Posted by DanielS on Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:09 | #

One other minor criticism. While the banner image is visually appealing it is a bit off the mark in terms of your message. The banner image might have been better if you had a church or two among those buildings.

As it is, it almost looks like you are advising people against being herded into some pretty benign western business institutions.

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:55 | #

I think it would be pretty unlikely that a person would arrive at that conclusion once they start reading that article and they realise that I’m attacking the churches, and not village corner shops. The banner is designed to invoke a sense of a European community, in the way that everyone really thinks of it.

The lack of a church there is entirely intentional.

Regarding your first comment, I think what happened there is that you wrote your comment before reaching the end of my article, so your writing is talking about constructing a parallel set of institutions with a parallel moral order which would supersede the present one, which is exactly what I am calling for at the end of the article when I quote myself saying, “support for parallel civic organisations that strengthen national bonds of blood and proximity”. Perhaps we disagree on what those things should look like, but I did indeed mention it.

I don’t agree that in the absence of these parallel institutions, that Christianity should appear as any kind of substitute. Christianity is so bad that it’s actually better to have nothing at all than to have that.

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:14 | #

I’m not saying that it should appear as a substitute, but that it can loom as substitute for those who see the catastrophe that liberalism has brought to bear against them and find no sufficient compassion in Jewish politics or objecivism – particularly when everyone and all the liberals are just too cool, “edgy” and “Nietzschean” (add Richard Spencer’s lisp) to talk in terms of a moral order, which, no matter what they say, WILL BE, however crude, no matter what anyway – there will always be some things that are obligatory, some things that are legitimate and some things that are prohibited – and therefore suggests all the more reason to take agentive (human) account and marshaling of the moral rule structure.

A civic rule structure might suffice to invoke a portion of the population, but probably not enough. The imagery that George Bush invoked to inspire the first Gulf War is likely to be even more suspect, even though I know what you mean and do not object personally.

Nor do I really have a big problem with the banner image, just wanted to call attention to the fact that people shouldn’t be confused by the disconnect there – the angle of the streets seem to have one perceptually herded into a place where there are no churches to be herded to anyway – so what is being suggested by the image? OK, you’ve answered the question. Nevermind.

I am not criticizing your article. On the contrary. It is excellent. But neither do I recommend that anyone who cares about European people gloss over my comment. It is important. Very. It matters not one bit that I had not finished reading to conclusion when writing it. I read to conclusion and saw fit to change nothing.

 Posted by Santoculto on Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:37 | #

The first fatal mistake that is committed by wn or ethno-nationalist Euro-Caucasians it is to recover all or most of the white people. As it says in the Bible in the flood fable, ‘go ahead, do not look back.’ ’ I do not think bad that many whites, say, many them who are very stupid, to be voluntarily anti-white, that is, anti themselves. It is a less work for you. The problem is with this filter, eliminating almost the creative population, which is essential for the survival and evolution of any human population.

The second is to continue until now to believe that Christianity, roughly speaking, a cult full of ridiculous contradictions and worship to the certain metaphysical divine Jewish family, will be the salvation of the white race. One of the biggest culprits for centuries of exploitation and enslavement of white people was precisely the ‘’ religion ‘’ Christianism. Christianity never bothered to eugenically improve the white race and the result unfortunate we can see right now, where a large portion of the Euro-Caucasians just do not have any sense of instinct or survival, are materialists, naive and intellectually lazy.

Leftists are unaware Puritan Christians, they just interpret the bible literally and separate his good side, however vague and potentially problematic. The main evidence of this relationship between liberalism and Christianity we can draw the pathetic phrase ‘’ turn the other cheek ‘. What liberals do when dealing confessed and evident criminals, specially white-haters,  as poor victims is what the Bible preaches in one of his endless pages and probably comes in flagrant contradiction in the later verse.

If Christianity were pro-white, we would not be living in a world where a significant portion of the white population simply has no survival capacity of evolutionary creativity.

Western civilization was already falling rotten, a long time. It wasn’t the fall of Christianity as a cultural force, especially in Europe, which caused the Western decadence, were the spiritual structures that were already very vulnerable and caused in large parts by the christianity.

Christianism always was and always will be universalists, just look at to the latin hell merca. The original shape of christianism is catholicism, look again for latin merca.

In a globalized world christianism become still more counterproductive to the healthy euro-caucasian CO-existences.

Catholic croatians and ortodoxh serbians kill one each other recently. Nope, never was pro-white.

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 11 Mar 2016 20:04 | #

Leftists are unaware Puritan Christians

Red Leftists, Marxists (standard or cultural) or liberals is the preferred term here.

Not just plain “Leftists”, please.

 Posted by Santoculto on Fri, 11 Mar 2016 22:16 | #

DanielS,
leftist is a generalized term, in my opinion, people who are leaning to the left, communist, nihilist, multiculturalist, etc.
If you dislike the use of this term as generalized political or ideological term, ok, i understand.

 Posted by The White Left on Fri, 11 Mar 2016 22:50 | #

I understood what you meant by it but it isn’t a mere preference on my part that our antagonists should not be cast as “The Left.” It is important to distinguish because it is a coercion (by the YKW) of Whites to habituate them to refer to the enemy as “the Left” – that keeps Whites from social organization – the unionizing function.

Furthermore, what keeps happening to people who want to argue against the term “Left” is that they have to “magically” shift terms to “liberal”, often in the next sentence, as you did.

It happens consistently with people who want to argue against “The Left” from a White perspective – as it happens to “The Political Cesspool”, for example, all the time. They start out criticizing “the left” and wind up complaining about “liberals.”

It is hard to avoid these sudden shifts in terms, because they are really arguing against liberalism as it is applied to White people, while it has nothing to do with their left, a White Left, their social unionization – although Jewish journalese and academia has convinced people that the sophisticated thing to do is to argue against “The Left.”

The terms “left and right” did not start out as a Jewish game, but Jews figured out that social organization and popular appeal would happen through social unionization and accountability. While people would be put-off, if not downright frightened by, the right and its unaccountable elitism and pretense of objectivity. Hence they want us to identify as “right” to turn people off and to keep us socially disorganized by having us argue against “The Left.”

I don’t object to Red Left, Jewish Left, Marxist, Cultural Marxist, Liberal, Neo-Liberal, Neo-Cons, Jewish interests etc, as terms for antagonistic ideologies, but I have to oppose referring to our antagonists as “The Left” because it is a seriously misleading orientation.

BTW, not bad comment

 Posted by cladrastis on Sat, 12 Mar 2016 17:38 | #

Kumiko,

Your best point is that Christianity is a massive pack (I would say sack) of lies. If the North American/European New Right is opposed to anything, it is the mendacity of Leftist ideology. The root, of course, is that the Left believes in the equality of men (between individuals and groups). This, among other Leftist lies, is demonstrably false. We have a responsibility to the truth (a value shared by all rightists/traditionalists) to confront the lies of both the religious and secular Left and assume the moral high ground. I think there is probably a similar psychological mechanism being triggered when Scandinavians (or Minnesotans!) engage in self-deceptive behavior with respect to migrants and multicultural policies that have demonstrably eroded the quality of life in Scandinavia and the self deception that otherwise intelligent Christians are engaged in when they choose to believe in the literalism of the Bible, which is demonstrably FALSE. Kevin MacDonald is writing a book right now about the evolution of the European psyche, and it will be interesting to read his observations about this obvious deficit (ie self deception) in the European people. I personally think it has something to do with the fact that (NW) European groups are organized around the moral in-group, and self-deception helps maintain the borders of this moral in-group; as a consequence, the only way we can break the chains of the existing moral consensus is to create a new moral in-group that is organized around a shared, revolutionary system of values that includes defending the moral borders of truth, justice, beauty, the pursuit of excellence, and the sacredness of life.

 Posted by DanielS the incommensurate on Sat, 12 Mar 2016 18:11 | #

Your best point is that Christianity is a massive pack (I would say sack) of lies. If the North American/European New Right is opposed to anything, it is the mendacity of Leftist ideology. The root, of course, is that the Left believes in the equality of men (between individuals and groups). This, among other Leftist lies, is demonstrably false

cladrastis,

Kumiko will answer when she can, but I must intervene right there and now.

“The Left” is your cardboard foil and it is a term that Jews have tricked you into shadow boxing against; but worse, “inequality” is what they have suckered you into arguing on behalf-of.

As you’ve accepted their paradigm – “equality/ inequality.”

Now think for a moment about

1) what they have you arguing on behalf of – inequality.

2) what they have you arguing against – equality

And you want to gain popularity?

You want to inspire confidence that you are a careful reader of the “the truth”?

..that this is a subtle description of reality and is important distinctions?

Here is one of the essays where I argue that the fundamental matter is sameness and difference and the difference that makes a difference is incommensurability – these are qualitative differences as it were, as opposed to equality and inequality, a quantitative matter prone to false comparison where applied by default.

This is an important argument, serving to illustrate how the Right is retarded, easy dupes for Jews and why they turn off normal people.

the only way we can break the chains of the existing moral consensus is to create a new moral in-group that is organized around a shared, revolutionary system of values that includes defending the moral borders of truth, justice, beauty, the pursuit of excellence, and the sacredness of life.

I’ve been saying for a long time, in several places, including in my comment above, that we need to construct a new moral order (social rule structure) to replace Christianity; but you have apparently chosen to ignore that as well, I don’t know why, but perhaps to reserve a place in the tentosphere and help keep its right wing circus spinning its wheels in reciprocally escalating and socially destructive diatribe.

 Posted by wake up white man! on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:04 | #

Speaking of discursive structures directing the sheeple to be herded into Abrahamic mind-control centers, there is church on every corner in the towns of Indiana, U.S.A.

So TT informs us, to his utter disgust.

Reality is not lived here, it is a living a nightmare.

If only the majority of American White men would wake up.

But no, the nightmare known is preferred – they live the Book of Revelation, Beast from the Abyss, Seven plagues, etc. LOL.

“Can’t save the sheeple, they will just have to be culled.” – TT

 Posted by “Churches and liquor stores” on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:19 | #

Centerville U.S.A.: Living the nightmare, the bad trip as it were..

“Churches and liquor stores”

 Posted by Santoculto on Sun, 20 Mar 2016 13:18 | #

I think whites tend to be very “mentalistic” and also mechanicist while blacks are hyper mentalistic and east Asians are hypo-mentalistic, spectrum that correlates with religion, “philosophy’, social and emotional skills and in their dead end tend to cause psychosis while the mechanicistic spectrum tend to cause autism spectrum.

But I think the cause for western decadence is not just or fundamentally the European psyche. If east Asians were submitted to the same situation I think they will react even worst than Europeans. It’s not a white psyche issues but a structural changes where the western societies were reprogrammed to sabotage itself. Human societies are functionally specific and hierarchical. There are a subgroups with cognitive skills who are specialized to execute certain and specific functions in the society.

The roots to the “European” vulnerability start very early where we no have any eugenic (intellectual) direction to increase the capacity of ordinary individuals to understand reality, know their weakness and strengths, know other people and understand abstract reality.

One of the greater advantages of Ashkenazi is their superior capacity to verbal abstract thinking. They are better to manipulate the reality than others.

Christianism while a sack of obvious and ridiculous lies is one of the most important causes to this deficit. A lot of white nationalists are just like other people. They were created in a environment where there is a implicitly clear relationship between religion and race realism, many times, which were promoted by their own fathers or family. Most of humans need a metaphysical compensation to the existential doubt of the sense of the life.
Deception is evolutively useful to avoid that most of us become existentially depressed.

Christianism promote itself using white people but it no have racial loyalty. Just look for Latin America.

 Posted by Santoculto on Sun, 20 Mar 2016 15:21 | #

The idea that christianism become corrupted just recently is the evidence to the historical ignorance where “church” commit all kind of crimes against European creativity, women and the right to the decent life or dignity during thousand years. Churches had been worked with those who are in the power. It’s a instrument to submission and slavery of humankind specially the European humanity and with greater implications to the own intellectual evolution and independence of thinking. Christianity and every religion or ideology work directly against the evolution of humanity. Religion select hyper conformist brain dead slaves or serviles and corrupted deeply the very important notion of morality.

Most of truly intellectual smart people jus look for idiotic story of bible and others and choice the obvious answer. Why so many smart whites become anti-white?? One of the obvious answer is the association that jewische media promote between white cause and religion.

I think many-to-most white nationalists don’t know how they are confronting, the geniuses of manipulation. This asymmetry where the enemies know much more about European populations than the otherwise must to stop.