Tuesday, May 10, 2011

E. Michael Jones defines

Jews collaborate in the promotion of this sort of racism because it keeps Jews in line. Instead of distinguishing between racism, which is bad, and anti-Judaic principles, which are required of every Christian, Jews try to portray the anti-Judaism that is part and parcel of Christianity as a form of racism. Jews, in other words, manipulate the term “anti-Semitism” for their own political advantage:

Anti-Judaic thought is part of the foundation of Christianity and Communism, to mention just two of the most important ideologies. Jews try to present the anti-Judaic line as racism. Though anti-Judaic thought has existed for hundreds of years, Jews insist on using the name of “anti-Semitism,” a rather short lived racial theory of the 19th century. For the anti-Semite, a Jew has inherent and unchangeable inborn qualities, while anti-Jewish thought analyses and fights Judaic tendency.

Instead of admitting that there is something wrong with being Jewish because the Jewish rejection of Logos disposes Jews to act in a way that antagonizes everyone they come in contact with, the Jews fall back on outdated theories of racism as a way of exculpating bad behavior. “It is because of what we are, not of what we do,” a slogan recently appropriated by President Bush, has become the mantra that excuses bad behavior and hides from Jews the core of their essentially negative identity and why they have faced antagonism among every group they have lived with throughout history.
And tells us who is a Jew:
A Jew is now a rejecter of Christ and thereby to some extent a rejecter of Logos, which is the Greek word for the rational order of the universe. Insofar as they rejected Christ, the Jews rejected Logos, and in rejecting Logos, they rejected the order of the universe, including its moral or political order. As a result, they became revolutionaries, a decision they solemnly ratified when they chose Barabbas over Christ.

A Jew is an ethnic Jew who has rejected Christ. An ethnic Jew who has accepted Christ is not a Jew. Ethnicity is the necessary but not sufficient condition for being a Jew. The sufficient condition is rejection of Christ. This was ratified by the Israeli Supreme Court when they denied Oswald Rufeisen citizenship because he had been baptized a Catholic. From a more religious perspective I note in the book the words of Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner: “While not all Jews practice Judaism [it is] the iron-clad consensus among contemporary Jews, Jews who practice Christianity cease to be part of the ethnic Jewish community, while those who practice Buddhism remain within.”

Judaism is not the religion of the Old Testament. Catholicism is the religion of the Old Testament. Anything that claims to be the religion of the Old Testament must have a Temple, a priesthood, and sacrifice. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, Judaism had none of these things, but the Church had all of them. The Temple was Christ, who explicitly stated that he was its replacement. The Church also had the priesthood, which celebrated the new sacrifice, which was the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass.

Judaism as we know it is a religion that was created by Jochanan ben Zacchai after the destruction of the Temple. It was, as Jews have to admit, not the Old Testament religion, because the Jews at that point had no Temple to perform the sacrifices which were needed to fulfil their covenant. As a result, the Jewish religion became a debating society or school, which met at synagogues. The codification of those debates became known as the Talmud, which got written down between the third and seventh centuries AD. The Talmud is a systematic distortion of the Torah—“Whatever the Torah forbids, the Talmud permits”—whose purpose is to keep the Jewish people away from Logos and in bondage to Jewish leaders.
Unfortunately, I cannot find where Mr. Jones has clearly defined race, racism, or ethnicity. What he has written here seems unclear, even contradictory.

Here are reviews of his book, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History.

A proper aristocracy

Aristocracy is from the Greek and simply means rule of the best. Now that liberal democracy has proven itself incapable of protecting European nations, tribes, or even families from the rapaciousness of the global money-changers and other assorted dark whores and orcs, it is high time we discuss alternative methods of governance. A global ruling class has emerged and our sovereignty has almost completely disappeared. Western governments are as corrupted and doomed as the Roman Empire in the time of Cicero and Julius Caesar. We are falling as the Romans did, but much faster and with much worse consequences.

Like it or not, it is time to discuss realistic alternatives. We need entirely new groups of much better, much bolder men and women at the local and national levels to lead and protect us -- people worth following, imitating, and faithfully supporting. (I can already hear the modern American egalitarian ICU's gagging.)

So what should this collection of superior people look like? Of course, the most basic requirement is that they should look like us, only better. Strictly of the best European stock.

Their character is of equal importance. What should be their attitude and duty to us? How will we know when they are working for us or only for themselves? Here, from an article by John Marshall, at Against the Robots, I have cobbled together a short list of basic requirements.

A proper aristocracy should:

- Be a force in society which stands firmly in opposition to the generation of transient (that is, marketable) values

- Safeguards the ideals of the society

- Is composed of servants of the public good (noblesse oblige)

- Must not become a mere instrumentality of the corporate and political powers

- Function as a counterbalance to the concentration of power in the hands of the state

- Maintain its independence and operate to a great extent outside of the political apparatus of the society

- Be an organization of a people for its own self interest to perform the minimally necessary work of civilization: the promulgation of law, the safeguarding of a people from invasion, the peaceful transition of power, the limitation of the rapacities of groups, et cetera.

- Always represent the best and most immemorial of a people's values

- Be independent from royal power and curb its tendencies toward arbitrariness

- Have a hierarchical structure ("the vassal stands in a definite relation to the lord") which is based on mutual obligation.

- Be self-policing. Merit should precede heredity in this function

- Should nonetheless be largely hereditary in nature

I realize that the idea of aristocratic rule is hard to swallow for many American ICU's who believe that the highest good is complete individual freedom and that quality and justice can be judged most accurately by movement of sacks of money in the "free market." But we will have a ruling class, one way or the other. It can be of the most incompetent, evil, Rothschild/Brussels/United Nations type, or something else. Now is the time to set the bar as high as possible, before their consolidation of power is complete.

Monday, May 9, 2011

How Bryan spoke about the White race

Larry Auster writes:
William Jennings Bryan begins his Memoirs (1925) with the statement that his purpose is to show his indebtedness to things outside himself:
[G]ood fortune has had more to do with such success as I may have achieved than any efforts of my own.... Opportunity comes independently of one's own efforts; and his preparedness to meet opportunity is due, as I shall show, largely to others.... I have been wonderfully fortunate in the opportunities that have come to me....
To begin the story of my good fortune. I was born in the greatest of all ages. No golden ages of the past offered any such opportunity for large service and, therefore, for the enjoyment that comes from consciousness that one has been helpful.

I was born a member of the greatest of all the races--the Caucasian Race, and had mingled in my veins the blood of English, Irish, and Scotch. One has only to consider the limitations upon one's opportunities imposed by race to understand the incalculable benefit of having the way opened between the child and the stars.

I was born a citizen of the greatest of all lands. So far as my power to prevent was concerned, I might have been born in the darkest of the continents and among the most backward of earth's peoples. It was a gift of priceless value to see the light in beloved America, and to live under the greatest of the republics of history.

And I was equally fortunate, I shall show, in my family environment. [My ancestors] were honest, industrious, Christian, moral, religious people--not a black sheep in the flock.... The environment in which my youth was spent was as ideal as any that I know.
Back then, whites--including the most prominent and respected men of America--spoke naturally and without embarrassment of their identification with and pride in the white race. more >>

Auster's entry reminded me of an improving book, Real Men - Ten Courageous Americans to Know and Admire, by R. Cort Kirkwood. Highly recommended for all ages, for all ages.

Sunday, May 8, 2011

Notes on Texas Secession

from TexasSecede.org. Thanks to Cory R. Burnell, founder of Christian Exodus.

Our intellectual progress to date

From The Spiritual Tradition at the Roots of Western Civilization - Excerpts from In the Dark Places of Wisdom and Reality, by Peter Kingsley, A compilation by Ulrich Mohrhoff:
Socrates went around Athens talking to people. His talk, his logos, was the immediate ancestor of what we have come to describe and know so well as the process of reasoning. But we haven’t the least idea any more of what his talking meant. He would start up discussions with powerful politicians or simple craftsmen; lure them into conversation about themselves; make them contradict themselves; show them how, in spite of their belief that they knew things, they knew nothing.

And what’s most difficult to understand is that for him there was nothing at all intellectual about this procedure.

His one concern was with exposing the reality about people’s lives — not just their ideas. He was quite charming in his elenchos, bewitchingly so, but ruthless in his desire to get to the truth at all costs. And after a while the Athenians got so sick of being exposed as idiots that they killed him.

Now, of course, we romanticize the whole thing. Students learn in schools and colleges about the Golden Age of Reason, and Socrates at Athens is held up as the perfect example. But no one dares to be too specific about when exactly this golden age was: whether it was before the Athenians killed Socrates, or after he had been put to death, or perhaps right at the moment of his execution. The one thing we can be sure of is that if Socrates were to come into a modern classroom he wouldn’t last for long. His questions might be tolerated for a couple of minutes. But after that he would be thrown out. There is no more room for him in our institutions than there was in ancient Athens, with the exception of our mental institutions.

List of big fish

complete with summaries of their crimes, bios, links, and pictures. ZSIDOZAS keeps adding to the long list, a most helpful and laudable opus.

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Saving Detroit

Bill Bonner has the true conservative's answer to our economic woes:
Abolish all welfare of all sorts…no unemployment insurance…no child tax credits…no welfare…no foodstamps…no nothing, except privately-sponsored charities. Close the public schools. Kick out all the bureaucrats and all federal and state employees. Abolish all rules concerning employment – no minimum wages, no overtime, discriminate all you want. Require all residents to say please and thank you…dress properly…and sneer at people who don’t seem to be gainfully employed or polite. Declare the city an Open City and Free Trade Zone. In exchange for cutting all federal aid programs, eliminate federal and state taxes for people living in the city. Allow unlimited immigration into the city…giving all immigrants a U.S. passport after 5 years of residency. Levy a flat 10% tax to pay for basic services. Eliminate elections…have the city controlled by a town council composed of 10 citizens chosen at random.

Within five years, Detroit would be the most dynamic city in the nation.
I could not agree more. Would that this prescription were filled all across America.

Friday, May 6, 2011

The Houston Highland Games, Houston, May 16-17

The Houston Highland Games Association welcomes you to our home on the web. Whether you are interested in participating as a member, representative, competitor or sponsor, or if you are just among the curious and want to learn more about Celtic cultures, you are welcome!

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Palin is a pro-amnesty, soft-line Marxist

Just like McAmnesty. Anyone who thinks there is a significant positive difference between the Republicans and Democrats is engaged in wishful thinking. McAmnesty is a radical liberal, a gun-grabbing multiculturist who has no problem with turning America into a northern province of Mexico. Palin is a pro-amnesty, big-government feminist who sees nothing wrong with proudly displaying her pregnant, unmarried teenage daughter on stage before the whole world.

The Obamassiah is not a Socialist; the Republican Party and Middle America have had that title for at least two decades now. The Democrats and the Obamassiah and his supporters are hard-line Marxists. I suggest you read the short booklet, The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, sometime. Where Socialists are big-government redistributionists (social security for all, a graduated income tax, tax breaks, central banking, free public education, big centralized government, etc.), Marxists are additionally anti-family (abortion, gay rights, school-to-work programs), anti-nation (political correctness, multiculturalism), and anti-White/anti-Western:
"[We propose] the abolition of the family, of private gain, and ... the proclamation of social harmony."

"On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. ... The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course with its complement (private gain), and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital."

"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. ... The supremacy of the proletariat will cause [national differences] to vanish still faster." [In other words, guilty as charged. - r.m.]

"Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things." ["Change!"]
This is the direction our country is headed, lickety-split. Most of our youth have been brainwashed by our Marxist school system, so they are already used to these ideas. And our elders are also addicted to big government and handouts like Social Security, health care, unemployment benefits, payments to welfare mothers, and no one will openly oppose our nation's destruction through multiculturalism.

I'd support a Nazi before I'd support these candidates. At least the Nazis supported borders, language, culture, family and nation.

Write this down

Bill Bonner reports regarding the Fed and the federal government's deeper draughts of their own fumes:
“This is a very powerful and aggressive move,” said the chief economist at Bank of New York Mellon Corp., speaking with Bloomberg Television. “One of the reasons I’ve been arguing we won’t have a depression is we’ve got a Fed chairman who understands the problem and is going to come with the right diagnosis and the right medicine.”

“With the purchases of Treasuries and housing debt, Bernanke is effectively using the Fed’s powers to print money and aim it where he and other officials believe it will have the greatest impact in lowering borrowing costs.”
This I gotta see, a real blockbuster. Pass the popcorn, please.

Monday, May 2, 2011

The University: Reform if you would preserve.

Paul J Cella writes about which group -- liberals or conservatives -- were responsible for bringing public "education" to its present size and efficiency:
There is a particular madness here. As anyone with any grounding in the Conservatism that emerged in mid-twentieth century America knows, it has from the beginning contained a profound and well-developed critique of the modern theory of the University — a theory which was itself a critique of the classical understanding of this institution. For the University, of course, can in no way be described as “modern.” It was an achievement of the Mediaeval Age. Under a sirens’ song known to history as Progressivism, men sought to transform this ancient institution, and have perhaps succeeded in destroying it. Athwart this revolutionary enterprise, Conservatism made one of its original stands. Then one day, this Conservatism, which long enjoyed primary sources of influence outside official channels — in the instincts and sentiments of republican men, in their tradition of patriotism and their innate good sense — found itself with access to a political party that just might be capable of carrying its ideas into implementation. And the madness lies in the particular corruption that power brought: On the question of education this selfsame party, by its deeds if not as much its words — though the latter were there too — repudiated its old and cherished principle, and became the consolidator of a system antithetical to it. America’s right-wing party adopted a new and terrible principle: it would be a conservationist of the aged decrepitude of American education. It would shelter the destructive revolution made in how men are raised into their cultural inheritance. The Republican Party would outspend Democrats on education, would indeed “heap money” upon “the arsenals and training ground of [its] enemies,” would expand and celebrate the bureaucracy its leading men once railed against; on the whole, it would lend its authority, not to a reversal of the revolution once espied with horror, but to a consolidation it.

The effect of the Republican consolidation of the revolution in higher education is to render only certain progressive voices “official,” and to drive the defenders of the older ideal of the University from the field. Arnn notes that a recent Draft Report out of President Bush’s Department of Education, “does not mention religion, God or morality. It does not mention history as a subject of study. It does not mention the Constitution, either for what it commands or allows, or as a subject of study. Although busy governing, the Report does not mention government as a subject of study. Philosophy, literature, happiness, goodness, beauty are not to be seen.” Arnn continues:
The Draft Report is devoid of any echo of the purpose of education as it is trumpeted in our first national documents. It contains no whisper of the sentiments from the Northwest Ordinance, those regarding “religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind.” It does not so much as murmur the hallowed idea that students should learn the lessons upon which our republic was built, the teaching of which is the reason government would be interested in education in the first place.
This Report emanates from the public mind of an administration thought to be conservative — indeed thought by many to be among the most conservative ever. The folly is complete. Its poverty of imagination is only the natural working-out of the revolutionary principles Conservatism once opposed. It signifies the abandonment of the classical idea of the University — an idea which came to these shores by means both organic and deliberative — by the political party which imagines itself the conservator of the nation. more >>
Education is, as T.S. Eliot said so well, more important than government. The failure of conservatives in all other areas could have been overlooked (outsourcing and tanking the economy, runaway banking fraud and looting of the Treasury, the failure of the pointless wars in the Middle East, the growth of crime and the police state, the growth of the multicult, failure to stop legal and illegal immigration) IF they had've just succeeded in restoring local control to education. IF they would've done that, we could see a path to eventual victory through a new and better educated generation.

Homeschool now, ask me how.

Walter Williams says early America was a third world nation

The great "conservative" hero of RedTeam liberals everywhere says that "we" (Snopes alert: his ancestors were still eating and slave-trading each other in Africa at the time)
turned an 18th-century Third World nation into the freest and most prosperous nation in mankind's entire history.
We were nothing but a dirty backwater with backward people and backward, shameful, unenlightened ways until the American Revolution. This statment from Williams is a perfect example of what even the best, most conservative non-European thinks about my European ancestors.

RedTeam members push Williams and writers like him forward as an example of the best of those people to whom "we Europeans will pass the torch of Western civilization" when we Whites are in the minority.

Notice also that in true Marxist fashion, Williams plays fast and loose with the word nation. He uses it to mean any ICU's who happen to be located within the same geographical territory, regardless of heritage, instead of the real thousands-year-old definition of a people with a common racial, cultural, religious and historical background and interests. Perhaps his confusion comes from listening too much to people such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton drone on about that ubiquitous yet non-existent entity, "the Black Comm-uooniteh."

As an ungrateful beneficiary of thousands of years of exclusively European struggle and invention, Williams promotes the subversive Jewish fairy tale that America has always been a melting pot. The truth is that America was intentionally, deliberately, consciously a 90% + White country up until just a few short decades ago, when Jews and big business interests radically changed the U.S. immigration laws in 1965.

Someone should remind Williams (though I strongly suspect he already knows) that my Founding Fathers did not build these united states for the third-world scum that is filling it now. They bled and crafted this country for their ancestors and for their British and northern European offspring -- no one else. They were quite clear in this. But Williams and his Jew-DayO!-Christian supporters are not to be bothered by historical fact.

He writes proudly and misleadingly,
"Throughout our history," ... "the United States has been a magnet for immigrants around the world." ... "That's despite the fact that our population consists of people who have for centuries been trying to slaughter one another in their home countries, whether it's between the French and Germans, English and Irish, Japanese and Chinese, Palestinians and Jews, or Igbos and the Hausa of Nigeria."
So according to Williams, all peoples the world over have the same histories and proclivities, all of which can be boiled down to senseless slaughter. The heritage of real Americans matters not at all. The "American Idea" as the neo-cons and the perfidious Jew Jared Diamond tell us, "could have happened anywhere." They proclaim that America's greatness lies in the fact that it is welcoming to and composed of all the peoples of the world. Id est, "Diversity is our strength." Against history they claim that it was a few pieces of paper and a grand idea alone made this country great and will keep it great.

Now there is a real leader of the West we can believe in, a true fighter of liberalism, Marxism, and globalism.

He warns us that, "We are losing what's made our country great." Well, Williams, that's what happens when you pour too much wretched refuse into your melting pot.

Sunday, May 1, 2011

The Joy of Beowulf

Resources for the Study of Beowulf here.

What it was really like back then

I can speak from my own and my family's experience that what Paul Craig Roberts writes about here is true. Fred Reed often writes about his childhood in the exact same way. Read Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer for additional insight into how a boy's childhood was and should be.

I tell my young charges how things were only 30-50 years ago but it's difficult for them to envisage. Compared to today, there was very little crime, no divorce and no drug problems (for Whites and Blacks), no racial strife, and the government corruption was relatively harmless.

Parents did not have to worry about their little ones being abducted from their own Gärten. Children could wander and play freely all over the countryside and the neighborhood. Parents watched out for each others' children, reprimanding them in public if they were rude, dishonest, too loud, or generally misbehaving.

I know most Jungen today won't believe this but not too long ago a child could travel all by himself trans Americam to Grandma's house on a bus and his parents could be sure that complete strangers would look out for him. Or her, Black or White. The few child predators and other rapists that existed simply "disappeared," if you take my meaning. Before my time, but there was an honest and practical purpose for the lynchings so demonized today by the idiotic media.

Children were not taught to esteem themselves first but to love and honor their honest and wise forefathers who fought and died for their freedoms and gave them such a terribly marvelous inheritance. They were made to learn history in order to show them that the world existed long before them and that civilization is a extremely complex and delicate thing that must be constantly tended and, well, cultivated. They were taught that we owe a great debt to our European ancestors and to the Western civilization they created and nurtured so carefully and passionately. Children were not taught that they were the center of the universe, that life was supposed to be equal and fair, nor were they encouraged to give their ignorant, inexperienced, and Marxist-manipulated opinions about societal ills and world politics.

Seriously, all children were taught to be thankful for what they had; and what we had materially was far, far less than what we have today. We were resource poor but very rich in faith, hope, and charity and for love of God, country, Mother, and apple-pie. We were orderly, polite, and considerate of others, and beaten if we weren't. It was very nice, especially compared to the barbaric chaos we have today.

It was shameful for most to take welfare of any kind. But Americans everywhere gave generously from their own poor pockets to widows, orphans, and the truly unfortunate, though it was often difficult to get the intended recipients to accept it, no matter how much they may have needed it. Only "bums and losers," everyone used to say, would take government handouts. Even Black folk would say, "Only niggers take government handouts." Not only was it immoral to depend on someone else to pay for your keep, it was immoral to use the government to take it from others. Welfare was stealing, thievery, robbery. "That's ... Socialism!"

The public square was reserved for polite conservation only. We talked about intimate and private matters, as well as the occassional nasty or grotesque business, and what to do about it, behind closed doors out of earshot of young innocents. Kids were taught by friends and relatives what they needed to know when they needed to know it. Virtue, honesty, and integrity were held in high esteem by everyone, even by those with no self-control (politicians excepted, of course). Promises really meant something. Lying, cheating, or stealing was scandalous, drug use unthinkable.

And giving your own children mind-altering drugs -- on purpose? No one but the sickest sickos would have even dared such an evil thing.

There was freedom of association, discrimination, and separation. The Marxist-invented and propagated term "racist" was meaningless. It was perfectly natural that everyone, of all races or ethnicities, knew who their families and their extended kinfolk were. It had been that way since the dawn of time. Each lived and worked safely on his own peoples' health, safety, and well-being, cooperating with the Other when necessary. There was real society, real community. The races by and large left each other alone and had a million times more "peace, love, and harmony" than today's Marxist multiculti "society" could ever dream of having.

Most people, even in the cities, left their doors unlocked and their windows open all the time. Vero, Amici, it really was like Mayberry RFD, Leave it to Beaver, and Happy Days back then; and where it wasn't, that was still the ideal for most folks. (Porky's portrays the opposite of how it was). There really were "good ole' days," as Grampa used to say.

Those were the societal norms and the ideals most people worked hard to uphold. They were the shared set of rules and expectations, spoken and unspoken, we all wanted and (almost) all agreed to live by. Anyone who didn't was punished swiftly and severely. This is the meaning of the word society, the real meaning of the word community.

The anarchists and Marxists have been asking since the 1960's revolution What good is "herd behavior"? and teaching our young to say, Don't put your morals on me, Man. I hope, Liberi Cari, you understand better that chaos -- ubiquitous crime and corruption; mass depression and drug use; horrendous levels of child abuse, murder, and suicide; and private and public economic Ragnarök -- is the result of their indefatigable and implacable crusade against our society, our culture, and our religion, and that we are living in the logical outcome of their "civil rights" and "equality" lies, manipulation, and promotion of sickness.

I hope you understand a little better now what a truly Western, civilized society looks like, what it needs to function, and how it must be maintained, as well as what happens to society when the healthy shared values are destroyed.

Most of all, I hope it gives you some ideas on how to proceed to recapture what we have lost.

Liebe Kinder, you have no idea how grossly academia, government, MTV, the ABC Family Channel, the Disney Channel, and popular "culture" has been lying to you about your "evil, racist, bigoted past," you have no idea at all. I was there, I was paying close attention, I was reading and asking a lot of questions. I remember what I saw and heard and what others told me about what they saw and heard and about how they lived. It was only a few short years ago, for crying out loud. It wasn't perfect, of course, but compared to today it was heaven.

Rebecca Latimer Felton: Forgotten Feminist

by Lawson Wellborn

The lessons of Rebecca Latimer Felton’s life for us today are many. She worked long and unsparingly to the end of her days for the issues and causes that were important to her. She still was able to raise her family and run businesses. In theory, she ought to be one of those “Virginia Slims” role model women who “had it all.”

But she was an outspoken and courageous racialist even in a day when most assumed that America was and would always be a white country. Where the enemy raised a suggestion against that great fundamental principle, she would rush to the defense of her race. She did not care one whit for the accolades of her enemies. She never compromised with the enemies of her people.
Full article at Occidental Quarterly >>