Saturday, May 14, 2016

Invasion Of Europe And The Global North...

The Inquisition is one of the most maligned movements in history.

The Inquisition was the culmination of victory over multiculturalism and the reversal of centuries of mass immigration into Europe.
Muslims, with tactical and economic assistance from their cousins, Judah, swarmed into Europe from North Africa and dominated Iberia, southern France and portions of Italy for hundreds of years. Murder, rape and destruction descended upon millions.
Leftist historians celebrate this era of conquest and carnage in the most flowery of terms, describing it as an age of enlightenment and diversity.
Europeans felt differently, however, and fought to drive the orcs out and reclaim their homelands.
After more than 700 years of “change and progress” the tide was turned and a period of restoration was implemented. And so the efforts of the subversives and their armies of invaders was undone.

That is why the Inquisition is attacked and maligned today. It ably demonstrated that change, no matter how dramatic and extensive, can be un-changed.

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Re-Up (What Is A Nation)...

We often (very often) hear the jingoism “take America back” by all and sundry on both sides of the political/social divide.  Particularly on the conservative side we see the notion put forward that The America is somehow far adrift from her foundational roots, as laid down by the Founding Fathers.  But is this really the case?  Is modern Americanism fundamentally different from 18th century revolutionary Americanism?  What would the Founding Fathers think of The America today?

In addressing that, we must first consider what The America is and what The America is not.  What The America is not, is a nation.  What The America is, essentially, is a religion/empire, with much akin to a Marxist state.  And one of the “gifts” which both Marxism and Americanism have bequeathed to the world is the ability to re-define words and even reality itself.

One example of that is the definition of nation. Since the advent of Americanism/Marxism the definition has been completely re-written to the point that it now actually means the complete opposite of what it meant for thousands of years.

As stated, The America is not a nation, which makes such linguistic concoctions as “a nation of immigrants” one of the more profound examples of an oxymoron and generally reflects the intellectual apathy found amongst the populace.

A nation is NOT a placeA nation is NOT an ideology or creed or form of government or philosophy.

What is a nation?

In the simplest terms, nation is another word for ethnic Group.

A nation is a race or stock of people.  The English are a nation.  The Irish are a nation.  They need not be gathered in the same locale, share a common faith or reside under a similar form of government to be a nation.

Let me say this again.  Nation is another word for Ethnic Group.  A nation is a biological unit, an extended family, aka a tribe.
From the Etymology Dictionary:

c.1300, from O.Fr. nacion, from L. nationem (nom. natio) “nation, stock,
race,” lit. “that which has been born,” from natus, pp. of nasci “be born”
The origin of nations is ancient, and the knowledge of it should be embedded in our culture.  Its lack leads to all kinds of problems and comedy, such as the (inherently American) Evangelical interpretation of “prophesy” in regard to Israel becoming a nation again in the 1940s and how that “sign” points to the end of days.  The irony there is that if they believe modern jews are the Israel of the bible, then they didn’t “become a nation “again in 1948 as they never stopped being a nation (ie, an ethnic group) in the first place.

Again, a nation need not have government, leaders or even a land of their own to be a nation.  It is blood that makes a nation, not forms of government.  Thus there is no American nation.

Can nations mix to form a new one?  No.

Small admixtures from cousin-nations can be absorbed, such as Danish into English, but the former is inevitably lost into the latter. There are no new nations.

So what The America is, is a proto-Marxist religion/empire.  Nothing more.  And in that, Americanism naturally shares more than a little in common with conventional Marxism.  This is why The America and the former Soviet Union look so much alike.  Both were artificially fabricated political constructs, rather than being natural, organic living-societies.  (And, not surprisingly, both found themselves dominated by a nation who very much considers themselves a nation, separate from the empires they ruled.)
Take for example this excerpt from a letterfrom Karl Marx to Abe Lincoln:
We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large
majority.  If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?
When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, “slavery” on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago *the idea of one great Democratic Republic* had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued …
And in ambassador Adams’ reply (at the same link), we find the following,
Nations do not exist for themselves alone, but to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind by benevolent intercourse and example.
Adams, in a round about way, agrees with Marx (see the full quote at the link).
His father John Adams, a “Founding Father”, first vice-President and second President of the United States, wrote the following, concurring with the theme:
If the empire of superstition and hypocrisy should be overthrown, happy indeed will it be for the world; but if all religion and all morality should be over-thrown with it, what advantage will be gained? The doctrine of human equality is founded entirely in the Christian doctrine that we are all children of the same Father, all accountable to Him for our conduct to one another, all equally bound to respect each other’s self love.
-page 619, ‘John Adams’ by David McCullough
Such is not the sentiments of a man residing (physically or otherwise) in the warring ghettos of the real world amongst his kin.  No, that is the pompous affirmation of a man safely ensconced in an ivory tower, from whose lofty perch even Sao Paolo must look lovely at midnight when its dim and dirty lights glow luminously, masking the chaos, disease and death in the streets below. From such a distance joy and sorrow are indistinguishable and all peoples look alike … and they tend to look like ants.

Such sentiments, as express by Marx and Adams are echoed in our own time by Bill Gates, George Soros and the like; Businessman, Mercenary Merchants, ‘Power to the People-preachers’, “Citizens of the World” and so on.  CEO’s with a corporate management mindset that believes social engineering cannot only reap ever-increasing profits but “better-off” the little people as well.  A man-made rearranging of the elements to better suit the perceived “greater good”.

Thus Marxism and Americanism consummate their relationship through their shared denouncement of family, tradition and identity.  Their offspring is the atomized consumeristic blank-slate.  For tradition is the enemy of America.

And so we have, from our beginning, a hypocritical elite who bemoans the existence of an elite. A Merchant-Pirate class who bemoans piracy and class, and the rich and powerful piously denouncing riches and power.  And with one voice they ask of the masses, “will you not give up your pursuit of power, riches and identity for the greater good?”  (We can see this today with rich and influential celebrities using the soap box their multi-million dollar lifestyles afforded them to denounce both the bigotry of the people they openly and collectively loathe and the “greedy excesses” of people who earn less than $50,000 a year.)

Powerless people cannot give up power anymore than poor people can “enter a life of poverty”. Thus it is rare (if ever) that “people’s revolutions” occur from the bottom up. Marxist-minded social engineers are either of the elite or end up as the elite.  And for them all things are malleable….for and by them.

“We the people” were neither consulted nor present when “They the rulers” applied our consent to their overthrow of history.  So what the Founding Fathers instituted was the notion that nations are man-made creatures (akin to Frankenstein’s patched-together-monster) rather than natural outgrowths of the family/tribe. And that is a critical point, considering trends today. For if the family is the bedrock of a nation, then how we define a nation will effect how we think of the family.

If a nation is merely an agreed upon social arrangement, voluntarily entered into and agreed by individuals (as in a creed), then so is the family. We should not then be surprised at the existence of the Franken-family, wherein are found every conceivable arrangement (from two “mommies” raising donated sperm to single parents and their revolving-door one night stands to the adopted multi-rainbow mockery) redefined into constituting a legitimate family.

Indeed, the Founding Fathers’ action in creating The America was akin to a vacationing wife who writes back to her husband to inform him she is leaving him, taking the kids and moving into a commune where everybody is husband and wife to everybody else, and the kids now have 27 dads and as many moms.  A “melting pot”, in other words.

In point of fact The Declaration of Independence was a divorce paper, wherein George and Tom and Benjamin and the rest announced their intention of severing ties with kith and kin. Their actions in creating The America was not only the breaking up of a home, it was a direct assault upon the sacred nature of the family in and of itself.

So in answer to the question, no, the Founding Fathers would not be surprised or upset at The America’s present state.  They would be pleased with the progress.  After a (well, very) little soul searching they would embrace a Marxist colored president, if not outright bow down before him, and promptly denounce any who oppose him as un-American.  Even Jefferson, who wrote about the perpetually low mental and spiritual qualities of the negro would come around quickly.  After all, a democratically elected Marxist Negro is the final embodiment of everything the “founding fathers” strived for in their rejection of an un-elected White Monarch.

Again, tradition is the enemy of America.

Besides, it should be rather telling, that as The America ascended to world supremacy post-WWII the world has become increasingly radically liberal and leftist in outlook and ideology. And debauched culturally and racially.

Europe is a good example of that. Western Europe has been under the American dominion for 60+ years, and in that time has rapidly slid into the gutter culturally, socially and demographically. It is frequently described today as a dying continent.

The America is a multi-headed Beast, seeking out whom it may devour.  Americanism is a trumped up religion to sell a poisoned product.  In times past that religion was euphemistically called Babylon. Through democracy and universalism via assimilation it has created an image of Global Governance, wherein people from all tribes reside under one government, with “justice for all” at the point of a PC litigated riffle.

And it calls upon the whole world to bow down before that image.  Those who do not bow down can neither buy nor sell on the world stage. They are derided, attacked and denied the right to the preservation of their distinct nations (peoples) and ways.

Just look at the White nations residing in The America ...  What’s left of them.


Saturday, April 9, 2016

Money As God: Convergence…

It’s interesting to see the walls separating conservatives from liberals crumbling.

One of the ways in which the wings of post-industrial civilization ideology merge seamlessly is in their esteem for the power of money.

Liberals hold that “class warfare” explains discrepancy between groups of peoples.

Conservatives subvert this notion with the idea that being materially successful is merely a matter of hard work and determination.

Liberals counter that a lack of opportunity by some (by race, gender, ethnicity) explains their lower social condition/circumstance.

Conservatives reply by pointing out that portions of every group are rich and poor (usually pointing to places like Appalachia, where Whites often live in third-world level conditions)

Where they converge is in the notion that economics (money) is the great revealer/leveler/judge.

Hence “opportunity” ALWAYS = Money, and “off the grid/back to basics” lifestyles always = sociopath.

"Poor" is bad!

Nothing exemplifies this convergence quite like mass migration. The current wave of peoples pouring from the southern hemisphere into the northern hemisphere is unprecedented in human history. AND YET, the urgent conversation/debate over this event is reduced to economics.

Conservatives conceive of this historical event in terms of “they’re stealing jobs” (money).

Liberals conceive of it as “they’re looking for opportunity” (money).

Yet they both hold fast to the ideological belief that to address this unprecedented historical event in any terms other than crude economics is “racist”.

What is/will be the biological and cultural consequences of this mass event?

Such a question is the ultimate taboo. It is so heretical that those who ask it face angry mobs (from both left and right) who are, even now, on the verge of calling for them to burned at the stake.

After all, there is no greater offence than to question the goodness and competency of someone’s god.

If money (“economic circumstances”) can’t explain conditions of various groups then the entire system that has been built over the past few centuries is false.


And herein we get to the root of the need to espouse belief in equality.

Once upon a time, civilization was built and preserved by a class of people who passed on the reigns of authority to their own biological posterity, biologically.

This was no meritocracy. This was a natural distillation of 50,000 years of evolutionary processes. Yes, it was a food chain: Apex animals at the top, field mice at the bottom and a hierarchy in between.

Human society reflected the order of nature.

And it worked.

Then came the Industrial and Enlightenment Revolutions, which saw lower classes usurping and killing off the nobility in the name of the machine and for the “right” to buy and sell, things. All must be equal in those dark satanic mills.

Bankers and Merchants became our kings and priests. Two hundred of the bloodiest years in history have followed (and continue on, downwards).

This new elite must perpetuate the belief in equality to justify its actions.

If equality is shown to be false, then their actions in murdering the old aristocracy and destroying human society as it had stood for thousands of years was/is a mistake of immeasurable proportions.

If all races, ethnicities, genders, etc… are not equal then the elite are revealed to be inauthentic posers.  And the extent to which they have f@#*ed up the world is seen in all of its horror.

Like a mad general “reinforcing failure” to postpone the admission of defeat, only making the inevitable defeat all the more catastrophic, the elite today (and many of their apologists) have turned to flooding the first world countries of the world with millions from the third-world to escape confronting the reality of their incompetence and of the falsity of their belief system.

“Our mad dream must be true!” they keep repeating to themselves.

THAT is the truth of the matter. The elite that emerged since the enlightenment were not competent enough to administer civilization. 

They were not equal to those whom they usurped and replaced.

And to the ends to which they will deny that reality, they will utilize the means of fire and blood on a scale the devil himself could not imagine – they will destroy us all.


Sunday, March 27, 2016

Keeping Perspective…

“Jesus Christ of Nazareth required a mere 12 apostles to change the course of human history…”
-Vox Day, 3/27/16

I guess I missed that.

History seems to have missed it too.

One of the most devastating blows to the Christian narrative is the fact that the life, death and resurrection of (no less than) God himself, had no affect on the world, past or present.

There is nothing in the life of an average man today that is any different than the life of an average man at any point in the past 100,000 years.

We are born, live, eat, breed, shit and die exactly the same as we always have, and always will.

None of that changed with the physical incarnation the unmoved mover. Let that sink in for a minute, Christian reader.
The One God has had no impact at all on the universe.

Yes, there are many significant men who have strutted the historical stage under the Christian banner. But the historical stage’s significance is illusory and the Christian banner is one of many: interchangeable and malleable, drifting amongst and mixing with a thousand other ideological systems, none of which alter the fundamental reality of the life of man.

That doesn’t mean we can’t diagram and dissect the system’s current power-point presentation. We can and we should. Christianity is a toxic mix of three of the worst elements of antiquity: Roman Politics, Greek Philosophy and Oriental Monotheism.

But lets not get carried away with a cargo-cult type of mindset that sees things being magically rearranged to set things “right”.

If our race and the type of civilization we create ceases to exist, nature/history/god/the universe/jesus, whatever, won’t react or care.

Only us White folk care.

Only we can do anything about it.

Whether we will or not is the question.


Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Masses Of Asses…

It has been said here before, about every four years, but, again,

We're not going to vote our way out of this mess.

It will, in fact, take a Tyrrant-King to extract us from the current predicament.

The problem with Right Wing and Left Wing paradigms is that right and left wings are, by definition, attached to the same animal.

That animal is the problem. That it may soar left for a while, then right for a while, does nothing to alter the nature of the beast itself or its ultimate trajectory. It is the problem, not its slightly alternating flight course…into the sun.

Democracy and Republics are the creatures of merchants and bankers. Which is why the ultimate expression of voting is choosing between Pizza Hut or McDonalds. 

"We the people" or "power to the people"....same BS.

Consumer and Voter are the same thing. Which is why Open Borders are considered the natural gravity of history to the Western Elite, which is made up of CEO's and Bankers. In Wal-Mart we Trust! What time is the game? News headlines of the day: Number one at the box office this week was...etc, ad infintium.

And, sorry, but, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were the George Soros and Bill Gates of their day. 

When "the people" become the standard, the standard drops. This is how you go from Mozart to MTV.

If and when the Tyrrant-King shows up, he won't try to tame the beast and steer it, he'll simply slay it. How that will happen and when it will take place is anybody's guess. Within the next 50 to 75 years, I would think.

The Tyrrant-King won't campaign for votes or present arguments to make a case, he'll simply march towards victory and all others will either fall in line or be crushed.

And as the saying goes, he might be a mean, cruel son-of-a-bitch, but he'll be our son-of-a-bitch.


Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Synners In The Hands Of An Angry Forrest...

It's not just that we live in a world of cheap imported generic Chinese junk, we live in a world of synthetic people who attempt to define themselves by beliefs, creeds, ideologies and so on, rather than by what they are, by nature's order.

Looking through a thesaurus for synonyms of GENERIC (on, low and behold, I found that synonyms to generic are:


Antonyms for GENERIC are:


Other words related to GENERIC are, all-inclusive, broad-minded, tolerant, global, ecumenical, etc..

Yeah, it seems obvious since generic is related to 'general', but the fact that generic has the cultural connotation of being of low quality is interesting. In fact the expression, "cheap generic crap" is something one hears quite a bit these days.

Diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance and so on, are all, literally, synonymous with inauthentic, synthetic and generic.

That might seem like an easy swing at the left, but what part of today's society doesn't escape such description?

When you base your identity on beliefs, creeds, ideologies, etc, you have become inauthentic and generic.

At which point you might as well slap a stamp on your forehead that reads, 'Made In China'.


Saturday, February 20, 2016

Stop Literal Paralleling...

If a religious figure states that it is unchristian to build a wall around a place, do not, I repeat, do not, parallel his objection by pointing out there is a wall around his building/church/residence.

Ideologues throw out such notions as abstractions to engender sentimentalism.

After all, "who is he to judge?"

If you take their statements as literal and try to counter them as such, you'll simply find that the line you try to parallel with has been moved, curved or turned into a circle.

Thus the added comment from said religious figure about "building bridges" instead.

Remember, the purpose of leftists, progressives and the like, is to set fire to the world and watch it all burn. In biblical parlance, they come to "steal, kill and destroy" -nothing less, nothing more.

Everything they do or say is a weapon meant to bring death and destruction.

You're dealing with Mordor, in other words.

You don't try to rationalize with orcs, you just fight back against their attacks.

As to the discussion to have among ourselves or with friends and family who are still under the sway of great fiery eye, it's simple.

Don't parallel the literal, just drag the abstraction out into the light and reveal it for what it is: an enemy attack.

By declaring that building a wall is unchristian, he just threw up a wall around who and what can be christian. 

That's hardly "building bridges" now is it?

But then keep in mind that this is a guy who covers up his crucifix so as to not offend non-Christians.

The hypocrisy of this particular left-wing ideologue in question, is in the fact that you cannot advocate or participate in, abortion, gay marriage or divorce & remarriage and be a catholic-christian, and yet countless catholic politicians throughout the world do so, openly and loudly, with the explicit or passive approval of "his holiness".

Both the current President and Vice-President claim to be Christian and unrepentantly support abortion and gay marriage.

Not a peep from the pope.