Thursday, June 16, 2016

How Charles Manson Saved Murica...



Everyone knows Charles Manson: the 6' 4", 230lb ex-Marine, five time Ultimate Fighting Champion, who, in the 1960's, led an army of millions of Mad Max-style dystopian brutes on a rampage across the continent of North America, leaving entire cities in ruins.

Well, no.

Actually Manson was a 5' 3" 100 lb spaz whose "army" consisted of a handful of low IQ dope-heads and toothless, strung out hookers, whose crimes appear to be drug related.

And, tragic as it is, the crimes were not that unusual in major cities like L.A., even at that time. It was the celebrity status of the victims at one crime scene that made national headlines.

Manson himself was never charged with murder in the infamous Tate murders, which drew national attention, but, rather, conspiracy to commit murder.


So how and why was he turned into the greatest existential threat to Murica, ever?


In the 1960's America was seemingly spiraling out of control. The sexual revolution, JFK, cities ravaged by race riots, Vietnam, smelly hippies, so on...you know the basics. Chaos was ascendant.

Manson presented the opportunity for the establishment to demonstrate that they were still in control. So he was turned into the anti-christ and then paraded around in handcuffs by guys in suits.

"See Murica, we've caught the devil himself! All is fine. We've got everything under control."

Manson, a goofball nobody, was turned into the effigy of Societal Chaos of the time. And he's been on display in prison ever since, demonstrating Murica's social solidity and political professionalism.


It is a decades long farce. A genuine tragicomedy. While certainly not a model citizen, Manson was also no more than a common pimp/drug dealer.


But the Murica vs. Manson episode stands tall as the mentality that prevails over Murican people and their elite in government, law enforcement, media, journalism, academia, etc.

As long as there are guys in suits and/or uniforms, giving "official statements" in front of the cameras, we can rest assured that everything is A-Okay.

If, god-forbid, a guy in a t-shirt and blue jeans should ever appear on TV as an official -official, and admit, "we really don't know what the hell is going on right now", Murica as we know it, would cease to exist.

Murica loves the notion of absolutes. Maybe this is due to the influence of Calvinism, which posits a god that pre-determines and pre-plans everything and thus is in control of everything, good and bad. Murica can accept any kind of tragedy so long as it can affirm that it was part of a grand plan and/or "officials" have everything under control.

 And maybe that explains the illuminati type conspiracy stuff, as Muricans believe that every-day random events "don't just happen" but are controlled by some all powerful group or individual mastermind.

But as was said above, this same mentality plays both ways via guys in suits or uniforms ("officials") in front of cameras with "official statements".

The presumption that somebody, somewhere, is in complete control is central to Murica's mental well being. American Exceptionalism, The End of History, Progress, etc... it's all the same thing.

The reality that the guys in suits or uniforms are just run of the mill jackasses like the rest of us, pretending to know what the hell is going on, is more terrifying to Muricans than the potential of the earth colliding with an asteroid.


So yes, Charles Manson, in his way, saved Murica. Manson, a villain with X-Men type superpowers and a legion of highly trained and well armed followers from all over the universe, is currently held in an 8 X 8 cell, watched over, and kept in check, by officials, aka, guys in suits.

The system works!

Our presuppositions are validated!

All is well!

Everything is under control!


Stay fat and in debt my fellow Muricans!


...











Monday, June 13, 2016

"What I've Discovered" Vs. "What I Believe"...



Progress functions on the notion that the present is better than the past (What metric is used to assert this is generally an ever evolving construct constantly redefined and reconstructed by progressives themselves).

GNON, however, would say otherwise. For those who don't know, GNON means 'the God of nature or Nature'. Here is a description of it from 'the Orthosphere',

'The general idea is  that, whether or not there be any God of Nature who is its source, Nature herself has an inherent and utterly implacable, incontrovertible order, which we contravene at our peril, and which it behooves us therefore to discover and then faithfully and meetly enact; so that, recusing ourselves for the nonce from any tiresome discussions of a religious sort, with their endless bitter controversies over obscure points of doctrine, we may get on quickly to remembering that it is a Very Bad Idea to Mess with Mother Nature, to learning about her, and to shaping our policies accordingly.'

No, I'm not a neo-reactionary. Though obviously some of their discoveries overlap with mine.

GNON is a brilliant articulation. It almost single-handedly justifies the existence of the internet.

The fact that there is a natural order that functions irrespective of man's personal wants and whims is at the heart of what has been called 'Paleo-conservatism',  'White Nationalism', 'Traditionalism', 'Neo-Reactionism' , 'Alt-Right', etc.

Far from representing supremacism, arrogance or hubris, they actually stand for the opposite: humility and submission to GNON, aka, Nature, the natural world, "god",  reality, what-have-you. Objective truth, in other words.

Progressives, Liberals and the like work to overthrow GNON and twist reality to fit their own finite, personal preferences or "emotional needs" -aka, The Narrative.


Which brings me to the post title.


Discovery vs. Belief.

Let's face it, belief today means "personal (subjective) choice".  And nothing better illustrates this than law. Laws are being invented to enforce the emotional zeitgeist of the current generation's elite and their hubris.

Yet, law cannot be invented. It can only be discovered and understood and then articulated. The Law of Gravity, for example.

Governments don't legislate gravity. Though progressives may just try to delegislate it in the name of equality. And no doubt many deaths would follow as the enemies of GNON would leap from rooftops, empowered by the notion that law is man-made and progressive/evolving.

The notion of Progress or of man "going forwards" or "going backwards" is a radical, unfounded, proposition of the current elite. Naturally they seek to justify their rule, like a politician claiming his tenure brought better jobs.

In reality, there is no forward or backward for mankind. There is only true or false, good or bad, etc.

Like with architecture: "modern" vs. "classical" is a false paradigm. Buildings are either ugly or beautiful. Saying some buildings are modern and some are classic is as nonsensical as saying some buildings are Thursday and some are apple.

Belief or ideology can only bulls@*it its way through life for so long. You can believe all men are created equal, but it is patently and observably not true. Your ideology might assert that a man can be a woman or that race doesn't matter, but eventually, inevitably, GNON will show that the opposite is reality.

GNON is constantly and eternally deconstructing the notion of progress in everything from grass breaking through cracks in the concrete to the rise, fall and rise of the sun, each and every day.

You can believe the sun won't set today. You can believe gravity doesn't apply to you. You can believe you are an oak tree.

See if GNON bows to your beliefs.

You can attempt to believe what you want to be true, or you set aside your hubris and emotional hysteria and discover what is true.

And even that is no more a "personal choice" than obeying the law of gravity is.



...


Sunday, June 12, 2016

Is Mitt Romney A White Nationalist?...


It would appear so!

Holy Cow!

With the internationalist wing of Conservative Inc. holding a "summit" on the 2016 election in a desperate bid to try and prove that they are still relevant, Mitt Romney (who lost to Barack Hussein Obama in 2012) has seemingly come out of the closet as a representative of nominal White Nationalism.

He expressed concerns about "trickle down racism" due to Barak Obama's administration...WHOOPS!, I mean, in regards to BlackLivesMatter....No, wait, I mean over La Raza, no, no, the Black Panthers, no, the ADL, no...

You get the point.

Romney, a white guy, expressed concern over positions held by HIS People, aka, White people.

See, that's the thing: when  white people expresses concern about "racism" it is ALWAYS in relation to other whites, aka, THEIR COMMUNITY -THEIR PEOPLE.  Which is an act of openly acknowledging the racial balkanization of America.

White people expressing concern about White "racism", White oppression, etc, is an explicit expression of their own White Racial consciousness. To criticize your own people, is to identify them (and with them) in a ethnic/tribal way, acknowledging that they are particular and set apart from non-Whites.

As the U.S. is currently just over 50% White; North America about 25% White; Globally, about 10% White, having a well known politician take such a position publicly is truly groundbreaking.


So Romney's comments are indeed a fantastic development and a historical moment for the cause of White Nationalism!



...





Saturday, June 4, 2016

The Legacy Of Anti-Nationalism...



Little known fact: systems, and the people who empower and participate in them, don’t like to have the ideological pillars upon which said system resides, questioned.

This fact astounds many people!

But it's true.

The extent to which systems will go to insulate themselves from reality, knows no bounds.


Take for example ideological presuppositions such as equality, tolerance and diversity.

Over the past century, more than a billion people were enslaved, and more than 100 million people murdered in the name of equality, tolerance and diversity. 


Great anti-nationalist heroes include, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and Fidel Castro, just to name a few.

And, naturally, every one of them was a mass murdering maniac.

In fact, the promoters and practitioners of racial equality and anti-nationalism have been responsible for more death, destruction and horror than smallpox.


How do the defenders of equality, tolerance and anti-nationalism justify themselves?

By appealing to the utopia: The hypothetical New Eden exists, somewhere, some how, in the distant future. And if oceans of blood are the seas upon which mankind must sail to get there, then so be it. 


That is their creed. Hell on earth is their legacy.




...

Sunday, May 29, 2016

No, You Can't Be A Christian & Fight for Western Civilization...




The great battle now unfolding is about race, not culture or religion as separate things. It is about the destruction of European peoples, not “western civilization” as a tradition, culture or “christendom” apart from the people themselves.

“Western Civilization” is simply what European peoples create, inherently. As such, it has been around for at least 30,000 years years.

Christianity didn’t make it into all of Europe until the 13th century. And even at that it was mostly a socially imposed system used by the rulers, not a supernatural faith.



Much like Political Correctness today, the average man felt compelled to pay it lip service while internally rejecting it.

In fact it’s quite obvious that political correctness, or Cultural Marxism, IS Christianity today. Which is to say, a set of social dogmas that declare their legitimacy via hypothetical applicable moral universals.

Christians may balk at that, but never-the-less they do indeed justify their adherence to Christianity on the basis of its supposed universally applicable axioms and not upon any supernatural, transcendent reality. (see Galatians 1:8)

But even in that they must choose not to reconcile this premise with other passages from the New Testament that make it clear that Christians would always be a persecuted minority in all places and at all times. Thus there can never have been, nor never could be, a Christian civilization, Christian society, Christian nation, Christian state, Christian town or even a Christian family or Christian marriage. (see Matt. 10:22, Matt 7:13, Matt 10:36)

So yes, the christian message declares itself to be objectively unnatural and thus subjectively true, all the while insinuating a mandate of universal adherence.

Sound familiar? Yes, this is the bedrock of political correctness and cultural Marxism, both of which represent the natural evolution of Christian thought.

If you start with, “there is neither Greek nor jew, male nor female in Christ”, you are going to end up with interracial and gay marriage and genderless bathrooms.


And if you’re having trouble following this, let me re-state: the Christian (or Gospel) message is predicated upon claimed universally applicable axioms and not upon supernatural, transcendent reality. The universal call for repentance in conjunction with the declaration that the kingdom of God was at hand by the “incarnate word” illustrates this fact, beyond any objection.

God was in the flesh HERE, calling upon men to repent HERE in order to inaugurate the kingdom of God HERE.

But how? What was the construct?



Again, Christ’s version of repentance was not about past actions but for unsanctioned, previously held, thoughts, beliefs or ideas. (see Matt 5: 21-22, 27-28)

This can be seen at work today among Christians and cultural Marxists alike who “reach out in love” to gay people engaging in homosexual acts, but spit vindictive hate at Whites who hold “racist ideas” (that race is a physical objective reality is a threat to their paradigm).


So we see the organic movement of Christianity. It was never about the transcendent or supernatural. It was, ironically as it may sound to some, about the secular world of man, whose person-hood is manifested solely through what he chooses to hold as beliefs.

This is why Jesus inexplicably leaves planet earth at the end of the gospel narrative. Having fulfilled his mission: he preached the word, and then died on behalf of all the people who held ideas and beliefs that were not complimentary to the hypothetical universal set of moral abstracts.

Then he rose from the grave and rode a cloud into outer space. (see Acts 1:9)

Had he remained upon planet earth there would have been that little problem of the supernatural/transcendent issue (he was god after all). But with Jesus leaving earth there remains nothing but the mind of man to deal with.

As the heathen would say, actions speak louder than words. Or, in this case, actions speak louder than the word.


But as Christianity aims to stand above the physical  natural world and reality, how then to deal with this?


Within the christian paradigm, sin is thought crime (Ephesians 6:12). It is thoughts, ideas and beliefs that send men to hell, not deeds.

And naturally then with political correctness and cultural Marxism, it is not actions that are bad, but ideology. The actions that may or may not follow from ideology or belief are not factored into Christianity/Marxism, because, for it, ideas are all that count and the physical, natural world is a shadow to be feared and driven away with the illuminating light of proper beliefs.

Therefore,

Open borders is not a physical geographical reality, but an ideological belief.

Marriage is not a biological reality, but an ideological belief.

The kingdom of God is not a physical place, but an ideological belief.


And from this we can see the overarching problem as it relates to race, ethnicity, gender, etc.

Christianity does not transcend the physical world towards another dimension, it transcends the physical world towards the "inner man". “As a man thinks within himself, so is he” -Proverbs, 23:7

If you think properly, you are saved. If you think the right ideas, you are in heaven.

And if you think wrong -if you acknowledge the natural world, you are a pagan or atheist and you are in hell.


The Problem

Of course the big obstacle with all this is that the White Man, no matter how hard he tries to be a good Christian/Politically Correct, can’t help but to see hard, physical reality as more real and significant to the value of life than beliefs and ideas. He can’t quite suppress the intuition that nature is the supreme (and only) power in this world and beliefs and ideas cannot affect it one iota.

This is a problem for the children of the kingdom of God. And so we see them drop the pretense and engage in an all out physical/material war on the White man.



Conclusion

Christianity interacts with the real world by asking men to adopt certain ideas as a way for them to transcend the real world, without ever leaving it. Thus for them, “change” is always in relation to the beliefs of a man, and never to material alterations of the physical man or the world.

And of course underlying all of this is the “one god”.

One god to rule them all, one god to find them,
One god to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.


Unlike the many gods, who interacted with man and the world via natural forces (wind, rain, thunder, winter, harvests, fertility, etc) the one god conveniently resides “outside of time and space” and thus interacts with men via the “holy spirit” which, in turn, interacts with the heart/mind of man and not the physical man or the natural world.

Again, we see that with Christianity, like cultural Marxism, ideology/beliefs are everything and reality is at best, nothing, and at worst, the enemy.


Earth and sky, water and fire, flesh and blood. To the christian these things can be no more than crude symbols for the “inner man” to ponder as a foreshadowing of greater enlightenment to come.

This is why they can not fight for Western Civilization. Western Civilizaion is the physical  European race of peoples, not a religion, philosophy, proposition or creed. It is physical, not an idea.





...




Saturday, May 14, 2016

Invasion Of Europe And The Global North...

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

Why?
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:


Nation
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.

...