The True Story of Thanksgiving

At Racism Review, MSU sociologist Matthew Hughey has demolished the multiculturalist myth of Thanksgiving. He urges us to replace the American holiday with “fasting and/or service to the homeless and hungry.” The model he prefers is a national “Day of Mourning” over European imperialism in the Americas. Jessie Daniels and other anti-racists are pushing this idea across the web.

White Nationalists can interpret the true story of Thanksgiving in a different light. It is further proof that our ancestors didn’t share the alien mores of modern anti-racists. The very term “racism” didn’t debut in America until the 1930’s; “genocide” didn’t appear until the 1940’s. The Puritans didn’t believe in multiculturalism, political correctness, or human rights. They didn’t believe the Pequot Indians were “Native Americans.” They obviously didn’t believe the Indians they exterminated, enslaved, and/or ethnically cleansed from New England were entitled to the “inalienable rights” of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These terms and ideals were introduced centuries later. They have infected our national discourse like a virus. Whites are morally sick because of their exposure to these pathological concepts. I’ve called it “discourse poisoning” for years now. Hughey and Daniels are trying to change the national discourse about Thanksgiving. They want to attach an anti-White stigma to the holiday; pervert a time of family solidarity and celebration into a source of White shame and guilt.

There is no limit to the destructiveness of anti-racism. The anti-racists won’t stop until Western culture has been extirpated root and branch. Every concession invites radical leftists to push the envelope further. There isn’t room in their worldview for anything positive about White people. We can’t even sit down with our families and eat a turkey without them demanding our atonement.

About Hunter Wallace 9118 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

47 Comments

  1. ‘They obviously didn’t believe the Indians they exterminated, enslaved, and/or ethnically cleansed from New England were entitled to the “inalienable rights” of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’

    An inalienable right to life doesn’t mean that others give up their rights. Thus, if an Iriquois with God-given rights attacks a Puritan, the Puritan is obligated by the duty of self-defense to kill said Iriquois. This does not mean the Puritan disbelieves in the Iriquois’ immortal soul or his rights – I see two possibilities – it means either
    a- the Puritan believes that the Iriquois was rational, but did not properly form his conscience (thus leading to sinful misbehavior), or
    b- the Puritan believes that the Iriquois was not acting rationally, in accordance with everyone’s rights.

  2. “This was the second Day of Thanksgiving that was officially celebrated. It was marked by the hacking off of Native heads and kicking them through the streets of nearby Manhattan.”

    His gruesome account of history reminds me of The Washingtonians, a fictional short story about how Washington and his men were cannibals.

  3. So which is it folks? I keep hearing a certain segments of WNs tell us that Christianity is a universalist, foreign religion that keeps Whites passive, liberal, and open to other races.

    Then they point out these hardy pro-White Puritans we’re afraid of race war and didn’t subscribe to universal notions of “human rights” and the like. Yet these Puritans were theocratic Christian warriors, even praying after their battles, and were radical Calvinists considering themselves to be God’s Elect, while all others Hell-bound reprobates hated by God.

    Which is it? You can’t have both. As Christianity has declined in the West, so has racial awareness. Is this a coincidence?

  4. Remember Alex Haley and “Roots”? The story of one Black man and how he traced his ancestors who were brought over as slaves (Kunta Kinte I believe). It was shown pretty conclusively that he made the whole story up, and plagarized whole chapters of the book from other sources, but that didn’t stop them from holding a “parade” ten or so years ago in his hometown to commemorate the story.

    Some young White girl was tied up in chains and paraded around the city by Blacks, in a “reversal” of “racism” – makes me re-think NN’s S&M theories.

    This is, dare I say it, spiritual anti-White activism, and really must be stopped. I propose we remake Thanksgiving into a day to proclaim Thank God He Made Me White.

  5. White Non-Conservative:
    As Christianity has declined in the West, so has racial awareness. Is this a coincidence?

    No. The decline of Christianity is obviously a symptom. It has reflected the changing Zeitgeist.

    It’s surprising that many so racialists get this so backwards.

  6. ” I keep hearing a certain segments of WNs tell us that Christianity is a universalist, foreign religion”

    Factually true.

    ” that keeps Whites passive, liberal, and open to other races.”

    Well, there are plenty of Christian organizations and churches that are actively bringing in non-white immigrants and helping Christians adopt non-white children.

    If you can use the faith to preach racial preservation, I applaud you, but I don’t think it’s convincing to most people.

  7. Mark, mythological aspects aside, Christianity is a European religion founded by the White Europeans who created the Roman Empire. It’s not in any way foreign to White Europeans, it’s a creation of White Europeans. European culture attained the heights of world power under Christianity.

    Christianity became “liberal” at the same time that all the other White institutions did, post WWII. As MacDonald has noted the churches tend to follow the intellectual trends of the time, and in the case of Christianity, liberalism was imposed from the outside and from the elites (Vatican II, integration of Protestant schools in the USA, etc.)

    To this day, the most biologically healthy Whites that have lots of children are Christians. Christianity is still the only major institution in society that effectively excludes Jews. While it certainly possible to theorize about Christianity having some inherent universalism that is detrimental to Whites, surely that is about number 50 on the list after the most obvious causes.

    Religion certainly isn’t for everyone, but I’m damned suspicious of WNs who seem to attack Christianity, our European religion, and so far the most effective pro-natalist institution among White people. I am curious if the same anti-Christian faction also tend to be the ones suggesting we let Jews into the movement.

  8. “I am curious if the same anti-Christian faction also tend to be the ones suggesting we let Jews into the movement.”

    Surely you must be joking. I’ve been observing the WN “movement” for almost 20 years now, and the situation is almost always the exact opposite of what you suggest. It’s the pro-Jewish element that is always the most opposed to any criticism of Christianity. It’s the most solidly anti-Jewish elements that tend to be anti-Christian. Their reasons for being anti-Jewish dovetail very closely with their reasons for being anti-Christian.

    Also the democratic, vote-counting, weaselly “be nice to Jews/Christians and maybe they’ll change their minds and vote for us” is, you’ll note, precisely the line of reasoning that both pro-Jewish and pro-Christian types take. Your line of reasoning towards Christians is precisely the line of reasoning that Friedrich Braun (if I am remembering the correct name?) takes in regards to Jews. It’s a little odd to suggest that it’s the other guys who are pro-Jewish.

    Also you are wrong about Christianity being “white” in origin. It is not. It has been adopted and modified to white norms over the past millennia and a half, but it is in its origins a Semitic mish-mash of Jewish superstitions and Levantine pagan myths and semi-Hellenistic religious cults.

    Now that our culture has been subverted, Christianity is reverting back to its origins. It has proved remarkably easy to strip the white elements away from Christianity. The white facade of Christianity is easy to strip away because it is an add-on; once you have lost the white cultural ties to Christianity all you have left are the underlying texts and philosophy and middle eastern myths, which are not white and are not conducive to our survival.

    Yes it is not usually helpful to directly attack Christianity in public in that many whites are still attached to the superstition; but Christianity as an institution is not proving to be helpful to white survival and is unlikely to become helpful until after we’ve won – not before. The Churches follow the cultural trends, they don’t create them.

    Don’t be fooled by the temporary higher birthrates of the white Bible-thumpers. It does us no good if present trends continue and the culture remains in the hands of our enemies. If the Culture Distorters control the culture, it doesn’t matter how many Bible thumping creationist retards that whites produce; they will remain powerless, and having a few percentage more whites in the population than we would have had otherwise makes no difference. If anything it makes our position worse by increasing the numbers of credulous whites in the overall white population. We need better quality, not mere quantity, of whites.

    White Bible thumpers might follow our lead or join us in future so any public activism should of course not insult or alienate them; but by the same token we should also prefer quality over mere quantity. Winning over high-IQ, highly educated, skeptical, middle and upper class whites should be the highest short term priority. It’s quality that matters; not quantity. We should stop thinking in terms of electoral politics; we aren’t going to be winning elections any time soon anyway. Democracy is a huge part of the problem, too. Thinking that all whites are equal is just as invalid as thinking that all races are equal.

    Rather than saying “hey we can’t insult white Christians; they breed more” we should be asking “what can we do to get the better quality whites to breed more” and “what can we do to get the better quality whites to be on our side”. It doesn’t matter what most of the white Christians do – if we win, they’ll claim to have been on our side all along. If we lose, they’ll be first in line to dance on our graves. These people are compared to sheep for a very good reason.

    If you’re a white Christian and you find that insulting, that’s too bad. The onus is on you to get white Christians to change. Good luck with that – seriously. We’ll all applaud loudly if white Christians suddenly start thinking and acting like 17th century Puritan Indian-fighters, but we all know that isn’t likely to happen.

  9. “. . .Christianity is still the only major institution in society that effectively excludes Jews. . .”

    I’m calling bull-sh!t on this one, pardon my French.

    Seriously, anyone who believes that Christianity today “effectively excludes Jews” cannot be taken seriously. The Churches follow the Jew’s lead in almost everything; it doesn’t matter if a Jew can’t take communion without converting. That’s the only kind of “exclusion” of Jews going on: a perfectly meaningless exclusion.

  10. (New Testament) Christianity is an instance of Platonic thought, and Platonism is the cannon of our Western mindset. Both have been tremendously influential to European peoples. Whether the founders of Christianity (in largely Greek-speaking, Hellenic Palestine) knew of Plato is unimportant, the end is, and that is that Christianity was used to propagate Plato’s worldview to the people of the West. Christianity and Platonism say the same things but differ in their method of instruction.

    Both address subjects such as good and evil, the soul, finding beauty in eternal forms vs. physical objects, the doing of wrong being worse than being wronged, the corruption of money, the importance of habit in shaping a man, the worthlessness of public opinion, the primacy of truth, afterlife and damnation, the virtue of courage, temperance, and justice, examples of martyrdom, etc.

    Plato differs from Christianity in use of reasoning to teach this worldview rather than commands. His dialogs are arguments and the conclusions are not commands but possibilities. Plato’s writing presuppose the reader is capable of reasoning. Reasoning is not widely possessed by people, either now or in Plato’s day. Plato requires a thinking human being for his ideas to be imparted.

    Christianity is authoritative. The New Testament issues commands and directives and illustrates terrifying penalties for disobeying them. A person need only to follow, not to think. As not everyone is capable of sustained thought or following long chains of logic, Christianity serves the purpose of guiding those who otherwise would not be introduced to Plato.

    Read Plato, the New Testament, and then, if you still somehow can’t see the similarities, Augustine’s Confessions to reconcile the two. Even if you are still dead-set against Christianity, you will have a better understanding of it. In any case, reading Plato will introduce you to so much more besides what’s in the New Testament; theories of psychology and evolution, processes of logic and rhetoric, Spengler-like theories on the rise and fall of states, definitions of love, examples of hostile debate, etc.

  11. visitor Instead of thinking of Christianity as a “ideology” why not consider Christianity as an institution? The facts on the ground are as follows; millions of White, non-Jewish families across America meet weekly face to face, creating a dense network and civil society. Among conservative churches at least implicit White identity is still strong, natalism is encouraged, and the churches often have auxiliary institutions like private schools, daycare, elderly care, etc. All of this tax free, with broad legal rights against government interference. This entire network and civil society is virtually Jew free.

    Ignorant Bible thumpers may believe that Christianity is Jewish, others understand the role of the Flavians in creating Christianity to specifically halt the spread of what can be termed Judeo-Islamism (see Robert Eisenman, Joseph Atwill). I don’t think the Roman Empire is considered Semitic. We’re all rational here, Christianity as a philosophy/religion like most others is pretty infinitely flexible. Nuttiness like creationism and aberrations like Christian Zionism should be discouraged obviously. Then again, take a look at those movements in the last 100 years and the story of how they came to be may not be what many have thought.

    As for your White super-race, Christianity isn’t holding anyone back from recruiting upper class high IQ Whites to any kind of movement. I agree the typical White Christians will fall into line if it’s successful. If average IQ Whites are important to the White movement, and Christianity must be replaced, let’s see you build a nation-wide chain of White schools teaching the Greco-Roman classics or just basic science.

    Scandanavia is the most atheist and secular place on Earth, they still christen their adolescents and get married and buried in their beautiful historic churches. Rational Jews don’t give up their cultural identity, why should we?

    You go to war with the army you have.

  12. visitor: “It’s the most solidly anti-Jewish elements that tend to be anti-Christian.”

    Fair enough I don’t really know the situation in WN. I do know that in the rest of American society, anti-Christian is nearly always pro-Jewish.

  13. “It’s the most solidly anti-Jewish elements that tend to be anti-Christian”

    On second thought that’s quite interesting. Let’s assume that the anti-Christian and anti-Jewish faction were to prevail in the White movement. To the typical culturally Christian White person, if they want to exclude Jews they have to also give up their cultural identity as Christians. The other option is to retain their cultural Christian identity, and not exclude Jews.

    The pattern is almost similar to the Zionist conundrum, if we want White nationalism here at home we have to support Jewish nationalism in Israel, otherwise neither. But it’s not acceptable to be pro-nationalist for Whites and anti-nationalist for Jews, or even just neutral.

    And of course that massive Jew free social institution called Christianity is actually a liability, not an asset. Because by excluding Jews you are actually including them. I think I’ll ponder this some more.

  14. “if we want White nationalism here at home we have to support Jewish nationalism in Israel, otherwise neither.”

    We have to convince them that it’s the best place for them to be.

  15. Dasein, sure tactically I agree. I am just trying to figure out why the stars always seemed to be aligned this way. Why can’t we simply be neutral and not concern ourselves with Jews? Why can’t we be anti-Jewish without giving up one inch of our cultural and heritage, regardless of whether it has some semitic influences? Why should anyone give up Christianity, which excludes Jews, without some other effective way of avoiding socialization with Jews, preventing Jews from going to school with your kids, etc? The only Jewish Question is how to exclude them.

  16. 1. ‘You mean iroquois, right?’

    Sorry, Steve in the Swamps, I guess I’ve been misspelling that name for more than thirty years now.

    2. @White Non-Conservative
    ‘Remember Alex Haley and “Roots”? … It was shown pretty conclusively that he made the whole story up, and plagarized whole chapters of the book from other sources, but that didn’t stop them from holding a “parade” ‘

    He was a propagandist; he scored a propaganda victory; he got rewarded. What is history but a fable agreed upon? (I think Bonaparte said that – I’m probably misspelling Buonaparte’s name too… he must have had at least two ways to spell it…)

    3. Furthermore: ‘ Christianity is a European religion founded by the White Europeans who created the Roman Empire. It’s not in any way foreign to White Europeans, it’s a creation of White Europeans. ‘

    I like JTaverner’s comment: ‘(New Testament) Christianity is an instance of Platonic thought, and Platonism is the cannon of our Western mindset.’ I would add that there was a lot of other Hellenistic thought in there – Stoicism was important, for example.

    I encourage any Platonists to submit essays on this topic to TOQonline or a similar publication.

  17. HW’s excellent comment on the degeneration of Puritanism to Unitarianism might have been further amplified with reference to the inexorable rise of (unitarianist) Freemasonry in the colonies which became the USA. The majority of the Declaration of Independence signatories were members of the Craft, although happily, at that time racial attitudes were still largely sensible.

  18. ‘Why can’t we be anti-Jewish without giving up one inch of our cultural and heritage, regardless of whether it has some semitic influences?’

    One may oppose Jews without being anti-Jewish per se. Let me give a thought-experiment to illustrate.

    I think it’s possible to love Western Civilization for its own sake. Suppose I were to start a “We Love Pure Western Civ” club. I might welcome persons of all colors into this club, so long as they sincerely believed that traditional Western culture – including Plato and Paracelsus and Paine and so on – is superior to degenerate Western culture (including Boas, Freud, Marx, and the Jewish “culture of critique”). In fact, I might even welcome full-blooded Jews in, so long as they were of the sentiments of Benjamin Freedman and Israel Shahak, and so long as they conformed strictly to correct doctrine. This club would not reject any aspect of the traditional West, e.g. C.S.Lewis or British Israelitism. This club would simply highlight the difference between the traditional West and the Cultures of Critique. (Kevin MacDonald has written that in addition to the Jewish Culture of Critique, there have been native cultures of critique such as Transcendentalism.)

    Such a club could, I think, preserve and uphold white culture without being specifically anti-Jewish.

    I do not claim to be operating a Christian church, nor do I claim to be handing out absolution. However, I think a reasonable Christian (like perhaps Bishop Richard Williamson) might say the following:

    Jews should be free to seek absolution for having participated in any aspect of the culture of critique. Whether they have spat on crucifixes, produced porn, preached the fraud of Freud, or shot Palestinian children, Jews should be free to confess their misdeeds and to seek redemption. This does not erase the consequences of their actions, and it does not mean that they should be regarded as conversos, and it definitely does not mean that they should be given access to everything. (Many notions of forgiveness depend on penance, which entails altered behavior, and penance may last a long time.)

    Many Christians have the bizarre notion that once one has confessed, one must be embraced and trusted. This leads to (e.g.) sex-maniacs who:

    first exceed the bounds of moderation in sex;
    second loudly declaim the story of their sins and demand forgiveness;
    third demand to be worshipped and regarded as saintly and trustworthy, because they have accomplished the difficult task of confessing sins.

  19. I like JTaverner’s comment: ‘(New Testament) Christianity is an instance of Platonic thought, and Platonism is the cannon of our Western mindset.’ I would add that there was a lot of other Hellenistic thought in there – Stoicism was important, for example.

    I encourage any Platonists to submit essays on this topic to TOQonline or a similar publication.

    Christianity has no theory of forms and nothing to say to Platonism. Catholicism sorta does since it (Aristotlean metaphysics) is basically accepted dogma through Aquinas.

  20. I don’t mean to derail this thread but has the text on this website gotten considerably smaller for anyone else?

  21. So which is it folks? I keep hearing a certain segments of WNs tell us that Christianity is a universalist, foreign religion that keeps Whites passive, liberal, and open to other races.

    Christianity is universalistic in this respect to the extent that the Beatitudes of the Gospels (i.e., Yeshua, himself, supposedly) are consulted for guidance.

    Then they point out these hardy pro-White Puritans we’re afraid of race war and didn’t subscribe to universal notions of “human rights” and the like. Yet these Puritans were theocratic Christian warriors, even praying after their battles, and were radical Calvinists considering themselves to be God’s Elect, while all others Hell-bound reprobates hated by God.

    And Christianity is quasi-particularistic where Saul/Paul is taken as authoritative in promoting his Doctrine of the Elect.

    Which is it? You can’t have both.

    It’s basically universalistic and subversive, since even the Elect are not racially qualified as such. And aborigines (“savages”) are always suspect as to the full extent of their humanity, and thus are subject to having their entitlements and candidacy conveniently overlooked by the faithful, in preservation of the (universalist) integrity of the faith.

    As Christianity has declined in the West, so has racial awareness. Is this a coincidence?

    Yes, in that National Socialist Germany, by counter-example, was tolerant of Christianity merely for tactical reasons and yet cultivated racial consciousness.

    Otherwise, Christianity has been eroded by general education. And racial enmities have tended to dissolve as life has become more economically liberal/cosmopolitan/suburban, where propaganda has not been responsible. So, it is *not* a coincidence, to the extent that general education and liberalization are associate elements of natural cultural evolution.

  22. dagezhu thought provoking comments. Let me clarify my preferred stance on the JQ is neutrality, not anti, however I’m not convinced Whites are allowed to be neutral on JQ.

    I’m not sure I fully appreciate your analogy, perhaps I would want a
    preferential option for C.S. Lewis, British Israelism and even White CofC like Trans. vs. Benjamin Freedman and Israel Shahak (though I’d have no objection to including them).

    To break the analogy, I’d have no problem with a full blooded Jew in a Western Culture Club, but WCC is likely to be elder academics and college males. Churches (at this point in history) are for women and children. Churches regulate sex, birth, death, and family life. Churches serve as matchmakers for young couples.

    By historical happenstance (or by Caesar’s design) that dead “Jew” hanging on the wall seems to keep Jews far away from those fertile young women (and men) in church. Coincidentally – or not – these churches warn young people away from degenerate television, Hollywood and similar destructive culture.

    Without Church, where does your daughter find suitable a man? College? Public high school (God forbid)? Where and under which cultural conditions does your daughter and son compete for mates? Which men are courting your daughters? Where does your daughter learn sexual values and how does she compete with her peers for social status? Church and related culture? Or the Freudian psychology class at the university?

    Churches are Jew free, just saying.

    Related; consider that most White males in the USA are circumcised. Christianity successfully halted this practice from spreading to Europeans for 2000 years and it’s unknown outside of the Judeo-Muslim world, except among White Americans in the last 100 years. Perhaps surprisingly, it wasn’t a religious appeal that sold circ to White Americans, it was a medical and pseudo-scientific appeal, by the usual suspects. The respect paid to “scientists” and doctors was able to overcome religious scruples against this foreign semitic practice.

    To use a crude analogy and meaning no intentional offense, perhaps Christianity is a form of herd immunity.

  23. ‘I don’t mean to derail this thread but has the text on this website gotten considerably smaller for anyone else?’

    If you accidentally hit “ctrl -” in some browsers, it will make the text smaller. “ctrl shift +” should fix it, if that was the problem.

    ‘Paine is (by and large) a part of the degenerate West and can be thrown in with the Marx and his ilk.’

    Okay, maybe you’re right, but maybe not. That topic deserves its own thread – do you have a blog?

    ‘WCC is likely to be elder academics and college males.’
    True. The little kiddies and teens need age-appropriate education.

    ‘Churches are Jew free, just saying.’
    It’s noteworthy that many Jewish writers have tried to establish dominant positions in the neo-Pagan subculture, thus neo-Pagan alternatives to Christianity are likely to be influenced by Jews.

    ‘I hope everyone here takes the time to celebrate White colonialism tomorrow.’

    Since the first Thanksgiving was in Virginia, the appropriate course of action would be to consume libations of some kind of alcohol related to Virginia. Possibly grape-based wine would connote aristocracy, and whiskey would connote yeoman populism.

  24. Okay, maybe you’re right, but maybe not. That topic deserves its own thread – do you have a blog?

    Yes it does.

    Lasch gives Paine a more fair treatment than most astute observers of the scene, probably on account of his leftist background. Perhaps I’ll post his thoughts on the subject and some others with my editorial comment.

    Re: Blog – Click on my name.

  25. dagezhu wrote: (#31)
    Neo-Pagan alternatives to Christianity are likely to be influenced by Jews.

    That’s a great point, dagezhu. Considering Jewish cultural influence in the modern West: isn’t it obvious that they’d get their fingers in any serious neoPaganism just as much as they have in Christianity, in time? Come on now, of course they would.

    The problem is fundamentally unrelated to Christianity.

  26. OT:
    Since I see a lot of awkward quoting of other posters in this thread, making it more confusing than necessary, I’ll repeat this request:

    Let’s get the html code of OccidentalDissent changed to emulate this: http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/8424/taginstructionswordpres.png (from http://www.jimwestergren.com/link-to-me-textbox-wordpess-plugin/). It shouldn’t be too hard.

    Note the simple instructions on how to quote, located directly above the comment-box. Note the list of other usable codes directly below. (MR also has this).

    Most people are unaware of how to use these tags. This will greatly improve the comments section readability.

    A “preview comment” button would also help.

  27. Race war and white colonialism–fitting topics for Thanksgiving. I took some time this morning to read more on King Philip’s War (1675-1676), one of the bloodiest wars in US history, but largely unknown by many. Those New England Puritans were a strong, bloodthirsty lot who had not hesitation killing Indian terrorists (which is what they were) and laying waste to Indian settlements. A far cry from what their faggoty descendants have become today; but then again the same could be said about so many White men.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Philip's_War

  28. Admiral, I just read the first part of the Wiki article on King Philips’s War (you have to hunt it up over at Wiki, as the link Admiral provided doesn’t go to it directly). To everyone reading it, just mentally change “Native” or “Native American,” wherever you see those in the text, to “Indian.” Your reading experience will be less nerve-wracking. (It would serve no purpose to go back there and correct all instances of “Native American” to “Indian” — it’s been done and been instantly reversed. I’ve seen it claimed that Wiki is watched over like a hawk by a veritable army of Jews who continuously scrutinize every article for the most microscopic deviation from PC or from pro standard version of the Holocau$t, and change it instantly. You can’t win against this Jewish army. So goes the word “on the street.” All you can do is just mentally substitute the right word as you read.

  29. Frd.Scrb: ” I’ve seen it claimed that Wiki is watched over like a hawk by a veritable army of Jews”

    I think Wiki has an even bigger army of non-Jewish but semitically-correct brainwashed zombies. Like the Japanese, they like to hammer down the nail that sticks up.

    Wndrr: ” A “preview comment” button would also help. “

    What’s the reason for disabling the preview button ?

  30. Thanks Fred. That’s odd, because previously all I did was cut and paste from the window; I wonder why it didn’t past correctly? Anyway, here’s the correct link (I hope):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Philip%27s_War

    During the Cronulla race riots in Australia a few years ago, I visited the Wiki site and wasted hours battling with Wiki admins, who were blaming the whites for the disturbances. I get the impression that in addition to Jews there are a lot of third world computer geeks and Marxist antifas who patrol the site.

    Happy Thanksgiving!

  31. “I think Wiki has an even bigger army of non-Jewish but semitically-correct brainwashed zombies. “ ( — Armor)

    “I get the impression that in addition to Jews there are a lot of third world computer geeks and Marxist antifas who patrol the site.” ( — The Admiral)

    I think you’re both right.

    By the way, earlier today I was reading the Wiki entry on the Pilgrim Fathers and ran into the same thing: in every instance where it should have said “Indians” it said “native people.” So, “the native people shot arrows at the men and the men shot back with guns,” or “the shore party dug into a mound and found maize which the native people had stored there.” Again, you just must substitute the correct term (“Indian”) in your mind as you read, because you’re not going to win against what must be armies and armies and armies of Jews, antifas, Third World computer geeks, and so on, swarming all over Wiki 24/7/365, keeping every word of every article one-hundred percent PC.

  32. In the Pilgrims article the antifa zombies can’t say “native people corn,” the PC translation of Indian corn, which is the normal term, because native people corn sounds ridiculous — so they switch to the inappropriate word maize (inappropriate for English speakers that is).

  33. Christianity is very much of a hybrid….basically a grafting of Middle Eastern religion onto a Greco-Roman substrate. Likewise with Shia Islam (a grafting of Arab religion onto an much older Indo-Aryan base- which may help explain the similarity between Catholicisim and Shia Islam (emphasis on self-sacrifice for a higher cause – Christ-Hussein archetype).

  34. (emphasis on self-sacrifice for a higher cause – Christ-Hussein archetype)

    Except there’s nothing about that in Old Aryan belief, textual or reconstructed. The only desirable and regular acts of self-sacrifice were suttee and sanny?sa, both late and specific to India. You will find nothing in the Rig Veda, or in any of the great reconstructions of their oldest religious ideas, about a “Christ-Hussein archetype”, or anything like it. The Old Aryans were not Christians or members of the Waffen-SS. You surely don’t believe the Vikings wasted their time in self-flagellation real or mythic? the Parthians? how about the proto-Slavs? Like Guessedworker’s “faith gene”, a “self-sacrifice” gene doggedly expressing itself through “Semitic overlay” is self-romanticizing modern moralistic bunk. There is no Aryan Christ, Christ is not Aryan, and Aryans were concerned with gambling, drinking and ruling — not killing themselves.

  35. There is no Aryan Christ, Christ is not Aryan, and Aryans were concerned with gambling, drinking and ruling — not killing themselves.

    And yet many racialists call modern Aryans with the same concerns “defectives” and “sociopaths.” This lends credence to your thesis that Whites really are that alienated from our past. Racialism/white nationalism is so filled with post-Christian, unctuous moralizing that I’m almost glad they aren’t in power.

  36. uh:”There is no Aryan Christ, Christ is not Aryan…”

    It is only one source, but an 1889 book entitled Aryan Sun Myths: The Origin of Religions proclaims that worship of a Sun-like messianic figure was/is common amongst Aryan peoples the world over:

    From the Preface of that book: “THE attention of the writer having been called to the fact that all Indo-Germanic nations have worshipped crucified Saviours, an investigation of the subject was made. Overwhelming proof was obtained that the sun-myths of the ancient Aryans were the origin of the religions in all of the countries which were peopled by the Aryans. The Saviours worshipped in these lands are personifications of the Sun, the chief god of the Aryans. That Pagan nations worshipped a crucified man, was admitted by the Fathers of the early Christian Church. The holy Father Minucius Felix, in his Octavius, written as late as A. D. 211, indignantly resents the supposition that the sign of the cross should be considered as exclusively a Christian symbol…” – http://www.archive.org/details/aryansunmythsori00titcrich

  37. uh:’You will find nothing in the Rig Veda, or in any of the great reconstructions of their oldest religious ideas, about a “Christ-Hussein archetype”, or anything like it. ‘

    Actually, what one finds in the Vedas is subject to interpretation. I have been trying to study them for some time. To truly do them justice would probably take five years of living in India, enrolled at a specialized school and attending lectures from Brahmins every day.

    So if you’ve paged through the Vedas and you think you know them, be aware that your opinions might be hotly contested.

  38. Incidentally, White Preservationist, thanks for the link.

    The Theosophical Society is not exactly universally revered for its scholarship, but one of its members wrote a book called “Masks of Odin” that might be of interest.

    http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/odin/odin-hp.htm

    I am no scholar to judge whether it is worthwhile or useless – but even if it is entirely false, proving its falsity might be a useful exercise.

Comments are closed.