HUD’S Plan To Destroy White Suburbia

District of Corruption

In Obama's America, there is no escape from "fairness"
In Obama’s America, there is no escape from “fairness.”

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has effectively declared war on White America:

“The Department of Housing and Urban Development has proposed a new plan to change U.S. neighborhoods it says are racially imbalanced or are too tilted toward rich or poor, arguing the country’s housing policies have not been effective at creating the kind of integrated communities the agency had hoped for. …

States would then assess the best way to integrate communities deemed by HUD’s data to not be integrated enough. A HUD official, who did not want to speak on record because of the public comment period, said the rule hopes to better match up HUD-assisted housing with the communities that have good hospitals, schools and other assets. …”

In other words, the plan here is to redistribute diversity from places like Birmingham to Hoover or St. Louis to St. Charles. Henceforth, White Americans will no longer have the liberty to escape from “equality” in the suburbs.

Consider the implications:

1.) Fifty years of voting for the Republican Party, which has which has boldly defended conservative principles, has brought us to this low point.

2.) The blacks are going to be moving into your neighborhood. They are going to bring all their crime, poverty, and blight with them. They are going to go to school with your children. They are going to destroy your property value.

3.) This means you no longer have the option of avoiding confrontation and living out a private life in an expensive suburb with a decent public school.

The time is coming when White America is going to have its back pushed against the wall and will have to confront the result of fifty years of moving to the suburbs, avoiding confrontation, and voting for the Republican Party. We are going to have to start fighting back or idly watch the Detroitization of our communities.

What’s it going to be?


  1. “The North voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Immigration Act of 1965, and Obama twice. Do you disagree?”

    Those are facts, and of course I don’t agree with those decisions.

    “Show me a despot who has set out to demographically destroy and replace his own people with non-Whites in the same way that every Western liberal democracy has done.”

    How can monarchism or socialism do it in the same way as a democracy? In any case, I don’t think Western liberal democracy as such is setting out to destroy and replace whites with non-whites, but an evil despotism that lies behind the process and controls or guides the process is what seems to have that goal.

    I agree that pure democracy is harmful. I don’t advocate democracy as such.

    “The Bible explicitly endorses both slavery and monarchy.”

    What commentaries or other secondary sources have you been reading?

    “The Lord said unto Samuel (…) they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them (…) Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit protest solemnly unto them and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots (…) And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people refused to obey (…) and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations”.

    “Now (…) see that your wickedness is great, which ye have done in the sight of the LORD, in asking you a king (…) And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the LORD thy God, that we die not: for we have added unto all our sins this evil, to ask us a king”.

    “The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah (…) after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people in Jerusalem to proclaim freedom for the slaves (…) So all the officials and people who entered into this covenant agreed that they would free their male and female slaves and no longer hold them in bondage. They agreed, and set them free. But afterward they changed their minds and took back the slaves they had freed and enslaved them again (…) Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel; I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage (…) Therefore thus saith the Lord: You have not obeyed me in proclaiming liberty, everyone to his brother and everyone to his neighbour. So I now proclaim ‘freedom’ for you, declares the Lord—‘freedom’ to fall by the sword, plague and famine. I will make you abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth.”

    On sheltering slaves who have escaped: “???, ???-????????, ??????-???????? ???????, ????? ????????. Thou shalt not deliver unto his master a slave that is escaped from his master unto thee; ?? ??????? ?????? ????????????, ?????????? ??????-??????? ???????? ??????????–???????? ???; ???, ??????????. he shall dwell with thee, in the midst of thee, in the place which he shall choose within one of thy gates, where it liketh him best; thou shalt not wrong him.”

    On wage slavery: “Thou shalt not oppress a hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of the aliens that are in thy land within thy gates (…) And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt; therefore I command thee”.

  2. The question marks in the foregoing comment were Hebrew letters, of the Hebrew text, that somehow disappeared when I posted the comment. Sorry, I won’t try to post any Hebrew text again.

  3. Stephen Dalton, Biblical Christianity is neither egalitarianism nor elitism. It is theocratic, though, in the sense that there is one king, Jesus, whom we serve.

  4. Mosin,

    “Then love and adore Despotism, Dan. It is the part of freemen to detest and resist it.”

    This guy agrees with you:

    “But a truly good people will survive and overcome (with God’s help) even the worst, most unjust government, and even the best governance will not save a generation that wants to be evil.”

    That’s not the issue. The issue is whether the United States built its foundation on sand or on rock. The “rock” is an explicitly White Christian ethnostate. The “sand” is the Civic Nationalist frat club that was created in 1789, the same year the French Revolution broke out. As Palmetto Patriot has explained time and again, both the American Revolution and the French Revolution were explicit rejections of European Christian culture and society.

    It is true that a White Christian ethnostate is not immune to internal decay. But a Civic Nationalist frat club, or a proposition nation, as Sam Francis called it, is doomed from the start. A proposition nation is Born To Die. Again I ask, is Whiteness or Christianity even mentioned in the Constitution or the Declaration? No and no. What do we get instead?

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

    If you believe in equality, there’s no helping you. Alex Kurtagic thoroughly demolished the concept of equality in a March 18, 2013 Alt Right article:

    Moreover, the United States was set up by the Framers as a Civic Nationalist frat club/proposition nation where any person of any race, ethnicity, and religion has the “God-given natural right” to call himself an Amurrican and to physically reside within U.S. borders – as long as he swears fidelity to the creed of “liberty and equality.”

    “Proud selfish people may do that, but honest, hard working Christian people wouldn’t hate the people and rulers of other states

    1. For better or worse, you hate the Old South. What gives?

    2. This statement of yours is akin to denying the existence of murder by proclaiming, “violent people may do that, but peaceful people wouldn’t.” Well, yeah, in a manner of speaking, peaceful people wouldn’t commit murder. But as Alexander Hamilton, one of the three conniving stooges who composed the Federalist Papers, observed in Federalist 34:

    “To model our political systems upon speculations of lasting tranquillity would be to calculate on the weaker springs of human character.”

    Like liberals, you are assuming “goodness” is the norm when in fact depravity is the norm. Don’t believe me? Ask John Calvin.

    We Whites need authoritarianism to protect us from ourselves. There I said it.

    “the mentally diseased, Satanic, “scum of England”, coming to America.”

    If your own kith and kin hate you so much that they pass multiple laws to save themselves from you and drive you out of the land and across an entire ocean, than you might want to look in the mirror instead of blaming “despotism” and “oppression” for your problems. Every large tribe has a few runts. What happens when the runts congregate and start a new country from scratch? What happens when those runts become militarized? A shit storm of epic proportions happens, that’s what.

    “To a man of mere animal life, you can urge no argument against going to America, but that it will be some time before he will get the earth to produce. But a man of any intellectual enjoyment will not easily go and immerse himself and his posterity for ages in barbarism.”-Samuel Johnson

    “Dan Poole, thank you for alerting us to the possibility that Matt Heimbach also prefers “Authoritarianism”. We will be looking for evidence of that.”

    Your evidence:

    “American democracy and freedom is the enemy of anyone who wants to promote our Faith, our Folk, and our Fatherland. Throw freedom out the window and turn towards your people.”

    Read the entire article. Like I said: Probably the best thing I’ve ever read on the internet.

    “I would be surprised though to discover that he loves Despotism.”

    If “despotism” is defined as opposing Amurrican democracy and the Amurrican system of government, then Matt is guilty as charged. As am I. But I know he frequents these posts, so I don’t claim to speak for him. Having met him in person though, I’m confident I’ve accurately described his philosophy. Also, Matt is a convert to Orthodox Christianity. I’m sure you find the Russian Orthodox Church “despotic” based on your next statement:

    Re: ” ‘Christian’ authoritarianism”: Roman Papism or one of its harlot daughters (“high churches”) would support your Southron monarchy or any other form of “authoritarianism” or Elitism. Biblical Christianity would need to be suppressed.”

    1. You presume I have a problem with Catholicism. I do not. Catholicism served White nations well for hundreds of years. Sure it made some mistakes. So did Protestantism.

    2. I’m not a Southerner. I’m a Yankee. I live in Southeast Michigan.

    3. Read Ephesians 6:1-9. Then tell me again that Biblical Christianity is incompatible with authoritarianism.

    4. Tsarist Russia was the most authoritarian, the most Christian, and the most conservative of all the White nations. To this day, apostasy has never broken out in Russia.

    “The natural sinful human tendency to rule “arbitrarily” must be controlled…

    As opposed to the freedumb of “We The People,” which is inherently good and must be unleashed? You and the Framers got your wish. “By their fruits, ye shall know them.”

    …”not only by many political “checks and balances” but especially by true morality and religious conviction of the people.”

    This might have been a valid complaint before the 1600s. The upheaval in England during the 1650s, the French Revolution during the 1790s, and the entirety of Amurrican history reveal it to be a bogus complaint. “Checks and balances” don’t solve shit. Power and arbitrary rule aren’t the root of all evil. The love of money is the root of all evil. Divorce money from power and the structural problem takes care of itself. Then its up to the people to not forget who they are. How to divorce money from power? You can start by scorching the plutocracy, hence the economic beliefs of Lew and myself.

    “I don’t think Western liberal democracy as such is setting out to destroy and replace whites with non-whites, but an evil despotism that lies behind the process and controls or guides the process is what seems to have that goal.”

    The evil despotism you speak of never ever EVER got to the point where the entire planet with the exception of Iran and Syria acted as one giant source of IOU’s. You see only Sauron and Mordor and ignore the power of Sauraman and Isengard.

    “It is theocratic, though, in the sense that there is one king, Jesus, whom we serve.”

    The ethnomasochists within the Church claim to serve Jesus when they waste precious resources on yet another mission trip to Haiti or some other non-white hellhole. They claim to serve Jesus when they advocate for “comprehensive immigration reform.” On and on it goes – depraved mortals claiming they know what Jesus wants and what his ultimate plan is.

    You would dismiss this all as apostacy, and rightly so. But your solution is to rewind the tape and expect the ending to be different. Richard Spencer annihilated that non-sense in his speech at the 2013 Amren conference. He was talking about the Constitution and the Declaration, but the same principle applies to Quakerism and Puritanism.

    Mosin, you’d be better off just confessing that you are defending Quakers and Puritans because they are your tribe, and your natural knee-jerk reaction is to defend your tribe. There’s nothing wrong with tribalism, per say.

  5. 313Chris,

    Last March my grandmother and I paid a visit to a missionary that she supports. This missionary has served in France since the early 1980s and only returns home once every three years. She’s also traveled to several other European countries and is well-versed in how Europeans see Americans and how Americans see Europeans.

    As us three are chatting away, the discussion inevitably segues into politics and culture. That’s when the missionary makes a startling comment. She tells me and my grandma that the average European, based on his perception of American culture and the American way of life, thinks that the American population is 50% black.

    She was trying to explain how Americans perceptions of Europeans and Europeans perceptions of Americans are often very far off base. But here’s the point: If American culture and the American way of life give the impression to the average European that America’s population is 50% black, then how can it be said that America is “exceptional”? By their fruits, ye shall know them.

    Chris, I remember you saying on Hunter’s July 4 post how you hate that Lee Greenwood song. From a pro-White perspective, I must ask: What is redeeming about the United States of America? The way I see it, America is a failure culturally, socially, and economically.

    Dissolve the Union.

  6. Very well composed comments, Dan Poole. I think I understand your position, and that you don’t understand mine. Neither Quakers nor Puritans are my “tribe” or part of my heritage. I don’t advocate democracy at all, and always RECOMMEND dissolving the union.

    Re: “Power and arbitrary rule aren’t the root of all evil. The love of money is the root of all evil”: BOTH are roots of evil, and lust as well. The scripture says not “all evil” but “all this evil”. The pursuit of profit for its own sake is sin, and I AGREE with you on “scorching the plutocracy”. Down with the tyranny of the plutocracy!

    You are infatuated now with the romance of “authority” and its carnal sword, but you are still young. I hope you will know the true love of freedom, someday.

    Repentance before true independence, confession before secession.

  7. “You presume I have a problem with Catholicism. I do not. Catholicism served White nations well for hundreds of years. Sure it made some mistakes.”

    I presumed (was certain) that you did NOT have any objection to Roman Papism (“Catholicism”), which has always worked to destroy the true church, and it was never “a mistake”. Papism and monarchism (or other elitism or “authoritarianism”) are two sides of a coin.

    “But your solution is to rewind the tape and expect the ending to be different.”

    Your fallacy is post hoc ergo propter hoc.

    I’m sure you think Braveheart should not have cried “Freedom!” in the movie, when authoritarianism was murdering him? That movie is dangerous propaganda for the destructive evil of liberty. Everyone would remain in their places in your ideal vision of “high church”-blessed, multiracial caste elitism.

  8. “Ask John Calvin. We Whites need authoritarianism to protect us from ourselves.”

    The “five points of Calvinism” are all error. Calvinism is a curse.

    WHO are these Protectors? These authoritarians who will protect Whites from themselves?

    Are YOU really White, Dan Poole? Or are you, or do you see yourself as, one of the “Protectors” of Whites?

    Slaves love and adore despotism, and so do despots and would-be despots.

  9. Re: “Authoritarianism (…) is a much better system of government for White Americans than democracy (…) many localities already have authoritarian laws (…) I have no morals qualms with submission”:

    Préparer pour la soumission. Vers le bas avec la démocratie, vive le autoritarisme:

  10. Mosin,

    “I think I understand your position, and that you don’t understand mine.”

    In the abstract, you support “freedom.” I’m guessing your idea of freedom is similar to the original American settlers idea of freedom, particularly in regards to self-sufficiency, property ownership, land ownership, and religion. I’m not against those freedoms per say. A specific type of freedom might be beneficial. The American Freedom Party describes the kind of freedoms that are beneficial to Whites:

    I support pretty much all those kind of freedoms. What I’m against is the mindless promotion of the extremely abstract concept that I derisively call “freeDUMB.” When you promote freedom in the abstract without specifying what you stand for, than what you’re really promoting is Godless anarchy, which inevitably – and ironically – mutates into absolute tyranny (see France under Napoleon or the United States under Lincoln).

    One of the reasons the libertarians are like vampires is because they are anarchists. Making no distinctions between different ethnic groups and different races, they howl with rage against the gubiment as “at best, a necessary evil, at worst, an intolerable one.” You being a Ron Paul supporter (who still refuses to recant no matter how much evidence Jack Ryan presents to the contrary), you’re addicted to this “freedumb is always good/government is always evil” non-sense.

    “Neither Quakers nor Puritans are my “tribe” or part of my heritage.”

    Well, you defend them as if they are your people. And you no doubt support their religious beliefs and their beliefs about “freedom.”

    “BOTH are roots of evil, and lust as well. The scripture says not “all evil” but “all this evil”.

    Nice try. Lets look at 1st Timothy 6:6-10. King James version:

    6But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. 8And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. 9But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

    The Bible does indeed say “all evil,” or at least the version of the Bible most accepted by traditionalists does. Lust for power is bad. It isn’t the root of all evil like the love of money is. The problem isn’t “power.” The problem is money. Lincoln, for example, didn’t let the South go because he was like, “what about my tariff?”

    “The pursuit of profit for its own sake is sin”

    Why should a freedom-lover like you begrudge the pursuit of profit? Who are you to tell Wal Mart they can’t make a million gabillion dollars? *devils advocate*

    There’s no association between freedom and morality you know. Freedom simply implies that you are allowed to do something. What that something is might or might not be good and moral. When you start approving or disproving of freedoms based on morality, and demand that certain freedoms – such as the freedom to pursue profits, which is one of the hall mark freedoms of Amurrican society I might add – be curtailed or restricted, then you become…wait for it…an authoritarian! Welcome to the club! (Except its not a club)

    “You are infatuated now with the romance of “authority” and its carnal sword, but you are still young. I hope you will know the true love of freedom, someday.”

    Here’s an excerpt from a December 28, 2012 article that the American Freedom Party cross-posted. It was written by Stanislav Mishin, a Russian native:

    This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered.

    And no, Mishin was not writing a treastisie on “freedom.” He was defending his people, the Russian people:

    No it is not about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

    I support the authoritarianism of Tsarist Russia. This is not incompatible with morality-based freedom. In fact, most of the freedoms the AFP lists would be perfectly consistent with that kind of authoritarianism.

    “Papism and monarchism (or other elitism or “authoritarianism”) are two sides of a coin.

    Well that’s demonstrably false. England was Protestant from 1532 on out. The Old South was Protestant and didn’t have a monarchy. Both were authoritarian.

    “Your fallacy is post hoc ergo propter hoc.

    I’ll admit I had to google that one. In any case, Spencer seemed to anticipate that kind of response and immediately provided an answer within his speech:

    Of course, history is not determined; it is not a film reel or script. But looking dispassionately at our current situation, we can only conclude that if we could hit a political “reset button,” this time around, the outcome would be far worse.

    We are entering a world of resource scarcity (not abundance), and we are not dealing with Blacks that are socially and politically inferior, but some hundred million non-Whites who are empowered by our political system.

    Thus, we don’t have to speculate about whether Rand Paul (and any other “right-wing” Republican) really wants to restore constitutional government or would actually be able to do so. This is all irrelevant. The goals themselves are wrong and must be abandoned.

    Why are they wrong? Because they failed. The Constitution failed. The Declaration of Independence failed. Puritanism failed. Quakerism failed. Freedumb failed. Amurrica failed.

    Failure must not the future of our people, White people, on the North American continent.

    “I’m sure you think Braveheart should not have cried “Freedom!” in the movie, when authoritarianism was murdering him?”

    Confession: I didn’t like Braveheart. It was as black and white with the good guys (Scotts) and the bad guys (English) as Steven Speilburg’s Shindlers List (or “Lincoln,” for that matter). And the real story of William Wallace wasn’t very similar to the gross hyperbole you see in that movie.

    Everyone would remain in their places in your ideal vision of “high church”-blessed, multiracial caste elitism.”

    “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.”-Hebrews 13:17

    “2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.”-Romans 13:2-3

    “The “five points of Calvinism” are all error. Calvinism is a curse.”

    Fair enough. So why are you defending Puritans?

    “WHO are these Protectors? These authoritarians who will protect Whites from themselves?”

    As is always the case in a healthy organic society, the leaders arise naturally. I suspect the leaders would be younger people already active in the pro-White movement right now.

    “Are YOU really White, Dan Poole?”

    Here’s the pic I currently use in my Twitter and Facebook profiles:

    Here’s me acting like a goof ball:

    Here’s me as a 7th grader in September 2002 kissing Lord Stanley after the Red Wings won the Stanley Cup the previous June:

    And here’s me…ahem…wearing my ethnicity:

    2 of these 4 photos are self-contradicting relative to my philosophy. *no shame*

    Préparer pour la soumission. Vers le bas avec la démocratie, vive le autoritarisme:

    The DHS isn’t the problem. The people who run it are the problem. This is true of any system, authoritarianism included. The catch is that liberal democracies are houses built on sand, whereas authoritarianism is a house built on rock. Any house can fall, but some houses are more likely to fall than others, and some houses were built on such shitty foundations that they are doomed from the start.

  11. England is Jewish now. The Rulers are al Zionist Jews. They are systematically killing off actual English. The American “runts” may well be the last vestigial English left.

  12. Mosin, I’m afraid you can’t comprehend my remarks. Your “Biblical Christianity” is a fairy tale. I’ve read the Early Church Fathers and your kind of Biblical Christianity does not appear in their writings. Your “BC” is a fantasy created by the radicals like Fox and the Anabaptist fanatics. It didn’t come into existence until after the Protestant Reformation was well underway. BTW, true Christianity is hierarchical. AFA human authority in the church goes, the pope is first, the clergy is second, and the laity third. Christ told his disciples not to be arrogant or overbearing, but through Peter, he told Christians to submit to their elders in the church.

    The same is true in secular society. Those who are inferior in rank (intelligence, social standing, sex, race or ethnicity) must submit to those who are superior. Otherwise, chaos results. The Reformation, the French, American, and Communist Revolutions, are living proofs of this.

    BTW, what is the name of this “pilgrim church” you’re always talking about? Since you’re always rubbing it in our faces, please tells us the name of this fabulous group. No fudging now! We want the name!

  13. “Your ‘BC’ is a fantasy created by the radicals like Fox and the Anabaptist fanatics. It didn’t come into existence until after the Protestant Reformation”

    Nothing new here. Papism denies the very existence of the true church, while it works hard to silence and destroy the true church. It has done so for centuries, for millennia.

    The order of the procession to Hell of the blind led by the blind: “the pope is first, the clergy is second, and the laity third”.

  14. “Those who are inferior in rank (intelligence, social standing, sex, race or ethnicity) must submit to those who are superior”

    Sounds like some Oriental philosophy, or Papism: that everyone “inferior” must remain in their lower stations — and continue to submit to the “higher authorities”, who wield the carnal sword — as they are robbed, enslaved and destroyed.

  15. Denise,

    “The American “runts” may well be the last vestigial English left.”

    Except that Amurrica hasn’t been a majority English nation for well over 100 years now. European immigration changed all that. Just because an Italian or Polish immigrant speaks English doesn’t mean he is English by blood. Zangwill was right about Amurrica being a melting pot. That was 1908. A century later, Amurrica has taken the next logical step and become a world melting pot – the Brotherhood of Man. Conservatives and liberals alike both embrace this. What’s the next logical step? You know the answer: White genocide.

    The reason I called the Puritans “runts” is because their behavior, and the behavior of their Yankee descendants, was so out of line with normal, acceptable White behavior that I’m left to conclude that something was genetically or psychologically wrong with them. Runts of the tribe are still part of the tribe, but they have a defect of some sort. They aren’t normal. So it was with the Puritans and Quakers. There’s a damn good reason Samuel Johnson said, “I am willing to love all mankind, except an American.”

    It’s time to charter a different course. One that transcends the Enlightenment garbage about “equality” and the “rights of man.” Although we are fighting for the continued existence of (normal) White Americans, we can’t “return” to the “founding” of America anymore than the Italians can return to the Roman Empire or the Greeks can return to ancient Athens. RobRoySimmons is onto something when he says the foundation must be blood, soil, and tradition. And as Alex Kurtagic explained in a March 2012 article on why conservatives always lose, tradition isn’t stuck in the mud, it is transcendent.

    Dissolve the Union

  16. Dan Poole, are you leaning toward eastern orthodoxy like Matt Heimbach? Perhaps our religious views are not entirely different. You are elitist and much more politically “authoritarian” than I, but I’m not a radical democrat, egalitarian or anarchist either. I leave room for the rule of law and social discipline, but I also support many controls to prevent or limit the otherwise inevitable abuse of unlimited powers.

    I think those who think DHS is not a problem are part of the problem and why it exists. I think Ron Paul was the best viable candidate in the primaries, and Romney the best, lesser evil choice in the general election. I don’t take my direction from Jack Ryan, and I would only “recant” if I learned Ron Paul was “planted” to deliberately control the opposition.

    Regarding the verse in Timothy: Recognise the significance of the lack of the definite article in the Greek — that the love of wealth is “A” root (of the various sorts of evil in the context) — and that THE origin of evil or sin in general according to Scripture was not the making of money, but pride.

    Your photos indicate that you are white indeed (my question was rhetorical) and of Anglo-Celt ancestry perhaps? Keep writing and learning, Dan. I enjoy reading your well-thought comments.

  17. Mosin has just revealed for us the false premise that undergirds Yankee psychology, and by extension, Yankee culture and Yankee civilization:

    “Sounds like some Oriental philosophy, or Papism: that everyone “inferior” must remain in their lower stations — and continue to submit to the “higher authorities”, who wield the carnal sword — as they are robbed, enslaved and destroyed.”

    1. Inferiors and superiors exist whether any Yankee is willing to acknowledge it or not.

    2. Denying the existence of inferiors and superiors leads to the degenerate leveling culture that Hunter repeatedly talks about.

    3. As was seen in the French Revolution and all the Cultural Marxist revolutions of the 1800s and 1900s, when the masses abandon their lower stations because “I HAVE RIGHTS I DESERVE BETTER!!!,” chaos ensues.

    4. The sword is usually not carnal. Power is not synonymous with tyranny. To argue that the sword is carnal and that power is synonymous with tyranny is to rebel against European Christian civilization.

    5. It is a liberal myth that traditional authoritarian governments “rob, enslave, and destroy” the peasants. But go ahead and believe other wise because “Braveheart told me differently!”

    The rejection of superiors and inferiors, the rejection of the place in life that Yahweh ordained for you, the rejection of Biblically-mandated submission, the fantastical myths and lies about “carnal swords, robbery, enslavement,” this is all the insane non-sense peddled by every shameless group of charlatans from the Puritans to the Quakers to the Amurrican Revolutionaries to the transcendentalists to the abolitionists to the communists to the feminists to the Cibbil Rights activists and to Cultural Marxists of every stripe.

    It is only through well-organized and carefully crafted deception that any of these groups have the moral highground. The fact that they could attain the moral highground in the first place is proof-positive that self-government beyond the local level is a failure. The sheep will eat up what they are fed and then beg for more. In a previous age they got bored of Moses being on Mt Sinai and decided to bow down and worship a statue of gold. A STATUE of effing gold!!! How retarded can you be? Oh wait, that’s right, 3000 years later we fell for “the self-evident truth that all men are created equal.”

    Mosin, you can’t be pro-white and pro-equality. The two are as opposed as Jesus and Satan.

  18. It is your worship of the idol god of human authority that is un-Christian. If you are or imagine yourself to be among the elite, so it may also be self-worship.

    I say “thee” to you, and will never bow, nor take off my hat if I wore one — and YOU cannot be pro-White who intend to subdue “the masses” of “inferior” white people under your despotism of “superiourity”. Let slaves, and also despots (of course) and would-be despots adore and love their proud, selfish despotism — it is the part of freemen to despise and resist it!

    I know the movie “Braveheart” was historically inaccurate. I asked (rhetorically) whether you thought it was dangerous propaganda (from your elitist point of view) for freedom. I say, with that movie character, and with Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty….” If that would be treason in your future restored Southron multiracial caste elitist Golden Circle slavery-based-cultural utopia, then make the most of it.

  19. You cannot be a Talmudistic elitist and also be pro-White. You cannot serve both masters, God and mammon. The Greek word is translated “wealth” — as in “creating immense wealth”, as in Golden Circle slavery-based “culture”.

    Theocracy, not Plutocracy. Repentance and confession BEFORE secession.

  20. “Dan Poole, are you leaning toward eastern orthodoxy like Matt Heimbach?

    Yes. I’d love to visit Russia one day and see firsthand what the churches there are like. Christianity is on the rise in Russia.

    “I think those who think DHS is not a problem are part of the problem and why it exists.”

    And I think that the people who wield the tools are the real danger, not the tool itself. I also think some tools are more stable then others. Liberal democracies = sand. Authoritarianism = rock

    “Your photos indicate that you are white indeed (my question was rhetorical) and of Anglo-Celt ancestry perhaps?”

    Sort of. I’m 25% British (all Irish, or virtually all Irish anyway) and 75% non-British. One of these days I’m gonna buy me one of those DNA tools where it takes a sample of your blood and tells you exactly what your lineage is. I forget what that tool is called.

    “Keep writing and learning, Dan. I enjoy reading your well-thought comments.”

    Thanks. We’re both Christians, we both agree that a revival of Christianity is central to the continued existence of our people, White people, and we’re both Yankees. I’ve just grown disgusted with the mantra of maximum individual freedom after water-carrying it all these years. What you’re seeing from me in these comments is motivated by disillusionment. I was fed a pack of lies my entire life about the United States of Amurrica and grew up believing those lies. By the time I took an interest in politics at 16, I was defending those lies as if it was part of who I am. The lies about the Constitution. The lies about the Declaration. The lies about the Amurrican Revolution. The lies about freedumb and equality. The lies about conservatism. And above all, the lies about “racism.”

    To borrow a phrase from a sports blog I still follow, my mentality with the Amurrican system and the liberal democratic system in general is “BURN! ALL BURN!” The more Whites who think this way, the better.

    Lastly, I don’t fancy myself as part of the elite. So you don’t need to worry about bowing before me. (Do I really look like a guy who people would bow before? Me neither). I’ll say this though: Human authority is Biblical per Romans 13 and Hebrews 13:17.

  21. Mosin, nature is hierarchical. Even ants are organized according to a hierarchical structure. To go against a hierarchical structure is as much as a crime against nature as sodomy, because sodomy itself is an attack against the hierarchical structure of the family.

    Again Mosin, where is this pilgrim church you’re always touting? We Catholics couldn’t have wiped it out if it’s still around. Give us the name please.

  22. “Even ants are organized according to a hierarchical structure.”

    You anti-Christ, Talmudic crypto-Christian, false Catholic, church destroyers, who would rule the globe as your immense wealth-creating ANT COLONY, already know every scriptural name of the church of God and are already skilled at recognising its every manifestation.

    White people, at least, will not be your ants.

  23. Well, they will not all remain your ants indefinitely. The chimes of freedom for the white race and all white peoples have already begun to ring.

  24. @Dan Poole

    “If those Anglo-Celt rubes, as you described them, had marched into London and declared its entire social system an abomination against God”

    The Angles and Saxons sort of drifted their way into the vicinity of London after the Romans abandoned it. Plus they were pagans so it was “gods”not “God.”

    Your knowledge of history is meager and confused as the rest of your posts also attest.

  25. Mosin, the only “names” the Catholic Church has are the names of the heretical groups like the Cathars, the Arians, et al. Nearly all of these group were gnostic or Judaizing in some way or another. The Greek (Eastern) and Roman (Western) branches of the faith called Catholic are the only continuing Christian church from ancient times. As I have already said, your pilgrim church is a myth. I used to believe a variation of that myth, but the real history of Christianity disabused me of that fantasy.

    As for the ants leaving the ant hill, well the history of all these schismatic and heretical groups show they don’t do very well after they leave. They may last for several hundred years, then they go kaput.

    If the white race is going to survive and prosper, it can not go back into paganism, or schismatic, heretical forms of Christianity. Whites need to remember what Hilaire Belloc said, “Europe is the faith, and the faith is Europe”. That faith defended and saved Europe from the pagan Germanic tribes (heck, it converted them!) the various Muslim invasions, and from Jewish treachery. It can save us again, if we desire it. Otherwise, start bowing to Mecca.

  26. “The Greek (Eastern) and Roman (Western) branches of the faith called Catholic are the only continuing Christian church from ancient times.”

    The Roman Catholic church committed suicide at Vatican II. Orthodoxy is the only valid continuous tradition. Luckily Baltic peoples from northern Poland through Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, to St. Petersburg and even on to Finland a country where Orthodoxy is one of the two state religions. These peoples are all Whiter than White. I applaud Stonelifter’s emigration to a White Homeland even if it is not his native one.

    Although almost all ethnic groups (with a few isolated exceptions) that are from countries bordering the Baltic, North Sea, and North Atlantic are more closely related genetically (phenotypically this manifests itself in lactose tolerance, many blondes and redheads, light eyes, etc… compared to many other parts of the world.)

  27. Here is the true nature of your “continuing church from ancient times”: (talk about gnostic and Judaizing) in which the order of “the hierarchy” is the Roman “pope first, clergy second and laity third”.

    It is natural for power-mad, plutocratic heretics to work to destroy, and obfuscate or erase the history of, their Christian “competition”.

    You seem intelligent enough not to be fooled by the Roman misinterpretation of the history of “heretical” groups that continued to walk in the light of the New Testament through the Dark Ages — and you were involved in the Armstrong cult, which is NOT “a variation” of true Christianity! WHAT attracts you to such heretical groups?

  28. Among churches that Rome CANNOT ignore and hasn’t destroyed, the “Eastern” churches stand head and shoulder above Rome in faithfulness to scripture and the spirit of the Christ.

    You seem intelligent enough to recognise the distinction of Christianity that is local and ethnic, and global-hegemonous, universalist Roman despotism. Why do you love and adore the latter?

  29. Re: “As for the ants leaving the anthill”:

    “Hierarchy” or “authoritarianism” is loved most of all by those who enjoy the exercise of the power or expect to exercise the power themselves. Evidently you hope to exercise the power, and don’t expect to be ruled. But the time is coming when you/They will no longer maintain the power to rule us as “ants in your anthill”. We prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery.

  30. Rudel, the RCC may have wounded itself with V2, but it didn’t commit suicide. The Church has had various crisis before, and even we were surprised when God brought us back with a vengeance.

  31. So Mosin, you’re using the Orthodox (whom you don’t believe in) to criticize the Catholics. (whom you don’t believe in either) That won’t work in the long run, because both factions consider your “pilgrim churches” to be heretics.

  32. Mosin, it’s obvious you don’t know what you are talking about. For anyone to call those groups in the Middle Ages as “walking in the light of the New Testament” goes against everything that competent historians of various religious persuasions have discovered about these groups. James McGoldrick, a Baptist, wrote a book called “Baptist Successionism” in which he proves that all of these groups that Landmark Baptists, and cults like the one I was in 40 years ago, misunderstood or deliberately distorted the history of these groups to “prove” a succession of churches they could trace their linage back to. But as he proved, none of these churches were even remotely similar to what the modern groups were like. They were closer to the RCC or the EO is some cases, (they were the only Christian Churches at that time in history) or they were gnostic cults like the Cathars or the Bulgurs. Sorry Mosin, you’re up the creek without a paddle!

  33. Re: “you’re using the Orthodox (whom you don’t believe in) to criticize the Catholics”:

    I don’t agree with all the Orthodox criticisms of Romanism in that link, but on the whole I find Orthodoxy more scriptural and agreeable than Romanism — and I find “Old Believer” Russian orthodoxy very agreeable. I could live and worship in that setting, though I’m not Russian, if necessary.

    Look at yourself, a what you are saying. You are calling others heretics while you cling to the most pernicious, destructive heretical group of them all.

    You are using the Roman Catholic resemblances of pre-Reformation non-Romans (OF COURSE they were not actual Protestants but “closer to the RC or the EO” in many of their appearances, expressions and practices) to avoid the issue of the DIFFERENCES between Romans and non-Roman dissenters.

    It appears you have some background or a special personal interest in southern Baptist “Landmark Successionism” . I could cite several other good articles, but we are continuing off topic on this thread. Thanks to Hunter for allowing free speech, especially the discussion of religion, on this blog.

    This discussion of “Baptist succession” does have some relevance to the “mission” of Occidental Dissent, since it can help us understand southern Baptists and southern religious tendencies.

    Stephen Dalton, with your trace of Jewish background, you are determined to love and adore, defend and assist and share in the pride and “authority” of the Roman heresy, while we are determined to continue to reveal the true nature of the beast and call deluded prisoners out of it.

  34. The tendency of modern Southern Baptists to renounce their former view of Baptist succession (which you may call “Landmarkism”) and “re-discover their Catholic roots” goes right along with their renunciation of racism and white supremacism and embrace of multiculturalism that was formally expressed in the resolution of the Convention in 1995.

  35. Mosin, a repudiation of racism, white supremacy and Landmarkism don’t go together. I had a friend who’s an SB preacher, and he was a racist, and a white supremacist. He totally rejected Landmarkism as ahistorical. Landmarkism was never accepted by the majority of SB ministers, and because of scholarship like McGoldrick, it’s highly doubtful it will be seriously considered as a teaching or doctrine by future SB ministers and laymen.

    BTW, I’m going to stop trying to reason with you all the time. It plain you have decided to believe what you believe in spite of evidence to the contrary. When I was in the Armstrong cult, I used to be the same way. Thankfully, God shook me up, and lead me to the truth in spite of myself. I hope the same for you some day.

  36. OF COURSE neither Landmarkism (and certainly not a strawman version of it) was ever accepted by the majority of Southern Baptists, but it is incontrovertible that “succession” was the traditional and majority ecclesiology until the early twentieth century. The way you set the terms of the argument regarding the existence of authentic, Biblical churches outside the Roman sphere prior to the Reformation — that they must not resemble Roman Catholicism or else only Roman Catholicism existed — your conclusion is inevitable.

    McGoldrick’s thesis is due for a refutation, but it probably won’t come from any of the politically correct mainstream Baptist seminaries. He made his historical points, but lacking sanctified common sense he obviously completely missed the main point.

    The fact that a Southern Baptist preacher you know remains racialist while he follows the new ecclesiological trend doesn’t disprove my observation that both changes of view have coincided.

    I’m not a Landmarkist, nor any kind of Baptist. Nor a Puritan nor a Quaker nor a Hutterite, etc. I’m certainly not a contemporary Cathar, at least not in the way that the Cathars or Albigenses are described by their mass murderers (later they did it to the Huguenots Your attempts at labeling and categorising and drawing negative conclusions therefrom are not “reasoning with me”.

    I hope for you that God will “shake you up” even more, and lead you to understand that heretical “Catholicism” was NOT “the only game in town” for a thousand years until the Reformation, and that it surely is not “still the best” that God has for us today.

  37. Hunter, I thank you in advance for allowing all of the foregoing comments through moderation. I am finished now commenting on this thread.

    Again, thank you, for the free speech forum.

  38. “I’m certainly not a contemporary Cathar or Albigenses”

    There is a good reason for that! As the Cisterian abbot Arnaud Amalric advised at the time: “Kill them all, God will know his own.”

Comments are closed.