Monday, July 24, 2017

America's Original Sin?

The cult of White guilt in America is ubiquitous and is especially insidious because it tends to pop up in unexpected places and is reinforced via subtle and endless reminders designed to cement in the minds of every White American that they are bad people because of the misdeeds, real and imagined and inflated, of prior generations of Whites whether they are related or not. As such we all deserve to be insulted and punished at every opportunity. The opposite is never true of course. We are never given credit for creating the greatest and most enduring civilization known to mankind (We wuz kangz, you didn't build that, etc.) and other civilizations are never to blame for past abuses or current failings. The movement to replace White civilization, culture and ultimately the people themselves can only happen in a setting where White self-loathing and guilt gives the impression that the world would be a better place if Whites were gone and we pretended that Whites never existed. The obvious inconvenient truth that people from non-White nations are desperate to get to majority White nations because they recognize that nations run by Whites are better places to live no matter your skin color is best left unsaid.

The reason I bring this up is something I read the other day on Fox News. It had to do with a new show from the producers of the hit HBO show Game of Rape Thrones, David Benioff and D.B. Weiss. The new show will be called Confederate and is a fictional look at what the world would be like if the South had won the War between the States. As with anything Confederacy related, this show is already cancer. After all, it might accidentally portray a Southerner as something other than an uber-evil ogre that only bought blacks slaves so they can rape black women and we cannot allow that! The show sounds interesting, I like alternative historical fiction from the likes of authors like Harry Turtledove because it is fascinating to think how the world would be different if events happened in a slightly different way. That isn't why I am writing. What caught my attention and the point of my post was this line:
Taking on issues involving race and America's original sin - slavery - was sure to court controversy, Benioff said.
I have seen that phrase before. Why exactly is slavery America's "original sin" when slavery did not originate in America? Slavery predated America and lingered (and lingers) well after the Civil War. Slavery was practiced and is practiced in Africa, and of course many slaves sold to traders who ended up in America were captured and enslaved by fellow black Africans. Slavery was common throughout most of human history in one form or another and was common in non-White cultures. We see it repeatedly mentioned, although not condoned, in the Bible. In fact America is one of the few places where Whites fought and died in large numbers over the issue, a vicious and bloody war between Whites that ended up with American slaves being freed.

Unfortunately slavery was and remains the most useful weapon in the arsenal of those who wish to impugn Whites and denigrate Western civilization. No matter how the facts present the history of slavery, it is always and only the fault of Whites. Slavery is the sin that keeps on giving because no matter what good Whites have done, it is irrelevant because of slavery, and no matter what ills befall blacks it is never their fault, also because of slavery, even though there are no living former slaves or slave owners and haven't been for some time.

Pay attention to the language people use and call them on it when the language they use is aimed at pushing a false narrative. Slavery might have been sinful but it was not and is not unique to Whites or America. When we let others redefine history in order to create a framework that provides cover for the replacement of Whites civilization, culture and people, we are accessories to racial murder. Be sure you are informed because the assault on our people is constant.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Didn't See That Coming: A Diversity Hire's Diversity Hire Kills White Woman

A bizarre news story has fillled the web over the last few days of Mohamed Noor, a male Somali immigrant police officer who shot, apparently while seated and across his partner, an unarmed and by all accounts completely harmless White woman. As of early this morning, there are reports now that he fired his weapon in response to a "loud sound". As a gun owner I often unbuckle and draw my holstered weapon and shoot right across another person out of a car window at women in pajamas because I am startled by a loud sound. Of course the bodycams of both officers were not turned on. Perhaps if dyke police chief JaneƩ Harteau was more concerned about basic police procedures and less concerned with dancing around with her fellow sexual degenerates, waving the rainbow flag and celebrating sodomy pride, officers under her command would't be startled by loud sounds, draw their sidearm from a sitting position, shoot across their seated partner and gun down an unarmed, obviously non-threatening White woman in her pajamas. But then again, what else would you expect?

"Chief" JaneƩ Harteau, who crows on her Twitter page about being the mother of a "beautiful daughter", no mention of a husband or father of course since not only is she a girl she is also an open lesbian (I am shocked and stunned by this revelation), and being the "1st female MPD police chief" is pretty obviously a diversity hire, just like "Officer" Noor. Maybe she is a great cop and leader, probably not. She is a woman, a lesbian and Minneapolis is in the great diverse state of Minnesota (Hillary 46.44%, Trump 44.92%) after all and not surprisingly her boss the mayor is also a woman. My wife commented to me that when women are in charge they are ruled by their feelings instead of reason and facts and that is obviously on display here. A Somali, Abu Kassim Jeilani, got shot by cops in Minneapolis (while waving around a machete and crowbar) and the prior chief thought this was awful and could be avoided by hiring Somali police officers. That worked out well, huh?

The whole thing reminded me of a scene from 48 Hours where Eddie Murphy borrows Nick Nolte's badge and gun to get information from a "redneck" bar.

"I'm your worst nightmare, I'm a nigger with a badge"

Replace "nigger" with "Somali", for the sake of precision, and you get the situation in Minneapolis. Noor is one of 9 Somalis on the Minneapolis police force, so statistically White women in Minneapolis have at least a one in nine chance of getting murdered if they encounter a Somali cop.

Once upon a time societal institutions like the police and the military were intended to serve a specific purpose: to keep the citizens, who grant them lethal force authority and fund their existence via their taxes, safe from criminals and foreign adversaries respectively. Now? Now you can't even get enough "conservatives" in the House of Representatives to vote to overturn the policy of having the military pay for the "gender reassignment" surgery for mentally ill people who somehow got into the military and you have a "police chief" hiring people from primitive cultures and giving them guns, at least when they take a break from prancing around with rainbow sodomy pride flags. Ironically the same people that she hires as cops will someday be the people throwing perverts like Chief Cunnilingus off buildings. The MPD is obviously sold out on this idea, based on the crowing of Chief Harteau (did I mention she is the first female chief of police in Minneapolis?! And a lesbian!!!!) about promoting a Hispanic, Medaria Arradondo, to be assistant chief. The website for the Minneapolis police is like a poorly done parody site mocking social justice. Look at out staff!

So a Hispanic of some sort, a colored officer, a Muslim of some sort and a butch looking woman. If you keep scrolling you run into some White men, but even there you have a White cop with a little Muslim girl in a hijab. I would be willing to bet that the actual officers on the force are majority White males, but even that might not be true anymore. What White man would want to put his life on the line for people who by and large hate him and who will blame him for being too forceful or not forceful enough no matter what he does, not to mention the humiliation of having a lesbian ordering you around? Serve and protect has been replaced by pander and "pride".

It is suicidal to continue to bring in people from primitive cultures to flood our nation. To turn around and give those same primitives guns and the legal cover to use lethal force simply hastens the suicide.

Wake up.

The word diversity is just a polite way of saying White genocide and now it is simply getting more blatant. 

I don't think Mohamed Noor was intentionally planning on striking a blow for White genocide, given the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans I doubt he could think that far ahead. But the murder of a White woman by Mohamed Noor is the inevitable result of a policy that places feelings and "diversity" over public safety and cultural survival.

Look at these two. One is dead and the other killed her. I am not super excited about importing spiritual healers or whatever silly but harmless nonsense Justine Damond was into but I would take 100 of her coming to this country over one of Mohamed Noor's ilk.

Monday, July 17, 2017

The Great (Virtue Signaling) Commission

The most well known ending of the four Gospels is found in Matthew 28:18-20. Jesus speaking to His disciples upon rising from the grave sends them forth with Good News....
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20 KJV)
These words are the command of Christ that has driven much of the church for the next 2000 years. Countless missionaries and evangelists have gone to all the ends of the earth to preach the Gospel. They have also gone across the street. Later in the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles we see more details from Jesus on this sending:
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. (Acts 1:8)
Take note of the order. The Gospel goes out locally to globally. He doesn't say this and I am loathe to put words in His mouth but it seems that He is saying that we should preach where we are first and foremost. Even in America with a church on every corner and sometimes two, there are a ton of unsaved people. That is due in part to our assumption that being an American = being a Christian and also thanks to a ton of confused to heretical "churches". From liberal, apostate denominations like the United Methodists and the Episcopalians to historic enemies of the Gospel like the original globalists in Roman Catholicism to out-and-out heretics like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, America has been a breeding ground from cranks and crackpots and has proven to be fertile soil for both the Gospel and for anti-Christs.

If you ask any even slightly aware Christian they will admit that there are a ton of people who are lost in a small circle around their home and that there are a ton of people with real, legitimate needs in that same circle. So why then do we see so much focus on overseas mission and mercy work?

The simple answer is that it is White guilt mission porn, virtue signaling under the guise of the Gospel. Most of my social media contacts in my "real" life are Christians and that means social media pages full of photos of White Christians in some far off land, grinning at the camera with a black, Hispanic or Southeast Asian kid. They are overwhelmingly "vacationaries", blending a week or two long "mission trip" with a little vacation to an exotic locale. It is how we get street cred in church. Why don't we see photos very often of those same folks in Appalachia or other rural areas in the U.S. wrecked by opiod addiction, broken families, unwed mothers, unemployment, hunger and poor medical and dental care? Read Hillbilly Elegy and tell me there isn't a need in rural, White America. I am afraid the answer is that we feel better about ourselves if we are seen to be "helping" non-Whites. A picture of me with a little boy in West Virginia coal country is not going to get a lot of heart "likes" and emoji on Facebook. But a picture with a little girl in Vietnam or a couple of little black kids in Ethiopia is going to shower me with virtue signaling manna. Perhaps you think I am being harsh but if you are honest with yourself you know I am right. Even Samaritan's Purse, a monster of a relief agency with over $634,000,000 in contributions and other support according to their annual report, a number that staggered me even though I was expecting a large figure, bills itself as an "International Relief" agency and fills their webpage and annual report and marketing materials with pictures of kids from around the world, even though they actually do a lot of work in the United States. One place you won't find much diversity is on their board of directors who all kind of look like me, just older:

A dozen board members and they are 100% White men. Many would complain about a lack of diversity. I would too, where are all of the "people of color"? Or is mission work overseas just a burden for Whites? I am willing to bet that their missionaries, aid workers, staff, etc. are also overwhelmingly White. Even though Whites are a small percentage of the world's total population, we do an incredibly out sized amount of mission and mercy work that far exceeds our representation in the world. Yes I know, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. " (Luke 12:48). Also "With great power comes great responsibility", Spiderman's Uncle Ben Parker. I don't deny that. I also understand that in the U.S. a lot of the social safety net is already provided by the Feds. I just don't see where "Well Caesar has America covered, so off to Ecuador we go!" is in the Bible. Many Christians have been on a lifelong guilt trip from the pulpit that tells them that they should feel bad about having running water and Uber.

Another issue is simple stewardship. For example, just using Travelocity and picking a date in September, I found airfare for one from O'Hare to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia is over $1,000 and that cheapest flight takes over 38 hours and sounds kind of sketchy. That doesn't take into account other expenses like meals, housing while you are there, vaccinations, extra cost for luggage, the need for a passport, the time commitment, etc. On the other hand, driving from Chicago to Charleston, WV is about a 500 mile trip and takes about 7 hours. Even in a big church van getting 10 mpg that is 100 gallons of gas round trip and at an inflated $2.50 a gallon that is $250 plus meals and accommodations. The difference is that a big church van can carry a dozen people or more so the cost per person is next to nothing compared to over a grand for a single person to go to Ethiopia. So ten people could go to West Virginia for less than the cost of one person going to Ethiopia. Rather than sending White aid workers and missionaries overseas, it is much more cost-effective to have them serve and evangelize in the U.S. and if you are so led send cash to local aid groups and missionaries so that they can make a living and also work with people with whom they share a culture and language, instead of English speaking Whites. If you don't think places with a heavy mission work presence like Guatemala, Haiti and others have a lot of people who take advantage of White American Christians, you are naive. I have been overseas and I know it happens. For a fraction of the cost and with far greater impact American churches can aid people in the U.S. who need help and the Gospel plus reach far more efficiently and effectively people in third world nations by supporting local missionaries.

Don't even get me started on the need for the Gospel in Europe. According to one survey, something like 5% of of people in the United Kingdom attend church services, which is by far the lowest bar possible for gauging actual faith, and American Christians share a lot of culture and have a common language with Brits. In other Western European nations the numbers are just as bad. Only in places like Poland is church attendance still strong and most Poles are attending the Catholic Mass which is almost as bad as not going to church at all. In general, apart from Muslim majority nations, according to Wikipedia the least Christian nations are European. So why no mission trips to England or Poland or the Ukraine or Sweden? I know of some Christians that do go to majority White nations like Russia and the Ukraine but nowhere near the numbers that go to non-White nations. The only explanation that makes sense is that we get more satisfaction out of being seen to be compassionate toward black and brown people than we do White people. Little Colombian or Kenyan orphans generate more social media love than little Russian orphans even though it seems iron-clad to me that it is more efficient and effective to send money instead of White missionaries and aid workers.

Somewhere along the line we seem to have forgotten the purpose of the Great Commission. It is to spread the Gospel and make disciples, not to go for a week to a third world nation so we can post pictures on Instagram of little brown and black kids to signal our virtue. It is not that I think non-Whites are less in need of or deserving of the Gospel and simple mercy. The Gospel is for all people everywhere. I am simply making the case that we need to be smart and realistic about how we allocate our resources. For what it costs to send a "team" of "missionaries" to some third world country for a week to paint a building and take pictures of little non-White kids you could realistically fund a number of indigenous workers for a year or more. Hire a Dominican to paint the orphanage so he can also feed his family instead of paying thousands of dollars so a White church lady can do the same thing.

Let's set our virtue signaling and White guilt aside and start serving with our heads as well as our hearts. You don't get extra points in Heaven by guilt-driven fundraising to go to Ghana instead of going to Alabama and the Lamb's Book of Life doesn't have links to your Facebook page.

Sunday, July 16, 2017

Race And Civilization Cannot Be Divorced

Lauren Southern (who is not right on every issue but she is more right than not and I believe is getting righter by the day, plus is a bit of eye candy) posted a video a while back on the Great Replacement. Here it is below if you want to watch....

During the video there was a screenshot of an older article (from 2000) from The Guardian titled not-so-subtly "The last days of a white world". It is pretty old so the data it has is both stuff we already know and way out of date. The article is nothing special and as it comes from a far Left publication it glosses over or ignores the seriousness of the issue with quotes like this:
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of the Foreign Policy Centre, who arrived in London from Uganda in 1972, said such fears are basically racist: 'Only white people worry about this. It's because for such a long time the world has been their own. To talk about it feeds a particular type of racism that says that blacks breed like rabbits. There is an underlying assumption that says white is right.'
She added: 'There is a white panic every time one part of their world seems to be passing over to anyone else. But it's foolish to panic about it. So what if we do become a majority? What difference does it make?'
For Alibhai-Brown, the decline of whites is a question of redressing the balance after they colonised much of the world. 'The empire strikes back really. There was this extraordinary assumption that white people could go and destroy peoples and it would have no consequence. It astounds me,' she said.
Almost two decades later in 2017 as the hordes of "migrants" invade Europe and slowly but inexorably mutate what was for centuries the heart of civilization, not just Western civilization but civilization period, I think many of us and more by the day are answering her question "What difference does it make?". I would wonder why Yasmin, who came to London in 1972, stays in Europe if it makes no difference whether a country is populated by White European or Ugandans. I went to her Wikipedia page and was treated to this little gem:
Alibhai-Brown was born into the Ugandan Asian community in Kampala in 1949; her family belonged to the Nizari branch of the Shia Islamic faith, and she identifies as a Shia Muslim. Her mother was born in East Africa and her father moved there from British India in the 1920s.
After graduating in English literature from Makerere University in 1972, Alibhai-Brown left Uganda for Britain, along with her niece, Farah Damji, shortly before the expulsion of Ugandan Asians by Idi Amin, and completed a Master of Philosophy degree in literature at Linacre College, University of Oxford, in 1975. After working as a teacher, particularly with immigrants and refugees, she moved into journalism in her mid-thirties. She is married to Colin Brown, chairman of the Consumer Services Panel of the Financial Services Authority. The couple have a daughter, and Alibhai-Brown has a son from a previous marriage.
So she is a divorced Muslim woman who doesn't cover her head and who essentially fled the paradise known as Uganda when it was taken over by lunatic Idi Amin. Why did she flee to the U.K. only to get a divorce and then marry a White Englishmancuck? Oh that's right. because it was full of people not like herself but then she makes a career out of bashing the people who took her in and gave her shelter, happiness and prosperity, protected from the likes of people like herself. I have more to say on that line of thinking for another day, suffice it to say the sheer ingratitude of the non-Whites who enjoy the fruit of centuries of labor and blood from Whites is infuriating. 

My main point comes from the subheading of the article: We are near a global watershed - a time when white people will not be in the majority in the developed world, Britain included.

You will note if you read the article that the Guardian doesn't lament this seismic change, it seems to celebrate it and if anything be kind of miffed that it is taking so long to happen.

It is nonsensical for the Guardian to have a subheading that talks about "the developed world" with a minority of White people. Apart from a small handful of nations in Asia which are notable for being highly homogenous, there is no developed world apart from majority White nations. That is not a coincidence. It isn't as though the developed world magically sprang up from the earth overnight and the lazy Whites just moved in and occupied it, and it certainly is a fantasy that blacks created civilization and Whites stole it. We created it. The developed world is the direct result of the advancement of White civilization.

A lot of people, concentrated in the ranks of the elites in our culture, are giddy at the prospect of Whites becoming a minority despite the clear and obvious suicidal mindset behind this. The very culture that has made them immensely rich, powerful and influential will evaporate like a morning mist once Whites become a minority and a black, Hispanic and Muslim combination reaches critical mass.

There is a very small contingent of people for whom this change is going to be immensely profitable and they tend to be the loudest advocates for replacement. The very wealthiest among us who can pay to insulate themselves from the impact of the policies they push, who can afford armed guards and high powered attorneys and lawyers and live in segregated communities will be just fine and tend to be disproportionately Jewish, even "conservative" Jews like Jennifer Rubin and William Kristol who openly advocate wholesale replacement. Everyone else will not. Do you suppose that when Whites are a minority and Muslims and blacks dominate our population that having a Coexist bumper sticker on your car and an ACLU donor card in your wallet will stop them from stealing your Prius and raping your wife and children (and perhaps you as well)?

Here is a little thought-experiment I would like you to try. Imagine what America would be like if you could overnight magically remove segments of the population (this is hypothetical to make a point, I am not advocating genocide against any group).

What would America be like if you took away all of the blacks?

We can know a few things for certain. The prison population would shrink dramatically as blacks are wildly over-represented in prison (because they are wildly over-represented in crime). The violent crime rate would drop by a huge percentage as something like 3% of the population, young black men, commit around half of all murders. It would be a long term positive for our economy. As it stands right now, the average black is an enormous net drain on our economy. Vox Day posted The Cost of Black America and shows that the average black receives a net three quarter million dollars in benefits from the system over the course of an average lifespan whereas Whites pay in over $220,000. More on that in a moment. Other than diversity hires at universities and corporations and a contingent of largely low-skill, low-wage workers which could easily be replaced by the increasing number of prime working age White males who are out of the workforce, there would be nothing but benefits if America were suddenly bereft of blacks.

What about Hispanics? A lot of the same things are true as they are heavily over-represented in crime and prison. They are largely lower wage, lower skill workers but at least they do fill a niche but one again that could be filled by unemployed/underemployed Whites. Like blacks they are net takers from the system, although at a lower rate ($7,298 for Hispanics versus $10,016 annually for blacks). So again the result would be a net benefit to the U.S..

Well what about Whites? Remove the White population and America collapses. Immediately. We make up the vast majority of the tax base in our role as tax cattle for minorities. We make up the vast majority of professional jobs, executive positions and the skilled trades. Education, academia, the arts, the "culture", all are dominated by Whites. Who would feed America as Whites make up most of the farming population especially outside of South? Well sure you might say, Whites are the majority of the population so we couldn't do without them! Even if you could swap average blacks or Hispanics one for one for Whites, it wouldn't be the same. Blacks and Hispanics, especially blacks, simply have a lower average IQ and sit largely on the lower end of the bell curve for intelligence. In spite of untold billions spent to try to bring minorities closer to the same academic achievement level as Whites and Asians, it has been an utter failure and in many ways is getting worse. Those who shrug off or even openly welcome the eradication of White majority status don't seem to understand, or are too rich and connected to care, that aging Whites that will depend on Social Security and Medicare are going to be in trouble as the White tax cattle retire and are "replaced" by low-IQ, low-wage minorities. When push comes to shove and Whites are no longer the majority, do you think that given the choice of funding retirement benefits for old Whites or current welfare benefits for "people of color" that the new non-White majority is going to be appreciative of the society Whites bequeathed to them?

It is inescapable that when Whites are no longer the majority of the developed world that the developed world itself will rapidly collapse. Whites and the developed world go hand in hand. That doesn't necessarily mean that there is no place for non-Whites in the developed world, simply that one cannot replace Whites with non-Whites and end up with an equivalent society. If you replaced the population of India with a White population, India would inevitably change. The same is and will be true in the West. We are about to discover this first hand but unlike something trivial like fashion we will not be able to go back to normal pants when we realize bell-bottoms look stupid. Once the developed world is transformed, it will never go back and the balance of power will shift to places like China/Japan/Korea and Russia and Eastern Europe. For those of us who are left behind, the only question left is what to do about it. Sitting back passively hastens the collapse so our only options are to fight back against the tide of White hatred and suicidal White self-loathing or to seek an Exodus to homes more hospitable to Whites. I am not sure how feasible either of those options are right now but the alternative is for Whites to see America turn into post-apartheid South Africa on a much larger scale and that ought to horrify anyone who cares about the future of our civilization and our culture. 

Repost: Welcome and some thoughts on anonymity on the internet

This was my first post on my prior blog and where I share some ideas about anonymous posting. In our world now with violent leftists of all stripes from black bloc to antifa to Black Lives Matter and everywhere in-between, not to mention any discussion of these issues being cancer among polite society, it is a sad necessity to have to post anonymously at present.



While I have been blogging publicly for more than a dozen years, this is a new venture for me. It is a lot more controversial in some ways than what I have written in the past and consequently it is the first time I have done any blogging anonymously using a pseudonym.  I am not linking to my regular blogging venues nor my social media accounts and am not even using my own name. Before I start posting on the main topics I am interested in, I thought I should talk a bit about why I am posting this way.

I am old enough to have been in the vanguard of the internet explosion which led to the blog world where anyone and everyone can publish their thoughts for the world to see and from there to the social media world. In general I have never been a fan of anonymous posting on the internet. My position is that if you believe in what you are saying, you should have the courage of conviction to stand behind it publicly. If you are unwilling to say who you are when you say something, maybe you ought not say it. So it bothers me to be putting my opinions and rantings out for public dissemination while seeming to hide behind a pseudonym.

It would be nice to be able to write whatever one wants without concern over retaliation.That isn’t the world we live in. If I were a single guy, a loner with no one to hurt and nothing to lose, it wouldn’t matter much but thankfully I am not. Quite the contrary, I have a wife of many years. a household full of kids and a job. While I don’t think my job would be impacted by using my real name, you never can tell in this world. I am quite certain that writing what I plan on writing using my real name would lead to all manner of threats, harassment and even outright harm to my family. You can do whatever you want to me but I don’t see the value in dragging my kids and wife into the fray. When they get out on their own they can do what they want but while they are in my home their safety and well-being is my top priority and my calling as a father. You might see that as a cop-out or hypocritical. That is your call.

So that leaves me with three options. One is to use my real name and take my chances. As stated above that isn’t feasible or prudent for family reasons. Two is to just keep my opinions to myself and that isn’t palatable given the state of the world in general and America in particular. So that leaves me with this compromise. Maybe someday that will change but given the trajectory of the U.S. I really doubt it.

A brief note on my pseudonym. I used the name of a character I played in a MMORPG for many years, El'geherg, although I am currently inactive in that game. I happened to have an email set up with that name to keep my gaming stuff distinct from my real life and already had a Google profile so it was relatively quick and painless to use. 

So that is that. Now on to the main event!

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Repost: The Alt-Right And Christianity

This is a repost from a post on my prior blog. I plan on bringing a few more over as time permits. While I don't fully identify with the alt-right ideology and their methodology, I do identify with many of their goals. The rising tide in some small circles of the alt-right that seeks to drive out Christians is counter-productive and I am glad there is a lot of pushback. On the other hand I think many of us are looking for alternative expressions of our goals.


Christianity and the Alt-Right have a troubled relationship. On the one hand, issues of race realism and nationalism are clearly seen as a threat by people like Russell Moore as shown by the completely random and unnecessary condemnation of the Alt-Right at the recent annual gathering of the Southern Baptist Convention. Evangelical Christianity and conservative branches of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy (for clarity, I don't consider Catholicism or Orthodoxy to be genuine expression of Christianity, to a lesser extent than outright heretical movements like Mormonism) are also the single greatest source of potential recruits as they are dominated by White men who are also politically conservative and less likely than the average Joe to be completely cucked. On the other hand, there are plenty of loud voices in the Alt-Right who seem hell bent on denigrating the Christian faith, preferring a thoroughly secular movement, or at least one that elevates ancient and dead pagan religions or demands, ironically like the Left, that Christians keep their mouths shut about their faith if they want to get into the alt-right treehouse.

This is self-defeating and destructive.

If this imagery isn't central to your vision for
a White future, your vision is empty and hopeless.

What does the Alt-Right in particular and any hope of rescuing and preserving White European culture more generally need? It needs a lot of White men with wives and children to pass on our values to the next generation and it needs numbers. What does it seem to have and attract a lot of? Unmarried and/or childless bitter young men who don't seem able to distinguish between male headship in the home and church versus garden variety frustration fueled misogyny. There are actually a lot of guys in the alt-right who produce great material that have families but some of the loudest voices are hardly poster-boys for family values and the commenters on those sites are often equally vicious and ignorant when it comes to faith.

How do we bridge the gap between the more garden variety Breitbart conservatives and the Alt-Right? I am not really interested in how to appeal to the Wall Street Journal Republican or the National Review Republican. The WSJ crowd is consumed with tax cuts and tax breaks that may be good policy but are entirely targeted toward a very small, very wealthy group. The NRO crowd is mostly concerned with starting new wars to appease their Jewish neo-con masters. I am concerned with making a place for people who are slowly being driven out of their denominations and political parties and right now the alt-right is kind of a hostile place for them. The future growth of the alt-right and I believe the only hope for our people is not found in bored rich kids who amuse themselves by being an edgy racist and advocate for socialist economic policies or in anonymous internet trolls who have a chip on their shoulders about religion. It is in garden variety, salt of the earth working class and middle class Whites and the reality is that these Whites go to church in huge numbers and that is to their credit. Yammering about Odin worship or accusing all Christians of being complicit in the Catholic priest sex abuse cover-up is going to drive those people away and since they have nowhere else to go it is most likely going to black pill these people and cause them to disengage entirely. Having a majority of Whites blackpilled serves just as well as having them totally cucked.

There are some good voices in the alt-right that balance being a faithful Christian with being a race realist but they are not nearly as popular as others.

For the vision of the alt-right of true self-determination for White Europeans to come to fruition it needs to be a popular movement. Being a fringe movement of internet trolls, memes and based tweets is nice if you want to "be right" while your country burns down around you and your people are exterminated. If you want to see a real future for European people and culture, you need to hit a critical mass of people and the people you need the most are White Christian families. It might not matter to the highly energized but largely impotent people who prowl blogs all day offering what they think is cutting commentary but a guy who works hard building houses for a living to provide for his family and goes to church faithfully on Sunday is not impressed by your juvenile humor nor is he swayed by your clumsy anti-Christianity rhetoric. He also works for a living and could probably snap most pasty basement dwelling internet trolls in half with his bare hands. The people who will make or break this movement are Baptists and Presbyterians as well as Catholics and Russian Orthodox and Mormons and the alt-right drives them away to its peril.

If the alt-right is going to expand beyond a liberal bogeyman and a small cadre of  celebrity racists and their sycophantic followers, it is going to need a lot more people and a whole bunch of those people are in church today. Facts are inconvenient things but that doesn't make them less true. The leaders of the alt-right better figure this out pretty quickly or the alt-right will be just another scalp in the belt of the SPLC and find itself on the ash heap of history next to the skinheads and eventually the White race itself.

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Segregation Graph Porn!

You need to use the restroom, get a cup of coffee and sit down to ingest the latest from Those Who Can SeeSegregation: Our Most Cherished Myths. It is simply stunning in the detail but it is time consuming, as many of the posts there are, because of the sheer volume of data to be absorbed. The big takeaway is that in spite of decade after decade of attempts to force the races together by means of shaming and court orders, we still, both black and white, prefer the company of others like ourselves. When Whites do this, it is of course a sign of racism.

The topic of segregation, like virtually every topic that touches on race in America, is usually so muddled with political and monetary considerations that it is nigh impossible to get the facts. The post I linked above helps to cut through the nonsense and give you some real data to work through and is to be commended for that reason.

Are We Still A Nation And Can We Be Without Being A People?

Pat Buchanan penned an article for Independence Day that covered a lot of the same ground that I did in my post yesterday and asked a very serious question, Is America Still A Nation?. That is a question a lot of people are asking and alongside that question we are revisiting the topic of what it means to be a people. Pat quotes the references to being one people from the Declaration, the Constitution and even from the Federalist No. 2 and specifically speaking of the words of John Jay he asks:
If such are the elements of nationhood and peoplehood, can we still speak of Americans as one nation and one people?
We no longer have the same ancestors. They are of every color and from every country. We do not speak one language, but rather English, Spanish and a host of others. We long ago ceased to profess the same religion. We are Evangelical Christians, mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, agnostics and atheists.
Federalist No. 2 celebrated our unity. Today’s elites proclaim that our diversity is our strength. But is this true or a tenet of trendy ideology?
Pat then comes to the same question that so many are pondering today. In the Declaration of Independence the words used spoke of dissolving the bonds that unite us and Pat wonders "Are we approaching such a point? " of dissolving those bonds once again. I think we all know deep down that we are. People of traditional American stock, White Europeans of various sorts, increasingly have nothing in common with each other much less with minorities and not only little in common but the competing groups are openly hostile toward one another. Scratch that, only some groups are allowed to be openly hostile. The rest of us are so far relegated to online ranting and a slow, simmering burn. When the people who built this land and provided a superior way of life to so many ungrateful net takers have now been reduced to tax cattle, government controlled livestock permitted just enough sustenance to keep us showing up to work and paying taxes to fund benefits for others, it is only a matter of time before that simmering resentment explodes.

Pat Buchanan has been kind of a lonely voice for many years on the public stage. Once relegated to the wilderness for his political incorrectness, he now is back in full force. At 78 he has lived long enough to see a lot of what he warned us about coming true. If he lives another 15 years one wonders if he will survive to see the United States of America dissolve and/or collapse. It is not the outcome he hoped for but it is the outcome he was prescient enough to see coming. I guess we should have listened to him a few decades ago. I wonder what this country would be like if Pat had won the GOP nomination in 1996 and run against Clinton instead of Viagra-popping, stage falling off, self-referencing automation Bob Dole. If he had won the general election, would we be in this state? Perhaps but at least we would have had a fighter in the White House.