mix White genes with non-White genes to start the metaphorical march out of Europe and back to Africa. Being White requires effort. The default for humans is to be non-White.  There are cosmic truths found in this simple statement about “defaults,” and while they may be a digression here, they are worth thinking about.  In this sense, a “default” is what is, when there is no energy or effort or struggle to be more. For example, the default of temperature is cold. It takes effort to make heat. Cold is, when there is no effort to make  heat. The default of  light is dark.  It takes effort to make light. Dark is, when there is no effort to make light. So, to put a point on this: The default of the human type is non-White. It is what is when there is no effort to make a White human.

Because Whites are a late branching of the human species (30,000-50,000 years ago, according to most experts), we have relatively fragile gene mutations such that it takes the mating of two White people to produce a new White child in our image.
By contrast, it is easier to produce a non-White child. To do so, it just takes one non-White person mated with anyone else. It’s just simple genetics and dominant vs. recessive genes. In the details it does get a bit more complicated than this, but that’s the basic idea.

That’s why JEB Bush’s children don’t look like the rest of the Bush family, but look like their mother’s family. And, that’s also why Barack Obama doesn’t look like his White mother’s family but like his Black father’s family. Again, it takes two Whites to make a White but only one non-White and anyone else to make a non-White.

These days, those who want to blend away White people are moving on all fronts to wipe us out. They are engaged in massive propaganda campaigns to convince Whites that our eyes are lying and that all people are the same, and they’re moving large numbers of non-Whites from various Third World countries into the U.S. and other formerly White nations.

Somalis in USA

In the U. S., thousands of non-Whites are being moved into states that are overwhelmingly White. Of course, this just increases the possibility of miscegenation and the birthing of non-White babies instead of White babies. That’s the idea. That’s what the White haters want.
One blatant example of this, but not the only one, is all the Black Somalis who have been moved to overwhelmingly White New Hampshire and Maine. Does that make any sense at all, unless you wanted to change the White gene pool? It sounds like a joke that our government would settle thousands of Black Somalis from a hot, dry land to blustery, cold, mostly White, northern New England. It’d be difficult to find a worse place to settle Somalis–even for the Somalis themselves–except maybe in northern Alaska.

So long as our nation continues to be swamped by non-European genes we will have demographics against us. Of course, things could be changed if we modified our immigration policies. But does anyone think that those such as Bush want that to happen? His own family shows the demographics that he is happy with.

Our only proven survival after death

One can believe in a heavenly afterlife, but no one has ever proven that you will survive the death of your body and go through some pearly gates.  However, it is simple science that you will survive if you produce children in your image who continue to mate within the genotype (inner blueprint) and produce children in your phenotype (outward expression of the genotype including how we look).

Simply put, if your children look a lot like you, then you survive and you will continue to survive down through future history so long as your descendants produce children in your genotype and phenotype. If they fail to do this, then your survival is over.


Look at it this way. We humans have about 20,000 genes (by latest count). These genes struggle for survival within our bodies, i.e. they “want” to continue to exist. They “want” to fill that slot on the chromosome for their particular feature. Those that win, get the slot and get to make you. If you mate wisely, i.e. with someone who is much like you, then the slots are filled with 20,000 genes that create a new life that carry you forward into the future.

However, you are more than just the simple sum of your individual genes, even though it is sometimes convenient to speak in terms of individual genes.  You are the combination of all of your genes. All the genes create a synergy in flesh. Again, your inner blueprint or genotype is what produces your outward appearance–your phenotype. So, it is your genotype and phenotype that must go forward, not just your genes for, say, a particular eye color. And, to repeat in slightly different terms, the way your genotype and phenotype go forward is by you mating with those like you. When this happens, a new life is spun out in your image.

As a visual, think of a DNA “ladder” sitting at the core of your being standing upright like a tornado slowly spinning around constantly. As it spins, think of it shooting out laser lights as it projects and weaves your body into existence. That spinning DNA “ladder” with its 46 chromosomes, 20,000 genes and 3.1 billion “letters” (A,T,C,G), is you. If you look down on this DNA ladder from above, it looks like a spiral galaxy or a fylfot. The lights it shoots out to project you are coded by the particular order of the four chemicals of DNA as they are lined up on the “slots” of your chromosomes. That inner spinning tornado is your soul or your essence. That is what must survive and go forward when your body dies.

Science and religious beliefs

Some of us believe that our White genotypes and phenotypes are a precondition to moving higher up the evolutionary ladder and to higher consciousness–that we are selected to take the next step for mankind. In other words, we won’t always look exactly as we are now. We will adapt, mutate and change and the internal and external environment will have a major part in causing this. But, even as we change, we believe that our highest destiny can only be achieved by becoming more Us in all ways, not less so. This is to say we must become more White–meaning being born with the features that are more uniquely White (meaning not only more white or paler in skin color but also in our other external and internal features). These beliefs are more than just science; they are also religious in nature.

Human Evolution Cartoon

You may excuse some of us if we take a longer view of history and if we consider politics, nations and most things we know in the everyday world to just be transitory things–a blink of the eye in cosmic time. We who think this way see what is real and authentic regarding life as being DNA–and thus gene–related. We understand, as already mentioned, that we do not survive if our genotype and phenotype do not survive. Actually, and to be more precise, some of us believe there is what might be called a life force–a something that wants to exist and wants to become more–that underpins all of existence (the Divine or an aspect of the Divine?) that comes from the subatomic or quantum level of existence that underpins our level of existence and which creates and inhabits life on earth via  DNA (and RNA in the case of some viruses). When we find life on other planets, and we eventually will, we may find that the life force creates life there in some chemicals other than those that make up DNA and RNA as on Earth. So, what is essential or universal here, is not really DNA or RNA, but that which is their foundation–the life force that uses them to make life on Earth. Many of us who believe this, hasten to add that we consider what we call the life force and what we call the Divine or God to not be supernatural or magical as these term are often used, but completely natural, but with seeming powers we do not have simply because their science–their physics and natural laws–are, as already mentioned, what underpins our reality and are in that seemingly strange level of existence where matter constantly comes into existence on the subatomic and quantum level.


Since we have brains that allow us to understand many of the workings of nature, we also have the ability to make choices for our own survival or extinction. Our tooth and claw for survival is our brain. Because of our brain we can understand how to manage the changes caused by the constant spinning of everything in existence, including our DNA, and we can will our own evolution and stop our extinction.

Our duty as believers in these things–we acolytes of this religion of truth–is to teach others of our kind of the truth so they may use their free will to choose the narrow, difficult, spiral path that leads up, or the wide, easy, path that leads down. Each must choose, but to choose, each must know.

If some do not accept the truth, then they may perish and in so perishing they will have shown that they should perish. Our genes will dance on their graves. If the way to survive is not clear to them when told about it, then they show thereby that they may not have the genes that allow for such understanding and survival. And, that’s what nature does–it culls all living things. The weak die off and the strong survive. Among humans, those with strong brains will survive and those with weak brains will die off.

The problem in the modern world is that young, impressionable White children are being conditioned to believe falsehoods concerning genes, nature, and survival and many of these children then become almost cultic believers in things that will actually end up killing off their White family lines.

To have true free choice, one must have a proper understanding of reality that can only come when one has been exposed to, has internalized, and lives the truth.
It is an individual responsibility of each of us awakened Whites to teach the truth to other Whites so that none will be unaware of the choice that is theirs and so that none shall perish simply because they have never heard the truth.

The Fight for the Alt-Right: The Rising Tide of Ideological Autism Against Big Tent-Supremacy

via Atlantic Centurion

The growth of what is termed the alt-right in recent months has lead to a growth of criticism and some debate over its meaning and scope. (We’re also on Wikipedia now). The “Alternative Right” is a 2010s political label with history I am sure most people reading this are familiar with, and if not it is beside the point. What I aim to discuss here is not so much alt-right history or criticisms of, but rather a survey of what basic tenets compose it is now.

But before that, I would emphasize that by necessity the alt-right is a “big tent” philosophy. Ideally this means that it functions as an intellectual alliance between other philosophies that embrace most or all of its core principles. Therefore it is counter-productive for any of these philosophies attack one another more than they attack outside philosophies. Some people call this no enemies on the right or no enemies to the right, the latter being less inclusive, but what is most important ultimately is to not throw competent people who agree with you on major issues to the wolves. Having clear battle lines is crucial because it ensures we are our own moral authority rather than a third party that is opposed to most or all of our beliefs, which is a major problem if not the problem  with the mainstream right.

So what are the tenets of the big tent? I believe they are as follows:

1.) People are different. Human inequality is a fact of life and belief systems that deny this lead to distortion and oppression. Both individuals and populations vary in their characteristics in meaningful ways, such as intelligence and social behavior. One size does not fit all, not comfortably at least.

2.) Our world is tribal. The struggle for survival which has produced all life on earth extends into biological human races, which both exist and matter to their members. Such conflict is neither immoral nor moral, but a condition we must engage with in order to develop any meaningful philosophy or ideology. It can be found on the streets, in the human resources department, at the ballot box, or in the trenches. Even something as trivial as the Oscars is fought over. Though it is currently politically incorrect to acknowledge that races and their national subdivisions exist and compete for resources, land, and influence over one another or over themselves, that does not mean the struggle has stopped. That one side has been cajoled into not struggling does not mean it is left alone.

3.) Our tribe is being suppressed. The new left doctrine of racial struggle in favor of non-whites only, a product of decolonization and the defeat of nationalists by egalitarians after WWII, must be repudiated and Whites must be allowed to take their own side in their affairs. A value system that says Whites are not allowed to have collective interests and literally every other identity group can do so and ought to do so is unacceptable.

4.) Men are not women and women are not men. Men and women have roles to fulfill for the species to persist in a stable and healthy way. Feminism and the sexual revolution, by destroying the conditions that promoted and sustained heterosexual monogamy, have had disastrous implications for the sexes and relationships between them. (I highly recommend F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power here for those interested in more). No viable society can exist where the long-term union of one man and one woman producing a replacement level of offspring is not the norm. Some Western countries have obscured the impact of sexual degeneracy on birthrates by importing foreigners, but such measures only further the destruction of nations; they do not sustain a people but keep a state’s balance sheets in order.

5.) Freedom is a responsibility and not a right. The freedom of too many incompetent people to make too many bad decisions is harmful to society and constrains the freedom of virtuous and responsible people. There are externalities to most actions and when these are harmful to non-actors it is a kind of injustice. These need to campaigned against, or suppressed by force or the threat of force—the basis of the rule of law. A virtuous society is an ordered one that provides freedom from anarcho-tyranny.

6.) If we must be a democratic society, the franchise should be limited. Universal democracy is a bad system. It gives power to the worst and shackles the fittest. It is a degenerative institution in which the weak and unproductive collaborate against the strong and sustainable.

The final  alt-right shit-test is whether or not someone agrees with the reality that Jewish elites are opposed to our entire program. It is the third rail for a reason. The hardest redpill to take is a suppository, the Jewish Question. (Here I highly recommend Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s site if you don’t have the time preference for an entire series of books on the subject). The disproportionate influence of an elite Jewish minority in Western societies has been a net negative. Jews, who have a three thousand year history of regulating their communities to be as insular as possible among the nations whose territory they dwell in have a consistent pattern of promoting the interests of their own ethnoreligious minority at the expense of the majority nation. It is what they do and when they do it here it is bad news for us. When given the power they have now it results in degeneracy, the losing of one’s race. Even in Israel one will find Jews who are firmly dedicated to the destruction of their host’s borders and hold in contempt the idea of loyalty to their national kin. Who shrieks loudest at anti-immigration nativism? Who praises their own ethnocentrism as a virtue and shames others for having the same feeling? It is a pattern that crosses time and borders, and there is a war against noticing it. The staunchest social egalitarians, anti-nationalists and “anti-racists” are Jewish, inside and outside of Israel.

There are plenty of ideological directions one could go in from here, and as always there is no silver bullet solution to problems of the magnitude we deal with in Western societies. And people who claim to have the bullet tend to be the most zealous about it. Some proposals are modest, some are LARPy, and some won’t be LARPy for long. But if they address our root issues they are worth some consideration. And if after such consideration you find you only disagree about secondary or tertiary issues, there is definitely room to work together. The big tent is worth preserving to persevere against our common enemies, for our struggle is revolutionary. Stay fashy my friends.

On Herder, Human Nature, and the Antifa

via The Occidental Observer

Portrait of a loser: “He that has lost his patriotic
spirit has lost himself and the whole world
about himself.” — Johann Gottfried von Herder
In his Essay on the Origin of Language, the German philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744–1803) undertook a marked departure from earlier ruminations on human nature. Like Plato’s account of the soul, the majority of Enlightenment philosophers tended to see human nature in universal terms, assuming both that rationality was its most significant aspect, and that this rationality was evenly distributed throughout the human population. Man, they argued, was essentially the same creature wherever he was found. Adopting a very different approach, Herder argued that since peoples from different historical periods and cultures varied so much in their concepts, beliefs and abilities, human nature must also be radically different in different cultures. Writing before the discovery of racial and genetic science, Herder argued that broad differences between cultures could be partly explained by two basic observations. The first was that man was indisputably a creature of his herd, society. Or to express is another way, man was, whether he liked it or not, bound to the group from which he was begotten. Secondly, and relatedly, man’s values and sense of himself were shaped by this surrounding society and culture, especially its language.

This notion of the ‘shaping’ of man by his surrounding tribe and its culture led to a further, connected idea of Herder’s — that man was not born ‘complete.’ As Herder expressed it, “a bee was a bee as soon as it built its first cell, but a person was not human until he had achieved completeness. People continued to grow as long as they lived …. We are always in process, unsettled, unsatiated. The essence of our life is never satisfaction, rather always progression, and we have never been human until we have lived to the end.” At the risk of misinterpretation, it is worth stressing that Herder was no existentialist. He did not suggest that we can never be satisfied and therefore that we should each seek to fulfil our own hyper-individual destiny. Rather, Herder argued that this movement towards becoming who we are, our identity, is determined to a great extent by how effectively we fulfil our destiny as part of our group. We can achieve completeness, and that completeness is fulfilled when we become part of our tribe, and play our role in the tribe by passing on its attributes to a new generation. Therefore, our identity, while certainly involving being true to ourselves, has an inescapable national and collectivist dimension to it. This part of our personal identity is handed down to us, and a significant part of who we are is therefore simply not a matter of choice.

Any interference with this process of becoming part of one’s nation would, according to Herder, be catastrophic. He argued that each nation was separate, distinguished by climate, education, custom, tradition, and heredity. Herder wrote that Providence “wonderfully separated nationalities not only by woods and mountains, seas and deserts, rivers and climates, but more particularly by languages, inclinations and characters.” National culture was so crucial to the formation and validity of one’s personal identity and nature that to be without it would render the individual incomplete. “He that has lost his patriotic spirit has lost himself and the whole world about himself. … In a certain sense every human perfection is national.” Becoming a person involves growing and learning to fully identify with one’s culture and values. Only by embracing this growth and identification can one ever discover one’s ‘true’ nature and fulfil one’s destiny.

For Herder the key to this becoming — the make-or-break aide to one’s individual development — was language. Language was developed organically by the group to transmit its cultural essence. Language can determine thought or behavior, and language habits within groups can predispose its members to certain choices of interpretation. Language habits within families or nations can therefore not only transmit factual information about the surrounding world to their youth, but also values and perceptions of the world. A useful example might be the fact that all European languages have a word for ‘love’ and a concept of ‘romantic love.’ The word, and the concept it described, emerged from and reinforced a distinctly European value-set and worldview. By contrast, until their nation was opened up to the infant globalist project in the nineteenth century, the Japanese had no word for ‘love,’ nor anything remotely approaching a cultural concept or understanding of romantic love. Only when western novels were translated into Japanese, introducing this most European of concepts, were the Japanese forced to phoneticize the word as ra-bu. Tellingly, it remains rarely used, and the concept as it exists in Japan would be barely recognized by the European.

Herder’s emphasis on language, values and culture reinforces his view of nationality and human nature: to compose a genuine part of the national entity, it was simply not enough to be a genetic component of it. A German, even one of unadulterated German genetic inheritance, remains not fully German until he has been made ‘complete’ through the transmission of cultural Germanness. This illustrates the precarious nature of individual and national growth being dependent on language, values and culture. Changes and departures in language can interrupt the transmission of values, and they can corrupt the reproduction of the national unit, even if its birth rate might be stable. Or to express it more simply, unless a nation can effectively transmit its values, worldview and culture to its racial progeny, birth rates are irrelevant since the births produce only potential nationals who are never ‘fully formed.’ Such a nation will eventually die.

We see this today. People of European origin might be having children (though at a slower pace than previous generations), but they are not necessarily producing Europeans in the truest sense. By corrupting language, one can introduce a kind of cultural prophylaxis. Cultural prophylaxis will of course lead inevitably to its biological corollary.

Orwell masterfully illustrated this weakness of linguistic and cultural transmission (and anticipated its exploitation) in 1984, where his idea of ‘Newspeak’ is built on the premise that if words and concepts are banned and eliminated, then they cannot be thought. Culture in the world of 1984 was dramatically changed as a result. Words like ‘freedom’ were banned while words like ‘thoughtcrime’ were introduced. Within a generation, Orwell’s society stopped believing in freedom, and started believing in the validity of ‘thoughtcrimes’ as if they were something that had always existed.

Words can of course be ‘hijacked’ or made taboo, as well as created. One need only point to words and phrases like ‘White supremacist,’ ‘Fascist,’ ‘racist,’ ‘hate crime,’ ‘human rights,’ ‘tolerance,’ ‘diversity,’ and ‘multiculturalism’ to make the point that many of our contemporary woes are due to the manipulation of language, and with it the warping of our values and the destruction of our processes of cultural reproduction. Just imagine a world where words like ‘capitalist’ and ‘proletariat’ had never been introduced; a world where such concepts had never taken root.

Herder’s observations about the vulnerability of language seem remarkably consonant with later concerns about language purity and about the impact of Jewish intellectuals on the linguistic lives of European nations. In 1793 Johann Gottlieb Fichte published On the French Revolution, in which he cautioned the nations of Europe to preserve their linguistic purity and accused the Jews of introducing foreign ideas into the European consciousness by speaking in the native tongues of Europe “sugar-sweet words about toleration and human rights and civic rights, by which you infringe on our basic rights.”   In 1819 Jacob Grimm published Deutsche Grammatik, developing Fichte’s ideas on the purity of the German and stressing the unifying force of language as völkische Sprachenheit. Grimm’s book appears to have marked the beginning of a steady increase in the attention paid to language by völkisch thinkers. Many of these scholars and thinkers would later argue against the assimilation of Jews on the grounds that increased use by Jews of the German language would increase the infiltration of Jewish thought into German linguistic culture, diluting and corrupting it.

Herder has occasionally been represented by modern scholars as a cultural relativist, refusing to see one national culture above another, or one race above another. Such biased and subversive interpretations miss entirely the central thrust of his treatment of human nature — that he was greatly concerned with the authenticity of both personal and national identity, and the interdependency of both on language as a mode of cultural transmission and reproduction. In this vein, to Herder the honest African savage could actually be superior to the culturally and racially alienated European because he was more authentic to himself and his nature. The White man who denied his racial and cultural roots in favor of seeing himself as some kind of ‘world citizen’ was a sham and a caricature of a human being; incomplete and ultimately meaningless. There was no ‘world’ one should claim citizenship in; no one single grand ‘human species’ that one could claim to be part of. Or as Herder put it:
The savage who loves himself, his wife and child with quiet joy and glows with joy at the limited activity of his tribe as for his own life, is in my opinion a more real being than that cultivated shadow who is enraptured with the shadow of the whole species. [Emphasis added].
Herder wouldn’t have been fooled by the cultural critiques of Jewish intellectuals and their allies. He believed that there was more truth and virtue in following the time-worn values of one’s family and society than in questioning and criticizing them. He praised the dignity of the organic national community (‘das Volk’) and was critical of fashionable Enlightenment trends that feigned concern for an imagined ‘whole species.’ Assuming that they weren’t calculating foreigners, people who pursued such fashions and ideas were clearly, in Herder’s mind, stunted and incomplete in the development of their human nature. They were alienated from their Folk and its culture. They pursued a false path. They were nothing more than biological shadows chasing ideological shadows.  Herder would have mocked, and been disgusted by, the many ‘world citizens’ who today parade their alien, pathological ‘virtues’ on our streets. These individuals, who in their hubris assume themselves to be the pinnacle of human enlightenment (!), would have been seen by Herder as quite the opposite — lower even than the worst savages that yet inhabit the jungles and rainforests of this Earth.

“I wrestled with my innermost soul: are these people human, worthy to belong to a great nation? … I pondered with anxious concern on the masses of those no longer belonging to their people and saw them swelling to the proportions of a menacing army.”  — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Although we in the West have more than our fair share of pathological race-deniers, there is perhaps no greater example of the ‘cultivated shadows’ than the so-called ‘anti-Fascists’ or Antifa. These people may be our genetic brothers and sisters, but they are incomplete members of our nation. They follow a false path that is very distant from that laid down by their ancestors. They feign concern for the ‘whole species,’ as Herder put it, while assisting in the destruction of their own branch of that species. While we are greatly concerned at TOO with the pathological altruism displayed by large numbers of Whites, White anti-Fascists seem to up the ante a considerable degree. Indeed, what we witness among anti-Fascists is not pathological altruism but aggressive pathological self-destruction. This phenomenon deserves closer study.

I believe that Herder’s instruction on human nature can assist in our understanding of White Antifa. Anti-Fascism, ignoring for a moment its manipulators and the occasional befuddled old hippie, is overwhelmingly a youth phenomenon and this is precisely what one would expect of a movement composed of the ‘incomplete.’ The Antifa demographic reflects its immature, stunted and stagnant ideological roots. It is staffed by those who cannot grow. And, for all its pretensions to radicalism, when its members reach middle age and leave the movement, they gracefully re-enter bourgeois liberalism. Here they remain stunted but form part of a larger, quieter, mass of the incomplete. Their ‘radicalism’ is both transient and superficial. As they enter their 30s and 40s, they refrain from confrontational self-destruction, but remain distant from patriotism and alienated from their human nature. They continue to vote, act, and raise children as ‘world citizens,’ and thus remain mere shadows until their day of their miserable and meaningless deaths.

I’ve heard it remarked on more than one occasion that our movement should strive to achieve a younger demographic, and, indeed, so often have I heard this refrain that one would think that we should strive for an overwhelmingly young demographic. I disagree. A young demographic is desirable only to the extent that it might help attract more young people to the cause. But we should also be trying to bring more middle-aged and elderly Whites to the cause. Added to this, I believe that nothing truly lasting, durable and constructive would come from a movement staffed predominantly by those in their early 20s, such as is the case with Antifa. The Antifa can certainly muster numbers of unemployed agitators from this age group for violence against Nationalists, but what have they ever produced or built? What political programme is advanced by Antifa, beyond glib screeching about ‘humanity’ and hysterical bleating about ‘fighting racism’? Antifa is, as its very name suggests, an anti-ideology. It is lacking in imagination. It exists only to destroy. When a body produces cells that grow uselessly, malignantly and destructively, we term it cancer. Antifa is a particularly aggressive and acute cancer in the body of the nation.

By contrast, the fact that we have all age groups represented in our movement, particularly the wisdom of a generation of elders, conveys both its organic nature and its greater claim to ideological truth. It possesses what Herder would have perceived as a natural lifespan. Its appeal is both ageless and timeless. Our movement is in keeping with our human nature. When I was informed late last year that an esteemed veteran of our cause had been assaulted by a contingent of the local Antifa at the NPI conference in Washington D.C., I was not only disgusted with the attack, but also struck by the mental image it conjured up. According to attendee Matt Forney, just before the closing of the conference he was approached by another attendee. The attendee warned Forney that Antifa had posted members at each exit of the conference venue, the National Press Building: “These guys aren’t fighting fair. They’ll gang up on you, sucker punch you, attack the elderly; we’re gonna have to figure out a way to leave without getting attacked. We don’t want them going after our elderly or following people home on the Metro.”

It was the attack on Sam Dickson, one of our movement’s elder statesmen, and the reference by the attendee to “our elderly” that drove home, in my mind, a very pertinent point about the difference between our movement and that of the Antifa. We have, in our movement, a large number of elders who have been through thick and thin, good times and bad, and have stayed the course. They have fought, grown, and worked creatively to adapt our movement for shifting times, and they have been a source of great encouragement and support for younger generations of Nationalists. They have been successful businessmen, scholars, servicemen, educators, artists and lawyers. The incomplete shadows that comprise the Antifa don’t even remotely match their calibre. The targeting of our movement’s elders by opportunistic and cowardly non-entities merely accentuates and makes more obvious the loathing that the dysfunctional have for the healthy. And when these cowards attempt to target those who are alone or over 65? Some photographs of Anti-fascists following a recent Nationalist demonstration in Dover, England say more than words can appropriately convey.

Clashes as anti-immigration groups including the National Front (NF) and the English Defence League (EDL) protest in Dover. In an attempt to disrupt the far-right, anti-fascist groups including Unite Against Fascism (UAF) and the Kent Anti-Racism Network (KARN) hold a counter-protest. Featuring: View Where: Dover, United Kingdom When: 30 Jan 2016 Credit:
Clashes as anti-immigration groups including the National Front (NF) and the English Defence League (EDL) protest in Dover, UK. In an attempt to disrupt the far-right, anti-fascist groups including Unite Against Fascism (UAF) and the Kent Anti-Racism Network (KARN) hold a counter-protest.

Another ‘shadow’ European receives instruction in reality

I am in full agreement with the concept of pathological altruism as it affects White populations globally. As we seek to better understand this phenomenon, Herder’s philosophical rather than scientific exploration of patriotism and ethnocentrism may offer a valuable and complimentary addition to the manner in which we analyze and interpret self-destructive White behavior. I remain convinced that we must never fail to acknowledge the importance of alien ideological influence over White populations, and this is certainly a poison that needs to be exposed and reckoned with. However, to me it appears inarguable that we are prone to sick levels of ethno-masochism. Herder’s ideas about patriotism and transmission of culture and values may shed further light on how the capture of our culture in the twentieth century could be so catastrophic to the sense of racial identity among our youth. It may explain why we find ourselves, on so many occasions, fighting ethnic brothers and sisters who seem barely human. It explains why they are mere shadows of what they could and should have been.

Jewish Harvard Professor Argues for ‘Abolishing’ White Race


Influential antarian Jew, Noel Ignatiev,
founder of "Whiteness Studies"

The anti-white racist Jewish “academic” Noel Ignatiev has made a career of inflammatory slandering of a white race he clearly does not see himself as being part of. 
When you hear Jews in academia, the media, and political activism claim the existence of white privilege and white evil. you must realize that this is not self-criticism or introspection, but an attack on people of European ancestry by a tribe that not only does not see itself as European, but holds a deep historical grudge against Europeans. While it is often useful for them to be seen as “white” by their audience, the truth is that they do not actually identify as white, but as Jewish.

Ignatiev says truly insane things. He insisted in a speech made to Occupy Boston that prisons should be abolished, and then goes on to say that the fact we don’t know how to stop or protect ourselves from anti-social behavior should not deter us from releasing convicted felons back into society. 

A brief sample of his rhetoric can be seen in the following video.

What is amazing is not that somebody would make such statements. In a country of 300 million, there are bound to be plenty of idiots. It should be amazing that someone like Ignatiev would be employed as a professor, but unfortunately we know that the Talmudic yeshivas that our universities have been transformed into are teaming with like-minded people. But what I still cannot help but be amazed at is that Harvard, ostensibly America’s premier academic institution, offered admission into its graduate school for Ignatiev, despite his having dropped out of college and having spent the next quarter of a century doing nothing but working in a factory and activism in radical groups like the Communist Party of the United States. What could be a better example of the massive Jewish privilege at Harvard that we so often talk about. And without further ado, please read the following article from the Washington Times.

Violence Is Protected Political Speech

via TradYouth

Earlier this week we found footage of Matthew Heimbach and a black woman involved in a shoving match at Donald Trump’s Louisville, KY rally.  The Black Lives Matter establishment has seized on this opportunity to screech “hate crime!” and “assault!” in the feeble hopes that somebody in a position of authority will respond favorably to their cries.  Violence, even immaterial shoving as being argued about now, is not a quirk or defect in the process of public discourse, it is a feature.

No matter where you look political action is accompanied by political speech.  It’s possible to find political speech happening without political action, but nobody cares about do-nothing blowhards. Nobody really cares about strong political speech (no matter how provocative) until its gears start to grind and their machine starts making tracks.  Everybody’s favorites radicals over at VNN (where you go after getting kicked out of Stormfront) are some of the most angry shit-posters on the internet– but nobody cares.  At least, nobody cared about them until Frazier Glenn Miller came unhinged and went on a shooting spree.  Then after MSM spent a good solid month or two repeating “white supremacists are dangerous” it faded into the background again.  The way MSM gets “stuck on stupid” and repeats the same talking point for days, weeks, or months at a time makes Marco Rubio’s repeat-glitch during debate look petty and non-existent.

Action towards a desired goal is always a kind of speech.  We say things all the time without actually saying something, and many times action is quite literally the better argument.  For those who care not to speak and engage others with dialogue for whatever reason then action is going to be their top choice for communication.  We see this with the anarchist, anti-fascist, and BLM communities.  Frankly, their arguments are shite.  They know their arguments are shite.  They only have one song to sing and it goes something like this: “smash… smash… smash… smash… smash…”  And you know what?  They get what they want because the majority of the people they “argue” with will shut up and go into hiding after the first brick is thrown.

Activists in any side of the political spectrum should quit using the “stop trying to silence my right to expression!” cop-out every time we run in to opposition.  You know, I know, everyone knows that nobody really gives a shit about “muh right to speech and assembly.”  Violence and other underhanded opposition techniques are as much a part of the public discourse process as simple speech and basic or advanced demonstration methods.  Police understand this, too.  That’s why police don’t go around arresting people for angrily disagreeing with protesters at events.  This is the same reason that you didn’t see a lot of police inside the Trump rally.  The disruptions and fights at Trump’s rallies are not a quirk, they’re a feature.  The violence and disruptions are a specific feature of discourse that people have come to participate in.  Violence in context is protected political speech.

Political speech is not the same as arguing with your friends at church coffee hour.  If you rush into coffee hour and start flipping over tables, tearing up coffee cup coasters, stealing the table cloths, and pushing people around you’ll definitely be arrested, barred from returning to church, and more than likely become a permanent social outcast in your community.  If you should do the same at a political rally then you’re just an energetic person who cares about a given political issue and are taking every opportunity to make yourself heard over the noise.  The police will more than likely give you enough room to “let you do you”, but if you should choose a private event (for example, say, inside a Trump rally?) you will be ejected by the event staff or guests in one or another manner.

Yes, we know. You saw him "lay hands upon a woman!". Nobody cares. Just go away.
Yes, we know. You saw him “lay hands upon a woman!”  Nobody cares and you sound like a whiny brat.

The only thing more petty and disgusting than trying to cry and moan about how your goddamn precious “rights to expression” are being violated is to put on your toughest cop-talk and start throwing around words or phrases like assault, hate crime, harassment, intimidation, and pathetically screeching about how somebody “laid hands upon her!”  in an effort to force the police to arrest your opposition.  The state, of course, is obligated to respect freedom of assembly and expression (unless you’re Matt Heimbach), but this restriction is not forced upon the individual.  The individual person is under no obligation to respect BLM silliness, and even less so when it is clearly obvious that a person is bent solely on being an obstinate and actually violent obstruction towards people who just want to hear a Trump speech.

With political speech the name of the game is action.  If you’re not acting, performing and doing something as part of your political speech then you aren’t speaking.  In fact, as I just discussed, you don’t even need to speak at all.  For those who seek it, there are always opportunities to show up at a rally and simply stand in solidarity with a larger group.  Silent participation is in this sense a perfectly acceptable form of political speech.  There is certain value in blogging, educating others, and facilitating an environment for an otherwise positive and constructive sounding board, but we frequently mis-categorize this type of communication as political speech by virtue of the content having to do with political themes.  So far as the Radical Traditionalist  and the larger White Nationalist movements are concerned, we actually have only a handful of genuine political speakers.  Do you think you’ve got what it takes to get in the game?  Start a TradYouth or a TradWorker chapter in your neighborhood today.  If you support our movement but wish to participate in a more private way please consider donating to support us in our ambitious and aggressive political speech and action.

The European’s Moment on the Heath

via Cambria Will not Yield

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in our philosophy.



The citizen of the Canton of Uri was dangling just by the door. On the table there was a scrap of paper with the words, “Accuse no one, I did it myself,” written in pencil. Next to it on the table there was also a hammer, a piece of soap, and a large nail, apparently in case the other one hadn’t held up. The strong silk cord on which Nikolai Stavrogin had hanged himself was lavishly smeared with soap. All this indicated that to the last second he was in full possession of his mental faculties and had acted with premeditation.

After the autopsy, all our medical experts rejected any possibility of insanity.    
-Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Possessed


“We employ the term Benevolence to express our outward affections, sympathies, tastes, and feelings, but it is inadequate to express our meaning; it is not the opposite of selfishness, and unselfishness would be too negative for our purpose. Philosophy has been so busy with the worst feature of human nature that it has not even found a name for this, its better feature. We must fall back on Christianity, which embraces man’s whole nature, and though not a code of philosophy, is something better; for it proposes to lead us through the trials and intricacies of life, not by the mere cool calculations of the head, but by the unerring instincts of a pure and regenerate heart. The problem of the Moral World is too vast and complex for the human mind to comprehend; yet the pure heart will, safely and quietly, feel its way through the mazes that confound the head.”
-George Fitzhugh, Cannibals All or Slaves Without Masters


It is Bassanio’s contention during the trial scene in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice that Shylock, because he has refused “ten times o’er” the amount of Antonio’s bond in preference for a pound of Antonio’s flesh, has demonstrated that he is motivated by malice alone and his case should be dismissed:
“If this will not suffice, it must appear
That malice bears down truth.”
At first it does appear that malice will bear down truth, but because The Merchant of Venice is a comedy that must end happily Portia steps in and renders a Christian verdict. It would not be accurate to say that malice never bore down truth in the courtrooms of the Christian Europeans. Men are very flawed creatures, but it would be quite accurate to say that there was a much greater concern for truth in the courts of Christian Europe than there is in our modern utopian courts. In the modern courts of the European people, which reflect the values of the ruling elites, malice has borne down truth. And it is a very specific malice; it is a malice against the white race and all things Christian. Race mixing and abortion have legal sanction while segregation and the preservation of life in the womb are proscribed by law.

The clergymen and the neopagans are fond of telling us that Christianity has nothing to do with race, but the children of darkness know better. They know that the true faith has only been honored and championed by the white race. No matter how completely they repudiate that faith, the whites will never be trusted by the children of darkness. Satan drives them on; they must kill and destroy everything white and Christian so that not even one precious string of memory that connects modern Europe with old Europe will remain. Not only the monuments and the art works will be destroyed; the colored hordes will not leave one single white person alive. So as it was in Haiti, so it will be in white Europe unless the white man breaks that one terrible chain that has made him a slave of the heathens and the colored barbarians.

Promethus was bound to a rock while birds of prey pecked at his liver, because he stole fire from the gods and gave it to man. He was a hero, because the gods of Greece were indifferent to man and often cruel, but what of the Christian European? He is not bound to Promethus’s rock because Christ is punishing him, he has chained himself to the rock because of his refusal to look to any god beyond his own reason. The white man’s chain, which he seems incapable of breaking, is the chain of rationalism. So long as the white man is bound by that chain he will be at the mercy of the liberals who have turned him over to the people who have no mercy – the colored barbarians and the heathens.

The white man’s fear of the racist label, which governs his whole life, is the result of the triumph of rationalist Christianity, as a system, over faith in Christ as the Son of God. In their attempt to make God more real, more easily comprehended by reference to the natural world, the Christian rationalists made Christ subordinate to human reason. Instead of knowing Him through a sympathetic connection that transcends reason, we were told to eliminate all those divine intuitions that could not be comprehended by abstract reason. If human reason said Christ was the Son of God then He was the Son of God. And the medieval rationalists did say that Christ was the Son of God. But what if subsequent rationalists say Christ is not the Son of God, based on the same reasoning process of the Christian rationalists? If you have made abstract reason your lodestar then you must submit to the judgement of reason. That is what the modern church men have done – they have submitted to the judgement of the rationalists and become Christian atheists. Without Christ to worship in spirit and in truth, they have gone whoring after the gods of Liberaldom – the colored barbarians and the anti-Christian heathens.

Pope Francis must be against white pietas, what the liberals call racism, because he has made a commitment to the new scientistic Christianity, which has placed Christ on a par with the natural world that can be seen, dissected, and cataloged by the mind of man. Anything outside of that world is unscientific, superstitious, and irrational. Every man of the West must make his decision on the heath. Is rational thought the pinnacle of wisdom, or is there something in our blood that is wiser than abstract reason? Thomas Hughes, the author of Tom Brown’s School Days, faced his moment of truth, and he like Banquo forsook the rationalism of the devil for the foolishness of faith:
At the same time, as we also know that the methods and principles of historical investigation are constantly improving and being better understood, and that the critics of the next generation will work in all human likelihood, at as great an advantage in this inquiry over those who are now engaged in it, as our astronomers and natural philosophers enjoy over Newton and Franklin,– and as new evidence may turn up any day which may greatly modify their conclusions,–we cannot suppose that there is the least chance of their settling the controversy in our time. Nor, even if we thought them likely to arrive at definite conclusions, can we consent to wait the result of their investigations, important and interesting as these might be. Granting then cheerfully, that if these facts on the study of which they are engaged are not facts,–if Christ was not crucified, and did not rise from the dead, and ascend to God his father,–there has been no revelation, and Christianity will infallibly go the way of all lies, either under their assaults or those of their successors,–they must pardon us if even at the cost of being thought and called fools for our pains, we deliberately elect to live our lives on the contrary assumption. It is useless to tell us that we know nothing of these things, that we can know nothing until their critical examination is over; we can only say, “examine away; but we do know something of this matter, whatever you may assert to the contrary, and mean to live on that knowledge.”
–Life of Alfred the Great
Every man who places the detached intellect above his blood wisdom is ruled by the devil, because the realm of abstract reason is to the devil what the briar patch was to Brer Rabbit: He loves it, it is his realm. In that realm he can ban all compunctious visitings of human nature. In that realm pietas becomes racism, and the white man is left bereft of a racial hearth fire from which he can fight against the wickedness and snares of the devil.

The first rationalist state was Jacobin France. The Jacobins made a whore the ‘goddess of reason’ and made humanity an abstraction that could be disposed of according to the dictates of abstract reason. This was the logical consequence of making Christ subordinate to a nature-based, rational schema. Once Christ is demoted to an abstraction, so are the people created in His image. And the abstract, inhuman mass of men in the aggregate becomes all-powerful in a rationalist state. First it was the white proletariat that the Jacobins invoked. But Haiti was a foreshadowing of the future of the white race. It wouldn’t take long for the Jacobins’ rationalist heirs to make all whites non-people.

The Jewish Jacobin, Leon Trotsky, used the term racism to make all whites into the aristocrats who needed to go to the block in order for a new purer world to come into being. What the white grazer never grasps is that there is nothing he can do that will appease the white-hating Jacobins of modernity. Even if he is born into poverty his skin is white and that means he possesses “white privilege” and deserves to die. It is all quite rational. Why should the people of nature and the devotees of the natural religions have to be polluted by the white race?

There has been no conservative opposition to the Atticus Finch-liberals and their colored and heathen allies, who we have already established as not really their allies, because the modern conservatives are not conservative. They have rejected Burkean conservatism, which stems from a love of kith, kin, and God, for economic conservatism. They want to show the liberals that their economic system works better than the liberals’ system and is therefore much better for the colored people. Thus the modern conservatives and the liberals are united in their main goal – to love and serve the negro. The modern economic conservative does not care about the Islamization or the colorization of the West. He only wants to know whether the black or the Moslem is for or against free enterprise. And even if both are against it, he remains confident that he can win them over. So he welcomes all economic units into his nation, which is not really a nation but is an abstract idea in the mind of a sick generation of spiritually anesthetized rationalists.

Trump is not a racist; I wish he was, but he has some good instincts about border control and crime. That is what makes him an anathema to the National Review type of conservative. Any man with a single European instinct left in him is not fit to govern the land of the rational Jacobins, because the rationalist man is always afraid he’ll be damned. But his fear is not a Christian’s fear of damnation that can be relieved by Christ; it is a rationalist’s fear of damnation. The white conservative fears the racist label, because to be racist is to be stupid. And to be stupid is to be damned, because rationality is the sign of the blessed and stupidity is the sign of the damned. Hence the fear of being racist and therefore stupid haunts the white conservative.
Like one, that on a lonesome road
Doth walk in fear and dread,
And having once turned round walks on,
And turns no more his head;
Because he knows a frightful fiend
Doth close behind him tread.
That fiend is the man who plans on screaming racist at the conservative. Mr. Conservative hopes to hold off the foul fiend by being more anti-racist than the worst of the mad-dog liberals. In short he has become the type of man who will gladly sell out his own race to save himself from a damnation that exists only in his rationalist mind, which is a form of un-mind. Charles Peguy once said that we should never know just how many horrific crimes are committed by men who are afraid of not appearing sufficiently progressive. I think we are now beginning to get an idea of just how many. The crimes of the fearful ones, the anti-racist rationalists, are as numerous as the sands of the desert.

The modern rationalist is in the position of Dostoyevsky’s Raskolnikov before his repentance. At first Raskolnikov only felt sorry that his confession revealed that he was not a superman, an ironclad rationalist, who was not subject to the feelings of a lesser man who felt guilt and remorse over the murder of an old lady and her granddaughter. It is only when his heart relents, when he gives up on his mind-forged vision of the superman that he can turn to the Man of Sorrows and start the long road back to redemption.

At the heart of the European’s tragic fall is the sin of Adam, the pride of intellect. True wisdom does not come from abstract reason, it comes from a heart united in sympathy and love to Christ’s sacred heart. That wisdom, the wisdom of the heart and blood, has the sustaining fire to light our way through the darkest night. No integral European, that man of feeling who Scott championed, would forsake his familial and racial hearth fire to go whoring after the gods of the heathens and the gods of color. Nor would he fear the scorn of the rationalists, because he would know that the first rationalist was the devil. Nothing is more embarrassing to church men than the mention of the devil as something more than a metaphor. But he is more than a metaphor. He is our ancient foe — science has not changed that — and he rules over the clergy’s liberal comrades in arms with a rationalist sword of iron. We, the European remnant, the men with hearts of flesh, will not be ruled by the sword of the devil.

If there is nothing sacred that is not rational, rational as defined by the philosophers of reason, then what happens to our “irrational” ties to our kith and kin? And what happens to our irrational connection, through our kith and kin, to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Both disappear like fairy dust fading away. I long to see Europeans who do not start every protest against the Islamization of Europe or every protest against black criminality with, “I am not a racist.” Instead, I want to hear Europeans say, and mean it, “I am a racist, because I am a Christian European who loves the people of my own racial hearth fire in and through the savior, Jesus Christ. I am not going to give up that love or that faith for your pathetic rationalist utopia that was conceived and is sustained, by Satan.”

Let me close with the words of the last Burkean conservative, Anthony Jacob:
We can never flourish as we ought except among our own kind; and if we cannot flourish as we ought we shall go under. It is not surprising, of course, that under the mental and spiritual anaesthetization of the Farewell State the British people’s sense of self-preservation should have atrophied and their sense of values gone awry. Yet this in no wise alters the fact that those who form no more than a part of a universal mish-mash, of a homeless multitude of faceless ‘un-men,’ will never have any pride of place or sense of belonging, nor will ever know the Christian virtues of charity and love. Love like charity not only begins at home but perishes without one.