Chesterton is nothing short of brilliant when he defines a radical (whom we would now call a liberal) as one who somehow thinks he can pull up the root without affecting the flower, and a conservative as one who wants to conserve everything except his own reason for conserving anything.
I pondered this after I saw that Tom Fleming and Chronicles have embraced the future of America. And right about now we will be greeted with the canard that we “hate” Spanish, in the same way that we “hate” Spanish-speakers. Neither is true. We are saying that it is not possible to conserve American culture through the Spanish language, any more than it is possible to conserve the White race through procreation of half-breeds. Here we have a magazine, Chronicles, that is purportedly dedicated to conserving American culture when its own editor has given up on our people. He writes: “I do not recommend any plan because I regard the ethnic situation - like the cultural, moral, and spiritual situations - in this country as beyond all hope of remedy.”
In the first place, our people need heroes, not more eggheads, as John Cripps has always told us. The Spartans did not flinch in the face of certain death, and their deaths ensured life for all Europeans. It would have been much easier to simply throw down their weapons and adopt the Persian language, but Sparta knew that the hope that Fleming considers lost would find its own way. So did the heroes of the Alamo. This is also the theme of Tolkien’s books, which awaken something primal within the heart of the White man.
In the second place, Fleming Wormtongue’s loss of hope has not persuaded him to stop spit-shining the boots of his masters. He angrily denounces his patriot critics as “stupid,” “nativist dummies,” and “monoglot xenophobes who pride themselves on their ignorance.” That loud groaning sound you hear is coming from the direction of the grave of Sam Francis at Lookout Mountain.
Paleoconservatives really are fascinating specimens. Not since the dodo bird has any being been so oblivious to its own destruction. They have a childlike, almost retarded innocence about them. Kinists, by contrast, never concern themselves with numbers on either side. We’re right, and we know we’re right, and our traitor-opponents know we’re right, which is why they always take potshots at us rather than argue with us. There’s a good comment on the previously linked page about how people like Fleming love to spread defeatism to others, and for some reason are convinced that such defeatism can easily and successfully be spread, even though they are not convinced that hope can be spread by the same means. They are the kind of people who devote their energies to helping the smallest people groups endure, but when faced with a great threat, immediately assume, like Denethor, that the European’s best days are behind him, and he should fall on his sword and be done with it. Hell with that, we say. Molon Labe!
Yggdrasil’s excellent definition of White Nationalism. We heartily concur, and wish that Southern groups like the League of the South had adopted similar principles from the start. They were introduced to Kinism in 2001, just days before 9/11, by some visionary members, but they rejected Kinism in favor of an ideological basis for Southern nationalism, which at its heart is indistinguishable from the “proposition nation” of their Yankee enemies. Read through the link, and consider how clear and succinct it is compared to the Tom Fleming / Clyde Wilson obfuscation that we showed you earlier. Here’s a good rule for conservative intellectuals: If you can’t clearly explain what you believe in the span of a few minutes, leaving no doubt in the minds of your hearers, you probably aren’t one.
[R]ace and blood are the building blocks of religious faith. But in a rationalist age, or to be more accurate, a satanic age, only the theoretical is real; concrete reality is considered false… When the Flemings of liberaldom tell us that it is unChristian, infantile, and irrational to concern ourselves with the survival of the white race, we will not run and find a theory to justify our existence. We will hold to our ancestors’ faith, the faith that transcends theory, and become even more recalcitrant and unyielding in defense of our race and our faith…
When a man ceases to care about ‘little things’ like home, blood, and race, he ceases to be Christian, because it is through those little things that God reveals Himself to man…
The white man has always preferred the leaden casket over the one of gold and the one of silver; the cottage in the woods to the sumptuous palace; and the blood of the Lamb to the magic talisman…
Satan knows what the European once knew when the hearth fire was ablaze: The spirit of God comes to man through the blood. Without that conduit, all white men become soulless, bloodless zombies, worshipping the blood of the coloreds in an attempt to reclaim their lost vitality.
Like vampires, indeed.
Christians who spout race-mixing propaganda and hurl jeremiads at Kinists are not Christians. They have become Jews, a people hardened against Christ’s reign of charity. You cannot argue or debate with such people; you can only war with them.
Ambrose Bierce defines the word “bigot” as “One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.” The black man earns this entry in his book: “Negro, n. The piece de resistance in the American political problem. Representing him by the letter n, the Republicans begin to build their equation thus: ‘Let n = the white man.’ This, however, appears to give an unsatisfactory solution.” And here is another definition from Bierce to help you feel better about putting the future of your people in the hands of strangers: “Rabble, n. In a republic, those who exercise a supreme authority tempered by fraudulent elections. The rabble is like the sacred Simurgh, of Arabian fable—omnipotent on condition that it do nothing. (The word is Aristocratese, and has no exact equivalent in our tongue, but means, as nearly as may be, ’soaring swine.’)”
Bierce also echoed Dabney when he defined radicalism as “the conservatism of tomorrow injected into the affairs of today.” If you want to see how radical Christian doctrine has become among those who were once known as conservatives, just read this. You have to go all the way down to comment 46 before you can find the first dissenting opinion, and even then it is not on moral grounds but rather mixed-race identity crises and the need to conserve the black race.
If black men continue to marry white women because of their lack of racial identity/consciousness (which is what it all boils down to), and then their children grow to lack racial identity/consciousness, and their children etc…etc it will mean the end of the black race—or at least the whitening of it.
I don’t know if the moderator let that one slip through only because she’s a vibrant minority in the glorious mosaic of our experimental dream-nation, or if everyone else has truly gone over to the dark side, figuratively speaking. At any rate, one person leaves us with this helpful advice for violating the Fifth Commandment:
[I]n my opinion it wouldn’t be dishonoring your parents to marry someone who’s of another race, BECAUSE according to Genesis, you leave your father and mother and the two of you become one flesh. You aren’t under quite the same rules anymore - you’re making your own household.
The conservative instinct manifests itself in unusual ways across the spectrum. Here’s a clip (containing vile language!) of a man who knows that something is dreadfully wrong but doesn’t have the book-learning or skills in oration to express his disgust in any other way. There are conservative sensibilities hiding under the rough exterior, just as in this case from the other side of the spectrum. Underneath the obvious superficial faddishness, there is a desire to conserve something that is being lost. And the people in both clips are our people. They may not know everything we know, and they may not even be Christians, but their desire to conserve their own heritage is bred in the bone.
There’s also a faddishness in companies like Vision Forum that sell Christian/historical/traditional products. Not that this is a bad thing. In fact, there is nothing better for a child than to be taught to value work and to value the past.
It’s funny how “Christian Conservatism” works. We know many stories about decent men and women who have been called “racists” and have been forced out of jobs and organizations where they might “discriminate” against someone or otherwise corrupt the youth with their “bigotry” (the same “bigotry” that was held by the grandfathers and great-grandfathers of those who get so upset about it). Today’s new liberals are also nostalgic about Ronald Reagan and threw their collective weight behind getting him elected.
People forget that in 1978 “conservative” Ronald Reagan opposed an initiative in California that would have barred any known homosexual from teaching children in public schools, and would have also barred teachers from promoting or encouraging homosexuality.
So racist teachers are taboo but homo teachers are commonplace.
All the great scientists used to be Christians. But Alan Turing, the father of computer science, was a faggot.
You’ll note that the statue depicts Turing holding an apple in his right hand, a reference to the way he chose to end his life - by eating a cyanide-laced apple. That was Turing’s last message to the world, with clear parallels not only to the legendary scientific knowledge of Isaac Newton, but also the biblical interpretation of forbidden love.
Just brings tears to your eyes, don’t it? Legend has it that his rectum actually spoke the words “thank you” when he ate that apple.
Leave a Reply