Ain’t That America: The Virtue of Five White Men

It’s no secret around here that America is anti-White. This is our core argument … America is anti-White, anti-Southern, anti-Christian, and anti-conservative, and White Southerners should secede and form an independent nation.

Don’t believe me? Listen to what US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had to say about the Hobby Lobby decision below.

Note: Imagine what would happen if the US Senate Majority Leader said that the virtue of seven “niggers” on the Birmingham City Council should not decide the fate of the millions of White men who live in the Birmingham Metro Area. Such a person would surely have to resign from office like Trent Lott, right?

In the United States, “White men” is now casually used in the same sense that “nigger” was used in the Old South. What does that say about America? Does it follow that America is the greatest in the country in the world? Does it follow that America has the greatest system of government ever invented by man?

83 Comments

  1. I think its time, to end the feds, either start anew, or let it all go with some states forming a new nation based on our constitution that is being ignored and distroyed by the current gov.
    I tire of the b.s the accuses, the race baiting, hating, and lawlessness that this current government is about. Im ready for this, hope you most are, i would suggest to leave and keep out of the major cities when the crap hits. If you don’t have servivals skill for you enviorment around you, learn them., stock piling will only get you so far. and i do fear it is going to get nasty and be nasty for awhile.

    • Whites running away isn’t a solution, because “Diversity” means chasing down White people.

      Just imagine for a minute, instead of White Flight, it was Asian Flight or Black Flight. Where no matter where they moved, they were hunted down and forced to assimilate.

      We’ve already seen runaway Blacks and runaway Asians in history, with slavery. Well that’s how the “Diversity” crowd views and treats Whites. To them Whites are a valuable commodity. No matter where we run, they hunt us down.

  2. I didn’t know Clarence Thomas is white.

    HW is right. The real scandal of Harry Ass Reid’s snark should be the verbal pejorativization of “white men” and the dispossession this portends. Secondarily and temporally and less importantly, it shows that the Democrat Party is obsessed with some chain hobby store, all as a runup to that party’s strategy of trying to goose out the turnout of womyn because apparently one must hate women if one is an employer and one does not want four abortifacient drugs to be on the company’s health plan for moral reasons, even though Hobby Lobby will still foot for the sixteen other contraceptives.

  3. This case isn’t even really about Hobby Lobby ownership or their specific religious views on abortion and contraceptive methods. It’s about a private company having business practices and espousing certain views that are seen as “White” views, and those views being in direct contrast to views that are being presented as “minority” views. Reid could have just said Men, but no, he had to throw in the White men, because White is what he wanted to highlight.

    There’s a simple solution:

    Anti-White America is neither apologetic or unrelenting in its push to destroy any vestige of a safe and harmonious White America. Pro-White people can not afford to be either apologetic or relenting in any capacity at any level. If they aren’t telling you that they are pro-White, then chances are that they are anti-White, or will side with the anti-Whites when push comes to shove. Every minute detail of your life has to be directed toward things that are pro-White, and directed away from things that are not. Sports, movies, music and other entertainment… Family, friends and other associates… Businesses, websites, and even the political process… all of it has to be channeled away from them. All we have to do is find a practical way to channel it back into something that will benefit White people in a way where they see some kind of results. So the only question is where are the architects willing to put in the time and energy?

  4. What I don’t understand is, why did he bring up the Judges’ race when the ruling was on women’s contraception?

    I mean, it’s funny that he was wrong on their race, but why would race matter in this situation at all?

    • He knows Thomas is black, but to keep the war on women and minorities drum beat going he lied saying it was 5 White males.

      I loathe that little twerp.

    • Logan Smith • a day ago

      What I don’t understand is, why did he bring up the Judges’ race when the ruling was on women’s contraception?

      This tirade puts it all into perspective.

      Abortion, contraception, women’s rights and White male privilege.

      • Why is it always fat uglies who decry white male privilege? This fattie couldn’t even get pregnant if she begged for it.

        The ‘men’ in that video look like Brooklyn hipster faggots with the high voices to match.

        Start lifting. I guarantee she would not have attacked men with an Olympian or near Olympian physique.

  5. I have never encountered a more succints and clear difference between the Christian Europeans, and the Levantine AshkeNAZIS, as this:

    “Contra Nietzsche, Jesus’ message wasn’t one of ressentiment, a message for embittered cripples and defectives. It was a pathway through that problem. Christianity isn’t a derivative of Judaism; Christianity is the antithesis of and nullification of the Pharisaic Judiasm which was then and remains now the prototypical and most powerful expression of hateful, self-worshiping, mercantile, and material degeneracy.” – http://www.tradyouth.org/2014/07/identity-and-spiritual-warfare/#more-32246

  6. That Harry Reid video is powerful stuff. I showed it to a Rah! Rah! Amurrica can do no wrong Conservative today and it rocked him to his core. I actually saw the moment when he lost his faith in all that.

    When the establishment says something anti-White, have them say it LOUDER.

  7. If you look at the commentary on VDare or The American Conservative it’s clear those idiots are still in love with their left-wing empire. These people are incapable of figuring out that the police state is not their friend, even though they don’t trust ‘socialism’ they apparently don’t understand that means most military spending (which is just pelf and bloat, not for fighting anyone).
    They are mentally incapable of separating their projection of values and the fake-nation media-and-war-created leftist anti-country that is America. Their attachment to the Republican party is a good example of this, but overall, I find most Conservatives to be complete fucking morons who are afraid of M00zlems who kill a hundful of people a year while the Gestapo wander their streets and lock up 8 year olds for not being inclusive of transexuals. With people this stupid, who cares what happens to them? They deserve it, right in the fucking ass, the tools.

  8. RJ Moore – I have, alas, discovered that modern Patriotard White “Conservative” “Christians” are perhaps the biggest dopes that have ever disgraced the face of the Earth. They understand NOTHING, and in some ways, their fatal ? cognitive disconnect is far more profound, regarding racial reality on the ground, than even that of the Negro’s awareness of their own innate flaws. Negroes are completely deliberately blind to their own nature, but they are brilliantly alert to racial reality, and how to “work it”.

    White Conservatards still believe that “Race doesn’t matter gosh darnit!”

    Ye Gods. Incredible.

  9. I think it a very poor decision to invite commentary on legal issues such as Supreme Court decisions. Hobby Lobby was a difficult case that was, I think, decided correctly. But asking individuals w/o college degrees much less law school educations to comment meaningfully is an exercise in futility.

    And while I realize men like Lincoln and Hugo Black “read” law, it was another era and these were brilliant men. I attended a top 20 law school and was involved in two cases that went up to the Supreme Court. It doesn’t matter. I had to read Hobby Lobby several times, go over the footnotes AND read some secondary articles to really understand Hobby Lobby. And actually, the Hobby Lobby case is not even in the group of most difficult cases that come before the Court.

    Rather than the knee-jerk standard response, read full sentences. These people on the Supreme Court are anywhere from really smart (e.g., Thomas) to scary smart (i.e., Scalia). Each Justice also has two law clerks that are pretty darn brilliant. I cannot read an Opinion and say, “sure, what do you want to know”? Any of you who think your off the cuff opinion is meaningful are wrong. Can your opinion be meaningful? Absolutely. But it takes the same effort it does with trying to do anything else well.

    Last point. In this sort of thing you cannot always judge a book by its cover. Roe vs. Wade is incredibly difficult to read. Disjointed, didactic and boring. But, it’s held up and no rational person could imagine it being reversed. If you read the Bakke decision, it’s also boring, disjointed and if you read the footnotes pretty darn elitist. I don’t see how a rational person could not wonder how the heck it still (sort of) stands as to any legal precedent. Finally, I’m sure many resident nimrods have heard of the Dred Scott decision. A dozen years ago I decided to read it. All of it. And to read it over and over again until it made sense (n.b., with decisions that old you have to read several times just to get a hang for the anachronistic language and grammar). Including the two separate dissents. One dissent reads really well. The other, by Curtis, is much harder to read. But despite the beauty and flow of the first dissent, or was it the second (I don’t recall which Justice wrote it, maybe McLean?), after numerous readings it becomes obvious it is the dissent by Curtis that is the work of force and brilliance. And looking back we can see it was Curtis’ decision that was the light piercing the darkness into a brighter future.

  10. Brad:

    What does it mean to you that your colleagues either overwhelmingly reject Christianity, or reject any sort of Christianity with a theology not wholly or partially rooted in the American penal and correctional systems?

    What ought it mean to you?

    See if you can respond w/o first being led by others. After all, there are no right or wrong answers. Or are there?

    And while I know you are spotty with consistency regarding your flamer or flaming colleagues, I again repeat that I find the regular derision of Christianity on your site extremely offensive. There is something both disturbing and insidious about what looks to be a majority preference against Chistianity. Marcion rejected the OT, but did so within a stunningly complicated neo-Platonic intellectual universe. To me, his brilliance is impossible to follow w/o someone walking me through it step by step. Such is not the case amongst ODers.

    • Warspite,

      “Brad:

      What does it mean to you that your colleagues either overwhelmingly reject Christianity, or reject any sort of Christianity with a theology not wholly or partially rooted in the American penal and correctional systems?

      What ought it mean to you”

      Seeing as I how I just returned from a wedding in Florida involving a colleague of mine, I would say the question is ridiculous. The vast majority of my associates are Christians. The fact that you are posting here tonight hardly implies that my colleagues are Jewish. Instead, it reflects the patience which I have had with you.

      “See if you can respond w/o first being led by others. After all, there are no right or wrong answers. Or are there?

      And while I know you are spotty with consistency regarding your flamer or flaming colleagues, I again repeat that I find the regular derision of Christianity on your site extremely offensive.”

      The same could be saie about the bulk of your recent scatological comments here. This is a blog, not a church.

      “There is something both disturbing and insidious about what looks to be a majority preference against Chistianity. Marcion rejected the OT, but did so within a stunningly complicated neo-Platonic intellectual universe. To me, his brilliance is impossible to follow w/o someone walking me through it step by step. Such is not the case amongst ODers.”

      To be perfectly honest, I am a Christian in spite of the American churches which have spent the last century tailoring their theology to embrace one fashionable secular liberal cause after another. There’s a lot about American Christianity that I dislike, but because I have a greater understanding of how it has evolved over time, I don’t blame Christianity for the direction it has taken in the US over the last several decades.

      • And Brad, what is it you don’t like about American Christianity? Could you perhaps offer a preferable strain of Christianity?

        Regarding your attending a Christian wedding, I reminded of a decent though not great movie from the early 1980’s. In response to her friend pretending, so far successfully, to be an investment banker, the friend says, and a paraphrase, something along the lines of, “I may sometimes dance around and sing in my underwear, but that doesn’t make me Madonna”.

        You attending a wedding held under Christian auspices means zippo regarding your theological beliefs. In fact, you might want to start with the basics, A Charlie Brown Christmas.

        I recommend you just pull the trigger and ban anyone not a White Supremacist. Or is it White Nationalist? Or is there a difference? However, it likely will not be until Wednesday or Thursday until I hear from Arizona. I know you really, really want to know what a genuine Economics scholar thinks of your stuff. I would. Think you can hold out?

        • Re: Warspite

          “And Brad, what is it you don’t like about American Christianity? Could you perhaps offer a preferable strain of Christianity?”

          Where to start?

          How about the neverending conveyor belt of ideas that first crop up in the secular mainstream, typically in the universities or the media, only to later be baptised as “Christianity”? You can start with Russell Moore’s hilarious assertion that “the cross cannot coexist with the Confederate flag.”

          “Regarding your attending a Christian wedding, I reminded of a decent though not great movie from the early 1980’s. In response to her friend pretending, so far successfully, to be an investment banker, the friend says, and a paraphrase, something along the lines of, “I may sometimes dance around and sing in my underwear, but that doesn’t make me Madonna”.

          You attending a wedding held under Christian auspices means zippo regarding your theological beliefs. In fact, you might want to start with the basics, A Charlie Brown Christmas.”

          I’m not sure what this means. That was the fifth wedding that I have been to this year and we have at least two more coming down the pike early next year. Virtually all of my associates in real life are Christians – Orthodox, Catholics, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc.


          I recommend you just pull the trigger and ban anyone not a White Supremacist. Or is it White Nationalist? Or is there a difference?”

          While I value debate and disagreement, I don’t value flaming and trolling which consume the comment section from time to time. As for WNs, they don’t want to live in a multiracial society. They don’t want anything to do with blacks. The whole question of superiority vs. inferiority is irrelevant because WNs want to secede from a multiracial society, not dominate one.

          “However, it likely will not be until Wednesday or Thursday until I hear from Arizona. I know you really, really want to know what a genuine Economics scholar thinks of your stuff. I would. Think you can hold out?”

          I really don’t care.

          Economics is a social science. It is divided into various rival schools each of which has their own interpretative framework. There are Austrians, Keynesians, Marxists, neo-liberals, developmental economists, etc. They passionately disagree on any number of subjects.

          In my view, the best way to judge the merits of each of these schools is through empirical analysis. How have these theories fared in practice? In the case of free-trade, it has produced over thirty consecutive years of trade deficits, contributed to much of our national debt, and the decimation of millions of manufacturing jobs. Real wages have stagnated under free-trade while household debt has risen to unsustainable levels.

          Of course, empirical facts such as these don’t trouble free-market theorists who tend to arrive at their conclusions through deductive reasoning rather than inductive observation and experiment.

          • Brad:

            Thank you for your most courteous and thought-provoking reply. I envy your lack of interest in the opinion of a bona fide Economist. I can only state I would be curious. Of course, you know the old joke about economists.

            In addition, in striving to comply with the Brad Griffin guidelines (henceforth “BGG”) I would refrain from reprinting, as it were, any negative comments made about your writings on economics as being outside the BGG.

            I think your reference to the various weddings perhaps too glib. You describe Christian denominations with vast differences in theology and vastly different experiences in America and the West. In essence, the only thing in common with these denominations is a belief in Jesus as a Christ/messianic figure. The differences between Catholic and Orthodox, for instance, were sufficient enough to rationalize the ruination of Christian Contantinople in 1204. And while the Vatican was not at all pleased with that action, it took over 700 yrs for a Pope to officially apologize. I also believe the excommunications on the 1204 malefactors were lifted not too long after an incredible amount of Booty (yes, that is a legal term) made its way West.

            You know, you could argue that but for the thuggish looting and raping of the greatest city in Christendom by Latin Christians, all those historical treasures might have fallen into the hands of the Ottomans. On the other hand, had the Latin Crusaders not wrecked the city and so reduced its glory, population, wealth, etc., it would almost certainly have survived the 1453 fall that was just barely successful.

            The utter confusion of counter factual history! Fun as an intellectual exercise with those of sufficient knowledge, but really just a big PC game.

            The important and I hope relevant comment to make regarding your positions is directed at your distaste for the liberalization, etc., of American Christian denominations. I understand your argument, but I think your hostility perhaps generally misdirected because you incorrectly simplify a complex matter.

            Rather than use a term such as “liberalization” I think “Americanization” far more appropriate. And in criticizing the Americanization (Americanizing?) of Christianity I respectfully suggest you paint with far too broad a brush. While I may be displeased when I see supposedly mainstream organization such as the World Council of Churches, UCC, Episcopal, Presbyterian-USA, and such groups drift into antisemitic positions (masked as the Divestment movement), Fundamentalist and other conservative American denominations have gone the opposite direction. These are the unique elements of “America”. This is what we, America, do and it’s far from entirely negative.

            White Supremacists dislike Fundamentalist Christians’ support of Israel so call it Christian Zionism as if inserting the word “Zionism” can tar the genuine beliefs of, e.g., the late Rev. Jerry Falwell (who I met and had a discussion about dogs). Should we lament that American Catholics generally exist in the “cafeteria” mode, rejecting the Church’s teachings on contraception? I think not. Should we lament that racism had been squeezed out of Southern Baptist, other Baptist, Pentecostal, and non-denominational churches? I think not. Teaching separation of the races based upon writings from 600 B.C. or older may have once had some intellectual currency in America, but this is 2015. Education is freely available to allow even the average mind to understand why what seemed appropriate and even necessary in a world centuries before the Roman Empire no longer has any justification or meaning.

            Of course, you would dispute the above. But let me draw your attention to circumstances that fundamentally undermine your theories and positions. That of the Reform movement in Judaism.

            Despite efforts in 19th Century Germany, etc., the Reform movement is uniquely American. Unique not just in its goal, but in geography. It grew not out of Jews only in NYC (as an ODer would assume), but in cities like Pittsburgh and Cincinatti. Jewish people- immigrants, who understood that to be American it was essential to cast aside liturgical and theological barricades. Why would any genuine White Supremicist attack a large movement within Judaism predicated on the “liberalism” of putting America and American values first? Is this not what is both necessary and unfortunately (to date) absent from North American Islam?

            Of course, there is no rational justification to attack Jews who recognize a duty to become above all American. This is what a White Supremacist might right now attack immigrants for not doing. Based upon my experience in Occidental Dissent I am going to hazard a guess the WS response to something like Reform, Reconstruction or even Conservative Judaism would be the movements are simply part of a huge conspiracy to “Americanize” Jews in order they may infiltrate “White America”. That is, of course, an irrational conspiracy theory, but for a White Supremacist or White Nationalist it is more acceptable than the rational truth. What sort of persons would choose to ground themselves in the irrational? What sort of persons would be so easily persuaded to ground themselves in beliefs abhorrent to the Founding Fathers?

            I find it odd no WS/WN ever tried to answer the simple hypothetical of the American Executive branch in 1790. You have been approached by the American Jewish community that essentially asks its role in the new republic. What would happen? Expulsion? Something only slightly less severe? Have a run at it & see how you do.

          • Re: Warspite

            “Thank you for your most courteous and thought-provoking reply. I envy your lack of interest in the opinion of a bona fide Economist. I can only state I would be curious. Of course, you know the old joke about economists.”

            As I pointed out here the other day, arguing with some economists about free-trade is like arguing with a Jehovah’s witness about the merits of modern medicine. Because their conclusions about free-trade are deduced from first principles rather than induced from analysis of empirical evidence, no amount of empirical evidence is sufficient to change their view of the subject. It’s the same way with those who still believe in “racial equality” because they believe in human equality as a matter of principle, as an axiom, not because that is the conclusion that the empirical evidence suggests.

            “In addition, in striving to comply with the Brad Griffin guidelines (henceforth “BGG”) I would refrain from reprinting, as it were, any negative comments made about your writings on economics as being outside the BGG.”

            As the gallery is well aware, I have spent weeks arguing with Jeff about the subject without any of the flaming and trolling that consumed your exchanges in the other threads here.

            “I think your reference to the various weddings perhaps too glib. You describe Christian denominations with vast differences in theology and vastly different experiences in America and the West. In essence, the only thing in common with these denominations is a belief in Jesus as a Christ/messianic figure. The differences between Catholic and Orthodox, for instance, were sufficient enough to rationalize the ruination of Christian Contantinople in 1204. And while the Vatican was not at all pleased with that action, it took over 700 yrs for a Pope to officially apologize. I also believe the excommunications on the 1204 malefactors were lifted not too long after an incredible amount of Booty (yes, that is a legal term) made its way West.”

            You’ve claimed that my associates are somehow hostile to Christianity on the basis of a few atheists (i.e., Sam, Celestial Time, etc.) you are arguing with this on this blog. Even my online acquaintances and real world associates in the SN movement are overwhelmingly Christians.

            “The utter confusion of counter factual history! Fun as an intellectual exercise with those of sufficient knowledge, but really just a big PC game.”

            That’s an interesting tangent. I will leave that one to my Orthodox friends and readers.

            “The important and I hope relevant comment to make regarding your positions is directed at your distaste for the liberalization, etc., of American Christian denominations. I understand your argument, but I think your hostility perhaps generally misdirected because you incorrectly simplify a complex matter.”

            I don’t think it is that complex.

            We live in a society in which secular liberalism, not Christianity, is the dominant culture. As a consequence of this, ideas and concepts which first emerge in the secular liberal culture are baptised as “Christian” by individuals like Russell Moore who want to modify Christianity to appeal to the perpetually evolving mainstream. Even the architecture of evangelical megachurches, for example, has changed to accommodate the era of the American consumer and his habitat, the anonymous shopping mall and big box store.

            “Rather than use a term such as “liberalization” I think “Americanization” far more appropriate. And in criticizing the Americanization (Americanizing?) of Christianity I respectfully suggest you paint with far too broad a brush. While I may be displeased when I see supposedly mainstream organization such as the World Council of Churches, UCC, Episcopal, Presbyterian-USA, and such groups drift into antisemitic positions (masked as the Divestment movement), Fundamentalist and other conservative American denominations have gone the opposite direction. These are the unique elements of “America”. This is what we, America, do and it’s far from entirely negative.”

            Earlier this summer, we explored the origins and proliferation of Dispensationalism/Fundamentalism in the South. It is an alien doctrine that is less than a century old and its spread has more to do with successful adoption of radio and television than anything else.

            “White Supremacists dislike Fundamentalist Christians’ support of Israel so call it Christian Zionism as if inserting the word “Zionism” can tar the genuine beliefs of, e.g., the late Rev. Jerry Falwell (who I met and had a discussion about dogs).”

            It is fair to say the overwhelming majority of WNs and SNs reject Fundamentalism/Dispensationalism, but it hardly follows that rejecting Falwell implies rejecting Christianity rather than a 20th century doomsday cult. I don’t agree with the Seventh Day Adventists or Mormons either.

            “Should we lament that American Catholics generally exist in the “cafeteria” mode, rejecting the Church’s teachings on contraception? I think not. Should we lament that racism had been squeezed out of Southern Baptist, other Baptist, Pentecostal, and non-denominational churches? I think not. “

            As I have explained, American Christianity has a long history of being corrupted by ideas which originate in the secular mainstream, or by charismatic cranks like Jim Jones. Instead of blaming Christianity for “anti-racism,” we should observe that the Southern Baptists, for example, discovered that “racism” was a sin in the 1990s. They are just following the mainstream culture like its shadow in order to appeal to changing mores.

            “Teaching separation of the races based upon writings from 600 B.C. or older may have once had some intellectual currency in America, but this is 2015.”

            Yes, racial differences are still on display in 2015 after throwing more money down the racial equality rathole than was spent on the Manhattan Project, Apollo Space Program, the Hoover Dam, and the interstate transportation system combined. It is easier to transmute lead into gold than to demonstrate racial equality in an American public school.

            “Education is freely available to allow even the average mind to understand why what seemed appropriate and even necessary in a world centuries before the Roman Empire no longer has any justification or meaning.”

            The fact that integration is required by law and public education has failed to eliminate racial differences after countless billions of dollars have been sunk into chasing that El Dorado is the strongest argument against anti-racism. Empirically, racial equality through integration has failed to achieve its own goals.

            “Of course, you would dispute the above. But let me draw your attention to circumstances that fundamentally undermine your theories and positions. That of the Reform movement in Judaism.”

            I can’t imagine why this will fundamentally undermine my theories, but let’s take a look.

            “Despite efforts in 19th Century Germany, etc., the Reform movement is uniquely American. Unique not just in its goal, but in geography. It grew not out of Jews only in NYC (as an ODer would assume), but in cities like Pittsburgh and Cincinatti. Jewish people- immigrants, who understood that to be American it was essential to cast aside liturgical and theological barricades. Why would any genuine White Supremicist attack a large movement within Judaism predicated on the “liberalism” of putting America and American values first? Is this not what is both necessary and unfortunately (to date) absent from North American Islam?”

            I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that it could possibly be due to the obnoxious behavior of Reform Jews, their overwhelmingly left-wing tilt, and the frequency with which they are found spearheading radical movements which seek to undermine the social order. That’s why white supremacists consider them an undesirable element in their society.

          • Brad:

            I apologize for breaching the boundaries imposed by the BGG. It is your blog and your guidelines. To the extent it might transpire my time here continues, I will strive to observe the BGG. Since making this commitment I hope you will conclude my postings have clearly been within your Guidelines.

            While I may vehemently disagree with you on many points, we both believe in private ownership of property and freedom of association. It is your blog, and I respect it is your rules that govern.

          • Re: BG

            Thank you for your commentaries. I do not right now have time, but I hope later on I can at least choose your response to one of the issues to begin what will hopefully be an engaging and interesting discussion involving numerous WN/WS adding and fleshing out their ideas in a manner consistent with courtesy and measured thought.

            In the meanwhile, should be about 60 degrees and sunny in the South’s premiere city, bar none. In fact, and to be parochial, the only competition is for second place.

          • “Of course, there is no rational justification to attack Jews who recognize a duty to become above all American. This is what a White Supremacist might right now attack immigrants for not doing.”

            Here’s the rational justification: in the 20th century, Jews have used their wealth, power, and influence to redefine your America in ways that benefit Jews, but which are deeply resented by white supremacists. Traditionally, American white supremacists weren’t very interested in Jews – there were even Jews in the Klan – but that changed in the mid-twentieth century.

            “Based upon my experience in Occidental Dissent I am going to hazard a guess the WS response to something like Reform, Reconstruction or even Conservative Judaism would be the movements are simply part of a huge conspiracy to “Americanize” Jews in order they may infiltrate “White America”. That is, of course, an irrational conspiracy theory, but for a White Supremacist or White Nationalist it is more acceptable than the rational truth.”

            It is fair to say the American economic, social, and political elite is disproportionately Jewish. It is fair to say that American mainstream culture, due to the massive overrepresentation of Jews in the elite media and culturally sensitive fields in academia, conforms to Jewish preferences over time. This isn’t “an irrational conspiracy theory.” It’s just a fact. None of this is really done in secret. It is done quite openly by a highly organized, wealthy minority which we aren’t supposed to notice is trying to influence the direction of this country on a range of issues from foreign policy to gay marriage.

            “What sort of persons would choose to ground themselves in the irrational? What sort of persons would be so easily persuaded to ground themselves in beliefs abhorrent to the Founding Fathers?”

            The Founding Fathers never had to deal with the problem of a hostile Jewish elite. In their times, republicanism was an untested system of government at the very beginning of its historical trial.

            “I find it odd no WS/WN ever tried to answer the simple hypothetical of the American Executive branch in 1790. You have been approached by the American Jewish community that essentially asks its role in the new republic. What would happen? Expulsion? Something only slightly less severe? Have a run at it & see how you do.”

            Jews already have a country. It is called Israel. I’m sure most WNs would be happy to see them relocate there. Personally, I attribute the problems with Jews more to the Diaspora – which is often at odds with Israel on a range of issues – than to the Israelis. At this point, it is fair to say the Diaspora in the USA is more loyal to radical left-wing politics than to Israel.

  11. The destructive Jewish advocacy of race mixing, for every-one but Jew, does not EVER end, does it?

    Muslims, and other hostile aliens, are not needed in Western aka White countries. They are a distinct liability. They must GO.

  12. Hunter, I’ve got a post in draft mode “Lugenpresse”. Countenance has proofed it – I think it’s solid. Can you look over and let me know if it’s good to post?

    Thanks,

    J.

  13. “WNs want to secede from a multiracial society, not dominate one.”

    How can you possibly achieve the first without the second? That line betrays what I see as a WieNer lie intended to theoretically embiggen the WN movement. The idea that you could propose to secede without taking it is absurd on its face. I believe Warspite might have said earlier something along the lines that your debate drifts into idiocy when the topic of secession comes up. I very much agree. There are a multitude of reasons why your secession plan (if it’s even a plan) can’t ever work.

    • Don,

      “How can you possibly achieve the first without the second? That line betrays what I see as a WieNer lie intended to theoretically embiggen the WN movement. The idea that you could propose to secede without taking it is absurd on its face.”

      WN is a variant of white supremacy which seeks total separation from non-Whites rather than domination of a multiracial society. In the 19th century, several states like Illinois, Ohio and Oregon banned or imposed extreme fines on free blacks to discourage their settlement there. The Wilmot Proviso, for example, was designed to stop slaveowners from polluting the Western territories with their slaves. There was also a vibrant movement to colonize free blacks in Liberia until 1865.

      The WN variant of white supremacy clashed most famously with the traditional Southern version over the expansion of slavery into the Western territories, but also over colonization for several decades. Later, the creation of sundown towns in the Midwest in states like Indiana and Illinois reflected the WN ideal. Also, South Africa under apartheid pursued its goal of racial separation by granting independence to bantustsns like Lesotho and Swaziland.

      WNs want to be rid of non-Whites rather than to dominate them indefinitely. Historically, it has been an important distinction that has divided the disparate groups you label “white supremacists.”

      “I believe Warspite might have said earlier something along the lines that your debate drifts into idiocy when the topic of secession comes up. I very much agree. There are a multitude of reasons why your secession plan (if it’s even a plan) can’t ever work.”

      Feel free to elaborate on your multitude of reasons. I would like to know how Jamaica can exist as an independent country, but not the American South, or the Bahamas, but not Florida. There are more people in the Western South – TX, OK, LA, AR, MO – than Canada.

      • I hope I can try and suggest a reasonably objective view on the Don vs. BG discussion.

        I must come down on Don’s side regarding the White Supremacist/White Nationalist debate. Judging from the postings I believe the WS/WN deal is simply a distinction w/o a difference. To normal Democrats (or most others) there are clearly important differences between a liberal Dem and moderate Dem. But to the average WN (note, as a show of courtesy I am refraining from calling WN, “WeeNies”, etc.) there is really no substantial difference. I see WN and WS in a similar manner. There may be some arcane distinctions meaningful to the adherents, but it’s really akin to the Star Trek episode with Frank Gorshin.

        On the multiracial thing, may I present a refinement of the positions set out by Brad. One cannot take seriously the suggestion all blacks be expelled from the US. Particularly since the presence of blacks in America is to a large extent the product of the South’s peculiar institution. What rational
        Southerner (and I include myself) denies this sometimes ironic fact?

        It seems to me the WS crowd does want a multiracial America. But the multi racialism desired is that of the pre-Civil Rights, Jim Crow South.

        Consider Atlanta in 1940. A nice round 300,000 persons, ? of them white. While the city was ? black, this was the era of blacks, as my grandparents might have said, “knew their place”. The black community had the usual civic leaders such as funeral home directors and ministers, and there was also a small black business elite that, ironically enough, acted like a sort of black aristocracy. An aristocracy very much focused on (light) skin color.

        For the 200,000 whites, included were about 10,000 Jews. Perhaps to a WS’s chagrin, no one in 1940 Atlanta would have said Jews were not White. A pretty well-off community deeply entrenched as merchants, some doctors & lawyers, the traditional Southern Jewish community. One could find an identical situation in, e.g., Memphis, which was then a major Southern city.

        To the extent there may have been Asians or Hispanics, the numbers were extremely negligible.

        Without putting too fine a point on it, the multiracial society of 1940 Atlanta appears to be the world dreamed of by WN’s. Perhaps this is my conclusion because any other conclusion is simply irrational. To me, the dream of 1940
        Atlanta is also irrational, but it is higher mathematics compared to any suggestion of expelling American citizens who happen to be black.

        Far from least amongst the severe problems one would have to approach for expulsion is defining “black”. I have seen no evidence there is a solid definition of “white” amongst WN, much less approaching who is “black”.

        • Warspite,

          “I must come down on Don’s side regarding the White Supremacist/White Nationalist debate. Judging from the postings I believe the WS/WN deal is simply a distinction w/o a difference. To normal Democrats (or most others) there are clearly important differences between a liberal Dem and moderate Dem. But to the average WN (note, as a show of courtesy I am refraining from calling WN, “WeeNies”, etc.) there is really no substantial difference. I see WN and WS in a similar manner. There may be some arcane distinctions meaningful to the adherents, but it’s really akin to the Star Trek episode with Frank Gorshin.”

          Obviously, there is a substantial difference between the two: WNs reject our multiracial society, which they seek to replace with a racially homogeneous White ethnostate. The more traditional white supremacists are content to preserve our multiracial society provided it is controlled by Whites. Whereas WN envisions no role whatsoever for racial minorities in their proposed state, traditional white supremacists are content with a subordinate status or lack of full citizenship for non-Whites.

          “On the multiracial thing, may I present a refinement of the positions set out by Brad. One cannot take seriously the suggestion all blacks be expelled from the US. Particularly since the presence of blacks in America is to a large extent the product of the South’s peculiar institution. What rational
          Southerner (and I include myself) denies this sometimes ironic fact?”

          1.) 46 percent of blacks no longer live in the South.

          2.) The overwhelming majority of blacks no longer live in the old plantation belts where I live. They have since migrated to our cities many of which had nothing to do with slavery. There are more blacks in Chicago now than Mississippi.

          “It seems to me the WS crowd does want a multiracial America. But the multi racialism desired is that of the pre-Civil Rights, Jim Crow South.”

          In my experience, few WNs favor returning to the Jim Crow system.

          “Consider Atlanta in 1940. A nice round 300,000 persons, ? of them white. While the city was ? black, this was the era of blacks, as my grandparents might have said, “knew their place”. The black community had the usual civic leaders such as funeral home directors and ministers, and there was also a small black business elite that, ironically enough, acted like a sort of black aristocracy. An aristocracy very much focused on (light) skin color.”

          The Civil Rights Movement exposed the instability of Jim Crow which is why few WNs favor returning to that system or even believe it is possible anymore.

          “For the 200,000 whites, included were about 10,000 Jews. Perhaps to a WS’s chagrin, no one in 1940 Atlanta would have said Jews were not White. A pretty well-off community deeply entrenched as merchants, some doctors & lawyers, the traditional Southern Jewish community. One could find an identical situation in, e.g., Memphis, which was then a major Southern city.”

          The Jewish minority in Atlanta wasn’t proactive in challenging either slavery or segregation. The same cannot be said of their coethnics in the Northern states particularly New York which was then the host of the largest Jewish community in the world.

          “To the extent there may have been Asians or Hispanics, the numbers were extremely negligible.”

          This was due to the defeat the organized Jewish community had suffered when it opposed the Immigration Act of 1924.

          “Without putting too fine a point on it, the multiracial society of 1940 Atlanta appears to be the world dreamed of by WN’s. Perhaps this is my conclusion because any other conclusion is simply irrational. To me, the dream of 1940
          Atlanta is also irrational, but it is higher mathematics compared to any suggestion of expelling American citizens who happen to be black.”

          The world dreamed of by WNs is more like what the Wilmot Proviso proposed for the Western states or Oregon under its first constitution which banned free blacks or the world envisioned by the colonization movement which supported black emigration to Liberia.

          “Far from least amongst the severe problems one would have to approach for expulsion is defining “black”. I have seen no evidence there is a solid definition of “white” amongst WN, much less approaching who is “black”.

          Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act, which was overturned by the Loving decision, tackled this problem. We also have far more advanced methods these days which can be used to determine racial ancestry.

          • Brad:

            May I politely suggest you consider the implications of your statement on the fundamental difference between WN and WS. First of all, I have to again remind you that what you regard as some crucial difference is almost no difference at all. WS believe in keeping the nation as is, except everyone serves some undefinable “white race”. WN believe the non-Whites should simply be expelled. Do you really believe there is any intellectual honesty in suggesting there is a whit of difference in these two positions? If you do, you are simply incorrect. The only difference is apparent to those willing to regard this rather bizarre monkish dispute as being worthy of serious consideration. Believe what you will about various races and ethnic groups, it is your privilege. But only a fool would suggest there is any sort of substantial divergence in thought between the positions you have outlined.

            Second, are you aware that as you describe the differences, the White Supremicist beliefs sound more “reasonable” or at least more realistic than those of White Nationalists? Supremacists sound pretty upfront on a neo Nazi philosophy. Sort of like the Nazis planned in conquered Soviet land less, I hope, the planned “depletions” in population. WN, however, sound like they propose a racist pipe dream in which expulsions result in a “white” nation. Leaving aside defining your acceptable Whiteness, only a total kook would ruminate about the possibility of expelling perhaps 125m or more persons.

            If WN indeed want a “White” nation the only possible solution is emigration away from the US. The country imagined is absolutely not consistent with the United States formed via the Constitution. Any argument to the contrary is lunacy and inaccurate. Because the number of people actually desiring to leave would be (let’s face it) small, you could actually realistically consider the maybe (?) 50,000 WN and WS in the US emigrating to another land to form your own country. To some extent the Zionist movement would offer a roadmap, although the Zionist leadership was infinitely more capable.

            Where to locate I have no idea. Didn’t some Confederates attempt to set up emigree communities in South America? I think one even stuck. If I had to make a suggestion of someplace close by I would point to Cuba. The White population of Cuba left in droves during Castro’s time, leaving a dearth of white people. It likely represents the best possible ground floor opportunity for Supremicists and Nationalists. Another possibility in Venezuala, for some similar reasons. To be candid, what other possibilities could exist? Your rhetoric has not exactly won friends and admirers throughout any part of the world.

            If the only response you put forward is some nonsense about expelling non whites and seceding, don’t bother. Further, if you actually believe such a scenario possible it undermines any credibility you desire for your economic commentaries. No one will be interested in the opinions of a crackpot.

          • Warspite,

            “Brad:

            May I politely suggest you consider the implications of your statement on the fundamental difference between WN and WS. First of all, I have to again remind you that what you regard as some crucial difference is almost no difference at all.”

            Once again, there is a substantial difference – a racially homogeneous ethnostate, which is what WNs advocate, or a multiracial state dominated by Whites, which is what white supremacists have traditionally advocated in the United States. I’m willing to grant, however, that from the perspective of an anti-racist the difference might look smaller than it actually is, which is approximately the difference between antebellum Mississippi and Oregon.

            “WS believe in keeping the nation as is, except everyone serves some undefinable “white race”.

            As you know, the white race was defined in both federal legislation and state statutes until the 1960s. The matter was also litigated in the courts. See, for example, the Dred Scott decision.

            “WN believe the non-Whites should simply be expelled.”

            Expelled or granted independence along the lines of Lesotho. Regardless, the goal of WN is to create a racially homogeneous White ethnostate, which is hardly the same thing as keeping around a black labor force to work on cotton plantations.

            “Do you really believe there is any intellectual honesty in suggesting there is a whit of difference in these two positions? If you do, you are simply incorrect.”

            Absolutely.

            The difference is that white supremacists are okay with multiracialism so long as Whites are the dominant caste whereas WNs want an ethnically-based society, not a caste-based one.

            “The only difference is apparent to those willing to regard this rather bizarre monkish dispute as being worthy of serious consideration. Believe what you will about various races and ethnic groups, it is your privilege. But only a fool would suggest there is any sort of substantial divergence in thought between the positions you have outlined.”

            This is an irrational ad hominem argument. I’ve explained the difference between the two.

            “Second, are you aware that as you describe the differences, the White Supremicist beliefs sound more “reasonable” or at least more realistic than those of White Nationalists? Supremacists sound pretty upfront on a neo Nazi philosophy. Sort of like the Nazis planned in conquered Soviet land less, I hope, the planned “depletions” in population.”

            1.) American white supremacy was around 300 years older than Hitler’s Germany.

            2.) For generations, federal immigration law kept out large numbers of Hispanics and Asians. Their numbers here today are due to a sweeping policy change, the Immigration Act of 1965.

            3.) As I have pointed out to you, 46 percent of blacks no longer live in the South, and mass deportation wasn’t even necessary to remove almost half the black population of the Southern states.

            “WN, however, sound like they propose a racist pipe dream in which expulsions result in a “white” nation.”

            Seeing how Mississippi and South Carolina had a black majority until the 20th century, why is it a racist pipe dream to imagine that blacks would evacuate the Deep South in large numbers? Actually, the notion that Whites would cede control of Atlanta to a black majority for decades sounded even more preposterous as recently as 1955.

            “Leaving aside defining your acceptable Whiteness, only a total kook would ruminate about the possibility of expelling perhaps 125m or more persons.”

            How come?

            Nearly half of blacks no longer live in the South in 2015 and of those who do the vast majority of them no longer live in the old plantation belts. Ever hear of the Great Migration?

            “If WN indeed want a “White” nation the only possible solution is emigration away from the US. The country imagined is absolutely not consistent with the United States formed via the Constitution.”

            The US Constitution itself counted blacks as 3/5ths of a person. A black president was certainly not consistent with the US Constitution as it was originally ratified. The abolition of slavery required a constitutional amendment and was only forced on the South at gunpoint.

            “Any argument to the contrary is lunacy and inaccurate.”

            There was mass expulsions of Hispanics under Eisenhower, a mass exodus of blacks in the 20th century, and Asian immigration was curtailed by the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Gentleman’s Agreement with Japan.

            “Because the number of people actually desiring to leave would be (let’s face it) small, you could actually realistically consider the maybe (?) 50,000 WN and WS in the US emigrating to another land to form your own country. To some extent the Zionist movement would offer a roadmap, although the Zionist leadership was infinitely more capable.”

            Now that I think about it, the Zionist movement offers us a model of the mass evacuation of Jews from Europe. How many countries have Jews been expelled from again? I know they were expelled from England and Spain.

            “Where to locate I have no idea. Didn’t some Confederates attempt to set up emigree communities in South America? I think one even stuck. If I had to make a suggestion of someplace close by I would point to Cuba. The White population of Cuba left in droves during Castro’s time, leaving a dearth of white people. It likely represents the best possible ground floor opportunity for Supremicists and Nationalists. Another possibility in Venezuala, for some similar reasons. To be candid, what other possibilities could exist? Your rhetoric has not exactly won friends and admirers throughout any part of the world.”

            Since there are more blacks in New York than Georgia and Chicago than Mississippi, why do you keep suggesting that mass deportation is impossible? In Mississippi, it was common practice to buy them a bus ticket to Chicago and provide them with information about all the jobs and superior welfare benefits available in Illinois.

            “If the only response you put forward is some nonsense about expelling non whites and seceding, don’t bother.”

            Didn’t we expel the American Indians too from Alabama and Georgia? And didn’t both states secede from the Union before?

            “Further, if you actually believe such a scenario possible it undermines any credibility you desire for your economic commentaries. No one will be interested in the opinions of a crackpot.”

            I’m not the crackpot who believes that black majority rule isn’t anything but an albatross for Birmingham and Atlanta. Oh wait, haven’t you already admitted that too?

  14. “Feel free to elaborate on your multitude of reasons. I would like to know how Jamaica can exist as an independent country, but not the American South, or the Bahamas, but not Florida. There are more people in the Western South – TX, OK, LA, AR, MO – than Canada.

    Simple, Jamaica (1962) and Bahamas (1973) both ended their colonial status with Great Britain peacefully, as did Canada in the 19th century. All remain a part of the Commonwealth. The 13 American colonies ended their association with Britain by war. They then formed a confederation and wrote, with some difficulty, a constitution. That constitution offers no escape clause. For the most part, the state’s you mention were late joiners but the deal stayed the same. The War to Preserve Slavery was initiated by the Southerners. They lost and then spent more than a hundred years, in shrinking numbers, screwing with the reasons and facts for the loss.

    Believe, HW, that you’ll never have the numbers necessary for a second secession. As you are well aware, people who hold your beliefs become more of a rarity as the years pass. The Denises, Cap’n Crunch and the ever pretentious Ryan can’t but do your cause harm.

    I must confess a fascination with a group, like yours, devoted to a lost cause, as in how stupid can you get?

    • Don,

      “Simple, Jamaica (1962) and Bahamas (1973) both ended their colonial status with Great Britain peacefully, as did Canada in the 19th century. All remain a part of the Commonwealth. The 13 American colonies ended their association with Britain by war.”

      It is fair to say that Britain granted independence to its colonies which include Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, Ireland, India, etc. Most recently, Britain held a referendum on Scottish independence. In other words, it was a foolish mistake for the South to participate in the American Revolution when we could have been granted our independence in the long run without two bloody and costly wars like Canada.

      “The 13 American colonies ended their association with Britain by war. They then formed a confederation and wrote, with some difficulty, a constitution. That constitution offers no escape clause.”

      Any government may fall or any state may crumble whenever it loses its legitimacy. The American colonies had no constitutional right to declare independence from the British Crown. The revolt that we call the American Revolution happened when the British Parliament was perceived to have lost its legitimacy in the colonies. As far as the US Constitution goes, it stands or falls depending on whether the population continues to accept its legitimacy.

      “For the most part, the state’s you mention were late joiners but the deal stayed the same. The War to Preserve Slavery was initiated by the Southerners.”

      The War Against Southern Independence was initiated by the US government which refused to recognize the Confederate government and its sovereignty over Fort Sumter. The could have easily been avoided if it had chosen to do so. That, our course, would have been out of step with the conduct of American foreign policy in the 19th and 20th century which also “opened” Japan, carved up Mexico, invaded Canada, imposed the Open Door Policy on China, conquered Hawaii, engineered the secession of Panama, and imposed imperial rule on the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico and Haiti.

      “They lost and then spent more than a hundred years, in shrinking numbers, screwing with the reasons and facts for the loss.”

      I would argue the US treatment of the Confederacy isn’t unusual in the light of American foreign policy. There is hardly a country in the world which hasn’t been victimized in a similar fashion. Canada’s dominion status, for example, was a byproduct of US belligerence.

  15. Hunter Wallace
    ‘You’ve claimed that my associates are somehow hostile to Christianity on the basis of a few atheists (i.e., Sam, Celestial Time, etc.)’

    I am not an atheist. Have made that clear in several posts in exchanges with Mosin and other contributors.

    No, I do not ascribe to traditional belief systems and concepts of who or what is god as promoted by major religious groups, that is true.

    I don’t claim to have all the answers and certainly am not an authority.

    From personal experience however, I can confidently say there is a lot more to this shooting match than we are able to understand with our puny minds.

    I suppose you could say that I’m hostile to certain aspects of Christianity/cucktianity for obvious reasons The other so-called peoples of the book, Muzzies and jews are also deluded.

    Now, for the sake of discussion on recent events in San Bernardino.

    A muzzie who believed in the koran and memorized the words of the prophet killed alleged friends and associates. All were infidels in his eyes and worthy of death.

    One of the victims was a man identified as a Messianic jew. Turns out he was a goy who embraced jewish religious practices. He was photographed wearing a tallit when praying and was a staunch advocate of Israel, jews and Zionism.

    It’s been reported that the Messianic got into heated arguments with the Haji, over Israel.

    I’m sure he often uttered the verse, “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.”

    Unfortunately for him, the koranimal who killed him didn’t believe in those words and the god of Abraham was not on the scene to provide assistance in any way.

    Being gunned down in cold blood by a jihadist at a Christmas party is not what I would consider a ‘blessing.’

    • Sam:

      Your use of language such as “Muzzies” and sketchy references to Jews either violate or come very close to violating the BGG. Please drop use of pejoratives and cooperate in elevating the debate and discussion.

      The logic in your narrative is very difficult to follow. However, I can educate you on one point where you likely have limited experience. Most Jews have another name for so called “Messianic Jews”. We call them Christians.

  16. It often is that a certain configuration of reality appears so monolithick, it seems eternal.

    For those of us who were baby boomers, the notion that The Soviet Union would ever not be, never came up.

    Today, however, that organization is no more – it having collapset under an economy made completely untenable by a heavily regulated economy, unrealistic social guarantees, and 1/4 of it’s budget going to military spending.

    Today, our economy is looking like a cousin of the Soviet Union’s, sluggish, overly regulated, more and more controlled by the state, and a military spending now ten times what it was in Regan’s era (when liberals balkt at the outrage) it, in 2015, 54% of the Yankee governmental expenditures.

    In my lifetime, the soil has never been so fertile for unpredictable change.

    The experts have been, and still do so, declaring the improbabilities of Mr. Trump’s campaign – yet, on it goes, ever higher and yet more formidable appearing.

    Don’t be surprised if the leftist/Unionist control of Western Civilization were to morph into something quite entirely different than anything it ever envisaged.

    Every union, ever of brick and stone, will, at one time or another, come undone.

    Why? Because everything dies; and, when it does, something else springs into it’s place – with no sense of obligation to what came before it.

    The one thing we do absolutely know is this : nobody knows what is going to happen.

    Stay tuned.

  17. Warspite raises an issue that I had intended to get to a little farther down the road, but since the holidays are already here, maybe we should get right to it.

    I propose that every anti-Semitic, racist WS/WN posting on OD take a DNA test. Just tap in “DNA test” in the Google. 23andme.com has good reputation; ancestry.com has a 10% off holiday sale. Then I’d like each of you partisan Southron bravehearts to post the results.

    Oh, and Happy Festivus!

  18. ‘The overwhelming majority of blacks no longer live in the old plantation belts where I live. They have since migrated to our cities many of which had nothing to do with slavery. There are more blacks in Chicago now than Mississippi.’

    May I say, Sir? : that, in northeastern NC, the negroes have remained here – 73% of the entire northeastern quadrant of North Carolina.

    • Junius:

      May I ask you refrain from using the term, “negro”? This is not 1965 and you are well aware it is a pejorative term intended to needlessly inflame people. Please help all of us maintain the highest level of decorum.

  19. I eagerly await Donsk’y reply, on why Whites cannot simply CANNOT separate from non-Whites, and have an independent White Nation/Nations. He/it will not provide real answers, but the Official Story [ones] will be mightily entertaining.

  20. Sir,

    On a side note : I am intimate with a growing amount of people here, one year after having returned from a long ecomomick exile in Yankeeland, and, though most have have been cowed into publick displays of their thinking (Confederate flags) they have NOT lost their Confederate heads on their shoulders; and, when in private, are not afraid to say so.

    That said, nobody I know of is dreaming of a return to ‘whites only’ water fountains’…

    • Junius:

      In addition to your intermittent odd spelling quirks, may I politely suggest you completely ignore the issue of personal responsibility. I am not really sure how much you know about the post-Civil Rights South, but one item you certainly misunderstand is the loss of the Confederate Flag symbol.

      The CSA flag was lost because middle class, educated, respectable Southerners allowed the flag to become a symbol for racists and racism. We were apathetic and failed to pay sufficient attention. By the time a concerted effort by certain forces came about to crush the flag symbol we had already lost the war. The flag had been shorn of its associations with honor and became “owned” by the worst, crudest and most ignoble elements of the South. This comes from someone who never, ever, ever would have believed the CSA flag would disappear from anywhere in the South other than redneck bars and trailer parks.

      On the subject of whites only drinking fountains, something I can actually recall with great shame (can you?), I think you incorrectly understand the desires of your colleagues. In my opinion the majority of WS/WN would be fine with that. How would this influence your opinions on the WN movement?

    • Damn! That Don showed a wit on the rapier side with the “Denises-gender test” comment. Please note I would normally deplore Don’s comment as skirting just barely inside the BGG’s. However, my position on the veracity of the “Denise Character” need not be repeated.

      In addition, Don shot a hat trick on the DNA testing. Might it be possible to set out results in an organized manner? Each poster with his results.

      Not that you would listen, but you might want to be a little less gung-ho, Brad. I know but will not bore you with a story I am aware of involving results received by a certain DAR type in Atlanta. The advantage Don and I have is we don’t care about our results from a eugenics perspective. You, Brad, are well-aware of the extent of miscegenation in the antebellum South depending upon locale. Your colleagues likely do not have that same knowledge. A WS proudly tracing his heritage back to 1810 New Orleans may not be prepared to the possible results of a DNA test.

      In my case I am quite sure I’ll be posting results showing a direct link to Aaron. But if instead signs more likely point to Temujin, so what?

      • FYI, my wife, sister-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law and my wife’s nephew have already had the DNA test. All were 100 percent European and the test even conveniently broke down their ethnic ancestry by European sub-region.

        • European, huh? Irish? English? French? Maltese? Polish? Ukrainian? Albanian? Dodecanese?

          Such incredibly embarrassing use of terms. You best stick to your fields, maybe.

          I remember this picture of Jesus a friend of mine in college from Jacksonville had in his dorm room. His Jesus was blonde with blue eyes. A friend of mine in grad school from Ga. had a pic of Jesus in which he was Black. Personally, I figure him along Semitic lines. Guess many of us see the world in a rather inaccurate manner that suits our needs.

    • My turn for what? Certainly, I am aware your results indicate a likelihood of non-European ancestry. But the Greek and East European portions are in the minority. You are still predominately European.

      Or did you think your “Greek” meant heritage from Achilles and Alexander? And your E. European meant Decebalus? While this is certainly not intended towards you, the idea of some white trash celebrating heritage from Plato is nothing if not mildly hysterical.

  21. Doesn’t matter to me, although I’d probably pass for really-fuckin-white. It must frustrate WNs the v-a-s-t majority of rural Americans, like me, don’t share the hate gene that seems to permeate your tiny community.

  22. Don
    ‘It must frustrate WNs the v-a-s-t majority of rural Americans, like me, don’t share the hate gene that seems to permeate your tiny community’

    I’d much rather have the ‘hate’ gene than the ‘cuck’ gene.

  23. Don // December 7, 2015 at 10:24 pm //

    “Doesn’t matter to me, although I’d probably pass for really-fuckin-white. It must frustrate WNs the v-a-s-t majority of rural Americans, like me, don’t share the hate gene that seems to permeate your tiny community.”

    Anti-Whites like Don see “hate” everywhere, because they think everyone else is just like them. Classic case of Projection.

  24. There’s an anti-White gene and it will soon be detectable through something like Google Glass. How long do you think you think anti-Whites will last in White communities, when everyone can see who wants to genocide them?

  25. So you propose that everyone take a DNA test and post the results. Now that somebody called your bluff, you use it to talk about a “hate gene.” I saw that coming a mile away, Don.

    What was your point asking for DNA test results if you were just going to use it as an opportunity to continue with the slander? If nobody gives you DNA test results, then you use that to say people here are hypocritical or fakes or cowardly idiots hiding their own non-White genes. If someone does give you a DNA test result, you turn around and pretend none of it matters and anyone giving you their test results has a “hate gene that seems to permeate your tiny community.”

    Like I already said before, you and Warspite have agendas here that have absolutely nothing to do with truth or rational dialogue. You simply lay dormant long enough to keep from being banned. Then when the flow of conversation starts to push you and your rhetoric aside, you erupt with anti-White hate.

    Both you and Warspite’s Shadows are vulgar and control every aspect of your being. Pay attention to the lyrics and the notes, you might learn something about yourself:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tja6_h4lT6A

    I AM CARL JUNG!

    P.S. I still want to see your DNA results.

    • I must ask that you watch the tone of your commentary Celestial. Everyone should be making an effort to engage in meaningful discussion. Please don’t hurt my feelings.

      I’m happy to do the DNA thing. How much does this sort of thing run? I still have a kid at Stanford!

  26. Brad:

    I’m simply shocked by your reference to the expulsion of Jews. To the extent you think the actions of 13th century England or 15th century Spain in any manner relevant, I am sure you agree they are clearly superseded by those of 17th century England.

    You’re apparent belief that 125m individuals could be expelled from America is irrational. You’re understanding of the Founding Fathers is rudimentary. Even if you relied upon the execrable 3/5 of a man compromise, it gets you nowhere with your drive for racial purity vis a vis Jews. Have you tackled that Jews in 1790 hypothetical yet?

    The only way to achieve what you claim to be your ends is through cherry picking racism and eugenics throughout history. Blacks from 1800 Mississippi. Jews from 1936 Nazi Germany. Hispanics from, I am sad to say, quite recent times. Asians (i.e., Orientals) from the early 1900’s West. Indians from pre-WWII Britain, and so forth. Does not plotting out a dream that very specifically excludes the best aspects of the post Enlightenment West disturb you in the least.

    Might I also add that were I to consider the position of American Blacks regarding your planning, you might have to deal with a few other issues. How precisely is it equitable to steal blacks away from Africa, transport them to the New World in inhuman conditions, place them in involuntary servitude, deny them Civil Rights for 100 years even after the Civil War, and now seek to expel them?!? Would there not be a pretty good argument that historical treatment and conditions demand ceding part of Dixie to blacks before your grand secession? Yes, Brad. Objectively speaking I think this plausible. What states do you propose awarding to blacks? Please not Florida, since you know how we Jews love to retire there.

    Finally, regarding the Dred Scot case, you need to avoid further discussion. It is not about what you have referenced. Please do not embarrass yourself, just concede the point and move on.

    • Warspite,

      “Brad:

      I’m simply shocked by your reference to the expulsion of Jews. To the extent you think the actions of 13th century England or 15th century Spain in any manner relevant, I am sure you agree they are clearly superseded by those of 17th century England.”

      How come?

      Jews have been expelled from many countries throughout history. The Jewish people have migrated from place to place. We have this on the authority of your own Torah. The great concentration of Jews in the New York area, or their current presence in Israel, illustrates how easy it was to remove large numbers of Jews from one country to another. Thus, it is quite comical in light of the history of your own people that you are here tut-tutting about mass expulsions. Does it being back had memories?

      “You’re apparent belief that 125m individuals could be expelled from America is irrational. You’re understanding of the Founding Fathers is rudimentary. Even if you relied upon the execrable 3/5 of a man compromise, it gets you nowhere with your drive for racial purity vis a vis Jews. Have you tackled that Jews in 1790 hypothetical yet?”

      Is that so?

      As I pointed out to you, the negro question was addressed by the Founding Fathers. For the purposes of determining representation in the US Congress, blacks were to be counted under the US Constitution in the ratio of 3/5ths of a person and fugitive slaves were to be returned to their masters. Among other things, black immigrants were disqualified from becoming naturalized US citizens under the Nationalization Act of 1790. Jefferson, Madison and Monroe supported their deportation to Africa with Madison serving as the president of the American Colonization Society.

      “it gets you nowhere with your drive for racial purity vis a vis Jews. Have you tackled that Jews in 1790 hypothetical yet?”

      In 1790, the ancestors of the Jews would cause so many problems for the United States in the 20th century were still in Europe. Their ambitions were strictly limited by their ghettoization at that time.

      “The only way to achieve what you claim to be your ends is through cherry picking racism and eugenics throughout history. Blacks from 1800 Mississippi. Jews from 1936 Nazi Germany. Hispanics from, I am sad to say, quite recent times. Asians (i.e., Orientals) from the early 1900’s West. Indians from pre-WWII Britain, and so forth.”

      As a Jew, you should know better than anyone that mass expulsions and restrictions upon so-called universal rights have been commonplace across European history.

      “Does not plotting out a dream that very specifically excludes the best aspects of the post Enlightenment West disturb you in the least.”

      No, actually it doesn’t.

      Obviously, I don’t agree with any number of theories conjured into existence by the idiot savants of the Enlightenment.

      “Might I also add that were I to consider the position of American Blacks regarding your planning, you might have to deal with a few other issues. How precisely is it equitable to steal blacks away from Africa, transport them to the New World in inhuman conditions, place them in involuntary servitude, deny them Civil Rights for 100 years even after the Civil War, and now seek to expel them?!?”

      In West Africa and Central Africa, the blacks were enslaved and sold as property according to their own laws and customs. Centuries later, Western Europeans, not Africans, came up with the idea that there was something intrinsically immoral about slavery. The Royal Navy suppressed the slave trade and it was European colonization that suppressed slavery, an African custom from Cairo to the Cape, in sub-Saharan Africa.

      As for the resettlement of blacks in Africa, Liberia and Sierra Leone were founded for that purpose. Among other countries, I know that Ghana offers dual citizenship to American blacks. Finally, if it was a great crime to abduct blacks from Africa, then returning them there corrects that great injustice.

      “Would there not be a pretty good argument that historical treatment and conditions demand ceding part of Dixie to blacks before your grand secession? Yes, Brad. Objectively speaking I think this plausible.”

      I don’t think so.

      Blacks are already leaving the Mississippi Delta and the Alabama Black Belt. They have been leaving for a century now.

      “What states do you propose awarding to blacks? Please not Florida, since you know how we Jews love to retire there.”

      Vermont would be a good candidate.

      “Finally, regarding the Dred Scot case, you need to avoid further discussion. It is not about what you have referenced. Please do not embarrass yourself, just concede the point and move on. “

      The Dred Scott case established that blacks were not American citizens and that slaveowners were free to enter any of the territories with their slave property. It took the 14th and 15th Amendments to change their constitutional status.

  27. WarSpite
    “except everyone serves some undefinable “white race”.”

    So now anti-White WarSpite is saying there is no such thing as White. Dehumanization is one of the 8 stages of genocide.

    So who does WarSpite and his anti-White pals blame for colonization, slavery and Holocaustin’? How come they only notice when things are too White? Why are only White countries expected to accept third world immigration, until their inhabitants are annihilated as a group? How come anti-Whites like WarSpite only chase White people around?

  28. Warspite // December 8, 2015 at 2:34 am //

    “I must ask that you watch the tone of your commentary Celestial. Everyone should be making an effort to engage in meaningful discussion. Please don’t hurt my feelings.”

    You anti-Whites have no problems “hurting White people’s feelings” when tell us over and over that we do not exist. That is genocide according to UN Law.

    • Richard:

      I want to try and put this in a polite manner, but your comment made no sense. I also think it reads in a rather embarrassing and whining tone. Is that what you meant? It couldn’t have been.

  29. ‘To be perfectly honest, I am a Christian in spite of the American churches which have spent the last century tailoring their theology to embrace one fashionable secular liberal cause after another. There’s a lot about American Christianity that I dislike, but because I have a greater understanding of how it has evolved over time, I don’t blame Christianity for the direction it has taken in the US over the last several decades.’

    Sir, it’s hard to get a religion or denomination that has not pickt up the flavour of where it resides.

    Even Orthodoxy, the most stubborn and unchanging, has specifick nationalist flavours.

    That said, Sir, there is nothing about Orthodoxy that reflect anything of the last decades of this country – NOTHING.

    • Junius:

      Your statement is silly. One of the leading clergy associated with the Civil Rights movement was a very prominent Orthodox clergyman.

      I understand and appreciate your point. In most respects the various Orthodox denominations have been generations behind other American churches. But you fail to pinpoint the cause for the ossification. In addition to stemming from the least enlightened and advanced areas of Europe, with the exception of the Greek Orthodox Church the other sister denominations found themselves broken on the wheel of Communism for over 40 years.

      While your point is well-taken it cannot be understood in a factual vacuum.

  30. Gentlemen :

    I see alot here about DNA tests.

    Y’all place a lot of faith that science can thoroughly and properly analyze traits in blood.

    If there is one thing that science, and, in particular, fields preoccupied with human development – such as Behaviorial Embriology- have shown is that very little is clear, and what is …

    KEEPS CHANGING.

    For now the most reliable science will continue to be that of ancient Greek observation and deduction …

    IF IT SMELLS LIKE A DUCK, it is a duck.

    • Junius:

      Did the Ancient Greeks really reach such profound conclusions based upon the conduct of ducks? Who knew!

      Really, I want to thank you for your illuminating post. In addition to the duck thing an analysis of the words, language and syntax is revealing. Can we agree the “programming” we receive from such a young age on how to write and speak creates its own sort of DNA-like patterns? As hard as I might choose to try, unless I care to be constantly vigilant my postings must sometimes reveal signs of a rather average Kentucky public school education. All the years at Vanderbilt, et. al. as well as a lifetime of experience cannot change the fact the best HS in Jefferson County is a far cry from Eton or Charterhouse.

      In your case, your posting will prove truly revealing on the “real” Junius. And what’s wrong with that!

  31. “As I pointed out to you, the negro question was addressed by the Founding Fathers. For the purposes of determining representation in the US Congress, blacks were to be counted under the US Constitution in the ratio of 3/5ths of a person ”

    The Preamble to the US Constitution is addressed to Whites and their Posterity and no one else.

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    Doesn’t matter who vandalized it later, they made very clear what they meant. No one founds a country for other peoples.

    • Dick:

      Sir, as someone included within the language you cite- and I appreciate your support, I am struggling to try and understand your position. I recognize you are handicapped by a lack of knowledge in both law and history, but I want to be as fair as possible.

      Do you believe the few words you choose to generally cite out of context limit the Bill of Rights to just those signing and their descendants? (I’m focusing just on the Bill of Rights for the sake of ease). Don’t you think that’s a pretty limited number? May I presume that is not what you are doing? May I instead presume you and the other Supremacists believe the blessings are bestowed on the group of people the Founding Fathers had in mind? Is this what you believe?

      It’s not fair to attack your position based on principles of American Law. In that area you are an unarmed individual. But I strongly suggest you try and get enough courage to tackle my still outstanding and unanswered 1790 Hypothetical.

  32. WarSpite sez:
    “Your use of language such as “Muzzies” and sketchy references to Jews either violate or come very close to violating the BGG. Please drop use of pejoratives and cooperate in elevating the debate and discussion.”

    WarSpite sez:
    ” Jews from 1936 Nazi Germany.”

    You can’t complain that pejoratives like “Muzzies”, “nigger” or “kike” break the rules and then use a pejoratives like “Nazi”. The correct name for them is National Socialist or NSDAP.

  33. Warspite
    Sam: Your use of language such as “Muzzies” and sketchy references to Jews either violate or come very close to violating the BGG.’

    Who died and put you in charge? Muzzies and the insane doctrines of Islam are not worthy of respect.

    Spite
    ‘However, I can educate you on one point where you likely have limited experience. Most Jews have another name for so called “Messianic Jews”. We call them Christians.’

    Well, jews who believe in Jesus as their Messiah call themselves Messianic jews or completed jews.

    ‘Messianic Judaism is a Biblically based movement of people who, as committed Jews, believe in Yeshua (Jesus) as the Jewish Messiah of Israel of whom the Jewish Law and Prophets spoke.’

    http://www.mjaa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=rd_messianicmovement_messianic_judaism

    As for my limited knowledge?

    For several decades I was a fervent Christian. Been to Israel more than once, stood atop Masada, walked the Via Dolorosa, prayed at the Western Wall, traversed the Galilee, floated on the salt sea, hiked the hills of Qumran, studied Hebrew over a year with a Rabbi’s wife and could read O.T. texts fairly well without vowel pointers. No mean feat for a goy.

    I attended Seder services in The States and in Israel in a ministry facility located on the Mount of Olives which belonged to a friend of mine who was at one time a personal body guard assigned to David Ben-Gurion.

    My library was filled with concordances, Greek/Hebrew lexicons and theological reference books written by multitudes of authors.

    You presume to know my motivations and what makes me tick. You don’t have a clue. Let’s just leave it at that.

    • Sam:

      I note and am sorry for your loss. Nevertheless, the BGG’s are not mine. I adhere to the guidelines, as should you. Your travels through the Holyland have no bearing on disrespecting Brad’s guidelines. Since Brad asks little you ought to find compliance simple.

      You are wrong about most things you write. Please do not consider this a threat, for it is not. You and other Supremacists and Nationalists blow the lid off Jewish control of the US and remaining world, yet you believe posting under a pseudonym provides some sort of anonymity. Does that sound logical and reasonable, Sam? Why would you presume everything about you is not well known?

      Sorry to respectfully disagree on the Messianic Jews thing. They are Christians. In the rational world we call people who accept Jesus as the son of G-d and prophecized Messiah, “Christians”. That works for me and I find no imperative to prop up whatever family and psychological problems motivate so-called “Messianic Jews”. This is America and as long as they leave me alone while they do their thing, that’s peachy keen.

      I will not disrespect you by pointing out in too obvious a manner the flaw in using “Biblically based” to justify the rationality of beliefs. Setting aside language and translation problems, there is human frailty (i.e., stupidity). I once actually saw with my own two eyes several persons at an E. Ky. church handle snakes. It’s Biblically based, Sam.

  34. Warspite // December 8, 2015 at 3:12 am //

    Richard:

    “I want to try and put this in a polite manner, but your comment made no sense. I also think it reads in a rather embarrassing and whining tone. Is that what you meant? It couldn’t have been.”

    As usual you have nothing to say. lol

    Why anyone takes anti-White morons seriously, I do not understand. Can anyone explain it to me?

  35. Junius Daniel // December 8, 2015 at 2:57 am //
    “I see alot here about DNA tests.”

    If you are intellectually curious, read up on separated Twins Studies. They found separated twins ended up leading almost identical lives, regardless of their differing upbringings. God works in mysterious ways Junius.

    I believe WarSpite like other anti-Whites was born to be sneaky, underhanded and to wage war on Whites. He can’t help being anti-White, because he was made that way. Makes all our discussions with him pointless, don’t ya think?

    • Richard:

      I must again object to your conduct. “Twin Studies”? You should be ashamed. How dare you introduce such discredited drivel to your colleagues. I do not know your motivations but you should at least be public that you are pursuing an Agenda.

      As a white person, I am struggling to try and classify your use of “white”. My conclusion has been and must remain all evidence is that White Supremacists and White Nationalists reject the Enlightenment. No other conclusion is possible. I regret to state that in this belief you seem in accord with those you call, “Muzzies”.

      It’s really just another form of extremes on each side circling around and meeting.

  36. @Warspite…

    ‘Junius:

    Your statement is silly. One of the leading clergy associated with the Civil Rights movement was a very prominent Orthodox clergyman.’

    Warspite,

    I notice you have a predilection regarding every opinion but your own as ‘silly’

    And so it is perfectly consistent that you, a secular humanitarian, are going to teach me, a practitioner of Orthodoxy, about Orthodoxy – this after you ran to your references, praying to find one exception in a thousand.

  37. ‘If you are intellectually curious, read up on separated Twins Studies. They found separated twins ended up leading almost identical lives, regardless of their differing upbringings. God works in mysterious ways Junius.’

    I don’t have to, Warpsite – my uncle was considered to be the leading expert in human development in the world.

    And he warned me about how those, who wish to appear authoritative, and have that authority imputed to their methodologies, exploit ‘articles’ and ‘studies’ to convey their illusions about human development.

    You don’t know, but, we know how such sits with you.

    • I have a distaste for Eugenics, true. But I have no problem with being wrong. Please provide me with a correct citation such as will lead me to your uncle’s study.

      On Orthodoxy. I don’t want to get into this too much since it was your faith. My knowledge of the Orthodox Churches comes out of what I had to learn & had to do during the Cold War. In fact, when Xmas comes up I always remember attending a service for the holiday at a Serbian Orthodox Church in Manhattan. Not to mention the headaches of running into Russian Orthodox adherents who were part of the group adhering to the Julian Calendar. I’m sure you can relate (Christmas? What do you mean Christmas? It’s the second week in January!!)

      You grew up in it & lived it. You know the Orthodox Church on a level I never could or can. But, and I’m really saying this in an amicable manner, I do genuinely know something of it.

  38. Bernie Sanders, a Jew, is now sputtering and whining about Trump being mean to. Some swarthy, heavily accented Arab, who is a member is CAIR, is on MSNBC, calling for the GOP to denounce Trump and it’s bad, and Muslims are great, and “Amereeka eez duh lan’ of eemeegrints”.

    Now, some legal Jew is howling about how barring feral, violent, predatory racial aliens from destroying America is “unconstitutional”. He just invoked “Germany”

    Comedy gelte.

Comments are closed.