Blond hair and blue eyes in Russian advertisements for the 2014 Winter Olympics are being denounced as “fascist,”"neo-Hitlerite,” and “like something from a Leni Riefenstahl film.”
Were advertisements like these also “fascist” for emphasizing white beauty?
Don’t forget about racist “flesh colored” Band-Aids.
This is unconscionable: Barack Obama wants to kill six million Jews! When Obama suggested that Israel should withdraw to the borders of the state that existed in 1967, Jews in unison cried “Auschwitz!” Jews can’t have Gazans and Lebanese and Jordanians and Syrians bearing down on them; they need to keep Gazans and Lebanese and Jordanians and Syrians at a safe firing distance.
Michael Hoffman writes:
The American right wing never tires of Auschwitz. Dresden February ’45, Nagasaki August ’45, Beirut August ’82, Gaza January ’09 and dozens of other cities holocausted by the noble Allies, or the holy “Jewish state,” don’t count or qualify as mantras of victimhood. The German, Japanese and Arab victims of those holocausts are expected to shut up, forever. They are not entitled to the same victim status.
Why? Because Germans, Japanese and Arabs don’t have souls equal to that of the “Jews” who, their holy books inform them, possess the highest soul, the “Neshama HaElyonah,” which gentiles do not possess. And now you know why the cry of “Auschwitz!” drowns out the invocation of every other holocaust.
Did you know that the imperial Congress mandates commemoration of the Holohoax? It’s called the National Days of Remembrance, and this year Supreme Court Injustice Stephen Jew Breyer announced “that the Holocaust story ended with a fair trial.” He is referring to the kangaroo court at Nuremberg, and he says that the European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the International Criminal Court are based upon it. (Strangely, the anti-Christ state that Jews call “Israel” goes unpunished by international courts for its terrorism, assassinations, and genocide.) “The Talmud teaches us ‘it is not incumbent upon you to complete the work,’” Breyer said. “But neither are you free to evade it.”
If you’re a Judeochristian who agrees with anti-Christ Breyer that Nuremberg was a triumph for justice, don’t miss Rushdoony’s response to a question about Nuremberg at 1:12:00 in his lecture from the previous SWB post. Rush chided the questioner:
I think you picked the worst possible example [to condemn genocide on common-ground principles] because the Nuremberg Trials represent lynch law. And we set the worst possible legal precedent we could, because we said without any law you could execute. And there was no law for the Nuremberg Trials. It means that after the next war, anybody can lynch anybody and probably will. The victors will kill, without excuse…
The questioner asks Rush if he is defending genocide because he has implied that there is no crime without law. Rush responds:
The only way you can have order is first to have legal jurisdiction and then to proceed with a criminal offense and a trial, a hearing. The minute you break the processes of law, you create anarchy instead of justice. And we went in there with lynch law in mind. We weren’t concerned with evidence because…we did not go after those we thought were guilty but those who were designated.
The purpose was not justice, it was vengeance… The trial was a farce, a thoroughgoing farce. [In part because Stalin ordered the Russian prosecutors to file charges against the German defendants for the Katyn Forest massacre, even though he knew that the Allies knew that he himself was responsible for it.] And I believe the trial of Eichmann was similarly farce. I wouldn’t have blamed anyone who suffered under him to go out and kill him, to take the law into his hands. But to pretend that lynch law is law is another thing.
Sweet mother of Sasquatch, we love R.J. Rushdoony. What fellowship we’ll have after the Resurrection!
Some of Rushdoony’s books are now online for free! Three excellent recommendations: The Institutes of Biblical Law, The Politics of Guilt and Pity, and The Foundations of Social Order. Don’t start reading them unless you want your life to be changed. They might post The One and the Many soon, which is also a must-read.
For just one of countless examples proving what Rush says above, see the planned assassination and burial of Osama Bin Laden, who was a salaried scapegoat. Lynching is very, very bad, and racist too, unless you’re from the government.
This dictatorial power derived from Honest Abe Lincoln. According to the late Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, and control funding. Lincoln claimed this power for himself and became the first American emperor.
A century of increasingly bloody wars followed, and after the horrors and waste of Korea and Vietnam, Congress roused from its slumber and decided to try to apply brakes to the runaway train known as the “presidency,” and passed the War Powers Act. This Act politely requests that if the “president” can make time in his schedule, he is to acquire congressional approval within 60 days of starting a new war. And if said approval is not forthcoming (perish the thought), he is to cease and desist his war for Democracy within 30 days…unless patriotism is on the line, of course. Obama has just snubbed the War Powers Act, allowing more than 60 days to pass after his war commenced in Libya. And the lapdog Congress has not demanded compliance. Everyone has simply ignored the law. His truth is marching on! as Yankees love to sing. Be sure to watch the Glenn Beck show, and you can hear David Barton explain that America has lived under the Constitution for 225 years. And then flags will wave, and an eagle will swoop down to lift Baby Jesus high above Mordor. It’ll be fabulous.
This is Memorial Day weekend, when churches everywhere try to outdo themselves in empire worship. A friend of ours was handed this bulletin Sunday morning:
In the sermon, he heard:
- Comparisons of King David with U.S. Grant
- Approving reference to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address
- An illustration involving “noble” Union soldiers
- Sappy D-Day stories of courageous U.S. troops who killed bad Germans for American freedom
- A statement that the State should “require” us to pay respects to all U.S. veterans (no matter the war)
- The claim that all men and women who served in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are brave and worthy of great honor
- The request that all veterans (irrespective of whether they served in a just or unjust war) stand up for recognition and applause
The Judaic victory is complete when making war for Jews is now equated with Christian sainthood.
“The great ideal of Judaism is that the whole world shall be imbued with Jewish teachings, and that in a Universal Brotherhood of Nations – a greater Judaism, in fact – all the separate races and religions shall disappear.” ~ Jewish World, February 9, 1883
I’ll give you a quick course in Jewish math, but first some background is needed.
For centuries, Europeans were understandably uncomfortable with having anti-Christs in their midst. Jews were usually required to convert or leave. The problem was that their conversions were more often than not lies, and there was really no place for them to go. Jew Theodor Herzl hatched a plan to found a Jewish state, and Zionism was born. Some claim that this was motivated by the 1894 treason trial of Captain Alfred Dreyfus in France, but historians no longer believe this to be true.
The First Zionist Congress was held in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897. The following year, Herzl traveled to Palestine and met with Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany. Nothing came of it. He also met with the Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire, but the Sultan was unwilling to grant a charter to the Jews even for the promise of paying off Turkey’s debt. (A few years later, the pope would also refuse to assist with the enterprise since Jews are Christ-deniers.) Then Herzl turned to Britain and met with Joseph Chamberlain, the British colonial secretary, and others. The bloody Brits proposed a Jewish autonomous region in Uganda! Negroes are useful dunces for Jews in America in their quest to dispossess the natives, but Jews would have been roasted on spits in Uganda, and their gravy would have reeked of gefilte fish. Let’s just say that the offer was less than appealing to Herzl, and the other Jews in the Zionist Congress were so outraged by it that it almost caused a rupture.
So Jews reverted to a Talmudic strategy based on lies and exaggerations which 45 years later, following two disastrous world wars, would give them everything they wanted. Their strategy was to evoke the sympathy of the world after convincing the world that their very existence was imperiled.
In 1899, you can see that Jews claimed to have been “holocausted” by the Spanish Inquisition.
In 1900, Rabbi Stephen Wise (co-founder of the NAACP) told Jewish welfare organizations in the United States: “There are six million living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism.” The significance of the number 6 million could be Kabbalistic, but I don’t know if there is any proof for this.
A few years later, the Jewish Chronicle of London charged “the whole of Russia” (meaning Christians, prior to the Jew-Soviet Revolution) with trying to “holocaust” and “annihilate” 5 million Jews. The word “extermination” is used.
Then came World War 1. Despite the fact that the white race tried to wipe itself from the face of the earth in that war, Jews used their media holdings to cast themselves as the Victims. Here’s an article from 1918 that refers to 3 million Jews in Poland and Eastern Europe. Another from the following year refers to 5 million Jews in all of Europe, saying, “Jewry’s back broken.” The same year, in the following Jewish publication, the figure was inflated to 6 million adults and 800,000 children.
Notice that Jews were being “crucified…because of a war to lay Autocracy in the dust and give Democracy the sceptre of the Just.” The god Demos had replaced the One True God, and the cornerstone of the New World Order had been laid. President Wilson involved America in the war for this very reason, “to make the world safe for democracy.” If we were bound to be involved at all, it should have been on the side of the Kaiser. Millions of lives would have been spared, and the evil Treaty of Versailles would not have been imposed on Germany, which more than anything else led to the rise of Hitler and the carnage of World War 2. You’ll recall that the Allies called Germans “Huns” in both wars, but especially the first, to associate them with Attila and his barbarians. Many books have been written on how Jews helped to bring these events to fruition, from the Rothschilds to the Federal Reserve to the League of Nations and beyond, all of it culminating in over 80 million deaths and the founding of the apartheid state of Israel.
In the article above, you can see the allegation that because Jews fought for democracy in World War 1, the “bigoted lust for Jewish blood” threatened them with a “holocaust.” And because “in that war for democracy 200,000 Jewish lads from the United States…fought for democracy as Joshua fought against the Amalekites on the plains of Abraham…the people of this country are called upon to sanctify their money by giving $35,000,000 in the name of the humanity of Moses to six million famished men and women… Because of this war for Democracy six million Jewish men and women are starving across the seas; eight hundred thousand Jewish babies are crying for bread.”
Corporal Hitler was a complete unknown in 1919, when this was written (the same year that Stalin rose to power), but that very year he became admired as an orator when he rose in a meeting to vigorously denounce Bavarian secession. He began to write against Jews in the same year, yet here are 6 million of them already allegedly at risk of perishing.
Let’s turn our attention back to Russia. Two years later, in 1921, the Jewish population is now allegedly (wait for it) 6 million.
“Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews are facing extermination by massacre,” it says, in big, friendly letters, and all because “scores” had been killed in pogroms. America, the babysitter of the world, is called upon to intervene by this Jew, and money couldn’t hurt. First the Christians in Czarist Russia were to blame for disemboweling defenseless Jews and hacking off their breasts. Then Jews took control of the empire in the Revolution (with Bolsheviks playing good cop/bad cop with the Mensheviks, just as they do here in America). But look out, because the Christian axe murderers are at it again as “Soviet power wanes.” We know that Soviet power was not on the wane, so this was a lie. We know that in little more than a decade from this time, tens of millions of Christians, not Jews, would perish at the hands of Stalin.
After millions of Christians died in the Ukrainian genocide, and millions were deported to Siberia, and millions were sent to the Gulag, Stalin executed tens of thousands of Red Army officers, including Jews Kamenev and Zinoviev. In 1938, almost every leading member of the original Bolsheviks was murdered.
Zionists were unable to gain traction in Spain or Russia, but you know that Hitler killed 6 million Jews, and not a penny less. But not so fast…
This was published in 1938, three years before the so-called “death camps” were opened. (Dachau opened in 1933 but did not at first hold Jews, and not even Simon Wiesenthal believed that there were extermination camps on German soil.) It was published four years before the “Final Solution” was allegedly drafted at the Wannsee Conference.
A brief digression: The “Final Solution” document itself is evidently an English forgery. Germans would never call for a “detailed discussion of the preparation of the submission of the prerequisites for the practical commencement of the tasks involved,” but Anglo-Saxons certainly would. Who do you think invented ISO 9000 certification? The paper doesn’t prove anything about extermination, and it wasn’t of interest at all until people no longer believed the fantastical stories about lampshades from human skin, shrunken heads, and soap rendered from boiled Jews that the Allies peddled after the war. There are other silly things in the minutes from the Wannsee Conference, such as the need to remove Jews “as quickly as possible” but use them in migratory road crews, building as they went. Those crazy Germans! This should have been a scene in the Hogan’s Heroes TV show that I watched as a boy. I must have missed the episode on the army of talking dogs.
For our purpose at hand, notice that even the minutes from the Wannsee Conference refer to 6 million Jews in Europe and 5 million in Russia, for a total of 11 million.
So let’s look at the math. We are asked, over the span of many years, by the Jews themselves, to believe that there were 6 million Jews in Europe, all of them Victims. But in 1945, we learned that there were not really 6 million Jews in Europe when the previous article was written, because if that had been the case, and Hitler killed 6 million of them (as every schoolboy knows), it would mean that none would remain. Therefore, the numbers had to be juggled like so when World War 2 ended:
Ah, but if 3.5 million remained, and the population estimates prior to the war were 5 or 6 million, perhaps “only” 2 million died, you say. This proves not only that you’re an anti-Semite but that you have no grasp of Jewish math. They should throw you in prison until you recant your affiliation with the Nazi Party, you skinhead! Once you begin to understand Jewish math, you’ll know why the official casualty estimate at Auschwitz was lowered from 4 million to 1.5 million after the first Zundel trial but the magical number of 6 million remains, and any European who disputes it can rot in a cold jail cell.
The 9.5 million figure for the population of European Jews came from the American Jewish Committee. But from the very same source, the world population of Jews remained steady all the way through the war.
So where is the loss of 6 million?
Surprise! Lenin was Jewish too. Stalin did his best to bury the fact. Were any of the original Communists not Jewish?
Kevin MacDonald writes: “In Philadelphia in the 1930s, fully 72.2 percent of the Communist Party members were the children of Jewish immigrants who came to the US in the late 19th and early 20th century.”
Some very interesting and well-reasoned comments from a friend of ours on the accusation of being a Nazi sympathizer:
Germany herself is nothing other than a congeries of duchies, principalities, marks, and free cities fused together by Bismarck… You could call it collectivist and totalitarian, provided you understand it was less of either of those than we are right now in the US. As far as I can tell, it was about as socialist as 1950′s America under Eisenhower: the interstate highway system, progressive tax table, incentives for favored industries, and so forth, but otherwise a lot of freedom indeed.
Now as far as the One and the Many: I would prefer the First Reich, which I think was the ideal balance… Certainly, I am anti-democracy: how could any sane person not be, seeing what we have arrived at? A strict patrician Republic is probably ideal, but I don’t see any evidence that such a thing can last more than a generation or two. It lasted for us approximately four score and seven years. Get over it. It is over. Hegel suggested that the Prussian monarchy was the perfect state thus far in history…
So, at the end of the day, am I a Nazi? Well, as I pointed out before, that is an ambiguous question. History never repeats itself. We are not facing the Bolshevik threat concentrated so many miles to the east, we are not wedged in the middle of three imperialist regimes or wanna-be imperial regimes, we don’t have the tradition of monarchy, we are not occupied by foreign powers, we are not paying reparations from an unjust treaty, etc. etc. So what does the question mean, “Are you a Nazi?” The questions are all different, so the answers will all be different. “What if you were there?” That too is not as clear as it seems at first blush. If “I was there,” does that mean my parents were there also? My parents, or some other, German-speaking parents? My parents speaking German? But then, teaching me to play soccer rather than baseball, I presume? Learning Goethe rather than Shakespeare, etc.? When all the changes are made, is it still “me”? It is the problem of identity between possible worlds. It is not clear to me that it can be done while retaining personal identity. So the real question is, would someone “like us” that was a German in the 1930s be a National Socialist? Someone that is Christian, patriotic, concerned about the kikenpornography from Berlin and the communist threat both from within and without; would someone like that become a National Socialist? The answer is very obvious: yes. They did, in large numbers…
As for Hitler, there is no question in my mind that of the four leaders – Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt – he was the best (or least bad, depending on how you want to put it).
Being present at the scene of a crime does not mean that you participated in a crime, unless Jews have labeled you a “Nazi war criminal.” For the first time ever in a German court, “the case against Mr. Demjanjuk [once erroneously believed to be Ivan the Terrible] rested on the prosecution’s charge that anyone working at the camp at the time he was there shared responsibility for its function of systematic murder.” (Except for Jews who aided Nazis, of course. It would be anti-Semitic to convict them.) The prosecution also rested on the assumption that the Soviets were in the habit of telling the truth.
Michael Hoffman writes:
Can any accused “Nazi” get a fair trial in Zionist Germany, where defense attorneys can be arrested for defending their accused clients too vigorously, and where writers and publishers such as Ernst Zundel, rot for years in prison because they dare to doubt Holocaustianity, the last truly believed religion in the otherwise agnostic West?
In 91-year-old John Demjanjuk, the Zionists have their pound of flesh.
Pat Buchanan’s article on Demjanjuk and this abortion of justice is superb.
Not until paragraph 17 does one find this jolting fact: ”No evidence was produced that he committed a specific crime.”
That is correct. No evidence was produced, no witness came forward to testify he ever saw Demjanjuk injure anyone. And the critical evidence that put Demjanjuk at Sobibor came – from the KGB.
“The antique European was put on trial in the 20th century for the crimes of racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism. On all three counts he was found guilty. He was found guilty of racism because he did not give the black man equal status with the white man. He was found guilty of sexism because he placed the female of the species by the hearth fire with her children and endeavored to keep her out of the workplace. And he was found guilty of anti-Semitism because he thought the unrepentant, unconverted Jew was an enemy of Christ.” ~ CWNY
“The people who have thus been driven out [of their homes] are the wastage of the Federal Reserve Act. They are the victims of the dishonest and unscrupulous Federal Reserve Board and Federal Reserve banks. Their children are the new slaves of the auction blocks in the revival here of the institution of human slavery.” ~ Congressman Louis T. McFadden, from a speech on the floor of the U.S. Congress, 1932
If the imperial debt were a stack of $1,000 bills, it would reach beyond the stratosphere. Of course, you read something like this but are not really capable of visualizing it, and it’s because we’ve allowed the empire to grow far out of proportion to ordinary life.
Most people have trouble conceptualizing $14.3 trillion.
Stan Collender, a budget expert at Qorvis Communications, said the biggest sum most Americans have ever handled – in real or play money – is the $15,140 in the original, standard Monopoly board game.
The United States borrows about 185 times that amount each minute.
“Whatever Scott Craig Mooney writes on Usury people should read… Sermons on the sin of Usury (not to mention the sin of fiat money) are almost never heard because usury is no longer considered a sin.”
“Utah became the first state in the country this month to legalize gold and silver coins as currency.”
Interesting news for Roman Catholics: According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, no one can agree with 1 Thess. 2:14-16 “without falling out of communion with the Catholic Church.”
The World Council of Churches is again blaming Whitey for “violence, injustice, militarism, racism, casteism, intolerance and discrimination.” Sham repentance feels good to these people, better than detoxing the bowels. Here’s what your impastor wants to hear from you. We really need to do something about Kentucky Baptists and Pennsylvania Amish committing arson and rape and murder. And let’s not even talk about Swedes.
Here’s a half-good article from Kevin MacDonald against libertarianism. Two points made are that 1) “there have never been any pure libertarian societies”; and 2) libertarianism is race denial.
[T]he libertarian idea that we should alter government as if the governed are an atomistic universe of individuals is oblivious to the fact that a great many people will continue to behave on the basis of their group identity, whether based on ethnicity or on a voluntary association like a corporation.
In Christian terms, it is covenant denial. Since the focus here is immigration, the Christian answers that biblical property laws obviate the exploitation and dispossession that now afflict us under an open-borders democracy. Both stem from a centralized government that derives its power not from the consent of the governed but from the interest groups that are able to funnel the most money to it. Immigration, therefore, becomes the “Viagra of the State,” as MacDonald writes.
MacDonald’s problem is that he bows to the god of evolution; as though this god of his is what has made the West differ from the East; as though his god made Westerners monogamous. He writes:
Moreover, in the libertarian Eden, regulations on marriage and sexual behavior would disappear so that wealthy men would be able to have dozens of wives and concubines while many men would not have access to marriage. Sexual competition among males would therefore skyrocket.
In fact, the social imposition of monogamy in the West has had hugely beneficial consequences on the society as a whole, including greater investment in children and facilitating a low pressure demographic profile that resulted in cumulative investment and rising real wages over historical time. In other words, progress.
At the same time, libertarianism is a white invention. This is why only white men read Ayn Rand books: “Her characters appeal to our vanity and our natural desire to live free of burdensome constraints and to be completely in charge of our own destiny.” One can almost hear Lindbergh’s warning that we have mixed our own poison. Whites are alone in the world in having “been able to free themselves from clan-based social structure (a form of collectivism) and develop societies with a high level of public trust needed to create modern economies.” But public trust means nothing when the strange gods of the stranger possess his blood. This is the point of Jared Taylor’s latest book – that (as Gary North likes to say) you can’t fight something with nothing. The individual libertarian is helpless against a united front of non-white races.
Whitey lost the moon because we’re too busy subsidizing ghettos.
One look at this grocery receipt will tell you why off-whites love being in our country. “Nobody has handed you a thing,” says Obamination to the freeloaders of south Memphis, even though everything they have has been given to them. And this will not change, said Obama. The “federal” government, he said, will always be “there for you.”
Talking about the rising number of people on food stamps when a black man is president is RACIST.
“The unequal fiscal action of the government is to divide the community into two great classes; one consisting of those who, in reality, pay the taxes…and the other, of those who are the recipients of their proceeds.” ~ John C. Calhoun
Carlos Santana has scolded Georgia for following Arizona in making it easier to deport wetbacks (which the Supreme Court has just supported, in a 5-3 vote). Whites ought to be “ashamed,” he says, for passing their “cruel law,” which is “about fear,” not justice. “People are afraid we’re going to steal your job. No, we aren’t. You’re not going to change sheets and clean toilets.” Well, you can’t argue with that logic. Before the wetback invasion, it’s a fact that Americans used to throw their dirty sheets in the road and replace their toilets when they crusted over and could no longer flush.
More stellar logic from Santana: “If people want the immigration laws to keep passing, then everybody should get out and leave the American Indians here.” To say that Indians believed in property laws is like saying that Africans believed in marriage.
This was said at baseball’s annual “Civil Rights game,” which is just a corporate-sponsored excuse to discriminate against whites in the name of equality. They trot out anyone with a public presence, as long as the most important factor about the person is that he isn’t white. Santana was one of the non-black tokens; he plays a guitar and has nothing to do with baseball. Morgan Freeman is the favorite choice of liberals to play God in movies, so he was there. Al Roker is a network weatherman, so he had to be there, having studied meteorology without dropping out. Hank Aaron, who is a genuine baseball star, was there, of course, but what he has to do with “civil rights” is anyone’s guess. The very idea that swinging at balls has more to do with civil rights than what our (white) anti-federalist fathers secured for us is offensive, especially in light of the fact that diversities have done everything in their power to render the Bill of Rights ineffective. The “civil rights” movement was not about civil rights at all. As James Edwards says, it “was all about the abolition of private property rights and the freedom of association in America.” Not to mention the legal right to deflower white girls. It’s funny that Mr. Aaron trots out to every ceremony that is held, when you think of white baseball stars like Ted Williams, who just wanted to fish in his retirement, and would not have even been seen at autograph shows if his son had not dragged him around; or Joe DiMaggio, who was famously reclusive, and all the more loved because of it. The funniest quote of all from the “Civil Rights game” came from Phillies general manager Ruben Amaro: “Any time you can honor the people that changed the game, it’s a good thing.” They certainly have changed the game. I would prefer to honot the race which invented the game, but that would be racist.
Along the same lines, the Washington Mall used to be all-white, and something had to be done about it to give other races the illusion of accomplishment and involvement in the empire’s history. Though the “separate but equal” era is now denounced by off-whites as horrible, and to bring it to an end schools had to be integrated even if they had received equal resources, separate but equal museums are now considered a good thing. But even for race-mixers, the balkanization doesn’t sit well. “The Museum of American History is where all the white folks are going to go,” says Virginia Rep. Jim Moran, “and the American Indian Museum is where Indians are going to feel at home. And African Americans are going to go to their own museum. And Latinos are going to go their own museum. And that’s not what America is all about… The next one will probably be Asian Americans. The next, God help us, will probably be Irish Americans.” The Indian museum, which Moran hilariously dismisses as “a glorified arts and crafts fair,” opened seven years ago, and the black one will open in four years, with a mestizo one likely to follow. And that’s just fine with Puerto Rican Rep. Jose Serrano. “This generation has been called on to remedy a lot of stuff that happened in the past,” he says. “We have to take care of it.” And whites will bend over and take it, because anything less would be racist. There sure is a lot of confusion over “what America is all about.” The old “racist” Christians didn’t seem to be nearly as confused.
Jew Dan Adler, who has a Korean “wife,” has a character in his campaign commercial who says, “We minorities should stick together.” At the end, Jew Dan says, “I definitely approved this message.” Though the congressional district is only 13.8% white, the message is clearly that all minorities except whites should stick together. Jew Dan can get away with this easily, but any white politician who runs with a message of whites sticking together will find that his campaign ends after one press conference, and for the rest of his life he will be branded as a hateful-evil-racist. If this were to happen, in the words of Steve Sailer,
Oprah would fly in to help the healing begin. Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, and Hendrik Hertzberg would each suffer aneurysms while competing to see who can most furiously castigate hate. President Obama would give a thoughtful, nuanced speech about this national trauma. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would get into a shoving match trying to elbow themselves to the front of the protest march. The Southern Poverty Law Center would [flog it] in its next dozen fund-raising letters.
My favorite line is where Jacquie Chan tells Jew Dan, “You’re Jewish!” “My family is Jewish,” he replies, which is a clever way of offloading the stigma to his poor family.
If you or your children suffer nausea or dizziness while watching this report about “America’s openly racist past,” help is just a phone call away. Please dial 1-800-NIG-GERS. Counselors are standing by.
The First Annual African-American National Spelling Bee was held in Houston. And this fits with the Brown v. Board of Education decision how? It was obviously instituted because black kids can’t compete with whites, Jews, and Asians, but the irony is inescapable. When someone floated the idea recently of an all-white basketball league, there was outrage in all the predictable quarters. The racial integration of sports is considered one of the crowning achievements of “civil rights” race-mixers, but now it’s interesting to see the popularity of the old Negro baseball league. It goes beyond nostalgia. Blacks wanted an entrance to white sports because of money, and now they miss having a league of their own. Whites viewed it (unfortunately) as giving all players an opportunity that they did not otherwise have, which is the exact same reason given for the creation of this black spelling bee. It’s another example of how blacks and whites think differently; whites are deracinated and blacks care for their own interests. Both sides also lie to themselves in different ways. Notice that the black woman defending the black bee says that it’s needed because of inequality. And where is the inequality 57 years after the Brown decision? “Access,” she says. But this is the very thing that trillions of dollars have been spent to resolve, and the only thing that has worked according to plan!
As Adlai Stevenson used to say, “Given a choice between agreeable fantasy and disagreeable fact, Americans will go for the agreeable fantasy every time.”
Michael Berry’s theory is that you’re not allowed to talk about race unless you’re black, and you’re not allowed to talk about race if you are black unless you’re also stupid.
It’s easier to be showered with free money.
Imagine being upset when a city spends money to build special drinking fountains and bathrooms for you.
Black Bike Week in Myrtle Beach got so bad that the city no longer recognizes it, as of 2009. Blacks continue to show up, but there are now curfew and anti-gathering laws to keep them spread out, and hopefully less violent. Many businesses close, just because they don’t want to deal with T.N.B., so the NAACP shows up every year, saying that the closing of businesses to discriminate against blacks will not be tolerated.
Castle down to South Africa! It’s sublime! “Look, honey, we’re talking to Negroes.” Now, one in three women in South Africa is raped, and 25% of the men admit to it. Baby rape is also prevalent.
One glance at this headline tells you that America’s crime rate is the lowest in four decades. Except that it’s not true. In heavily-black big cities, the crime rate is worse. In New York City, murder is up 14% and rape is up 24.5%, with Philadelphia, Boston, San Antonio, Minneapolis, and Detroit also showing increases. Here are the most dangerous cities in the country, all of them heavily blackened. As it says in the article, decreasing crime rates are not always due to decreasing crime. Sometimes it’s because of fewer policemen on the streets. A closer look at the FBI crime report shows murder to be way down in small towns (-25.2), with a marked difference between urban and rural areas (-2.9 vs. -12.5, respectively). This could mean that more blacks are moving to large cities as the economy worsens.
Donuts are racist. Notice that the Youtube comments get right to the point, unlike this article, which calls the nigger vandals “youths,” “teens,” and “kids.” Even in the old days of “racism,” before it became illegal to hurt the feelings of black people, white criminals were called things like “hooligans,” “hoodlums,” “ruffians,” “thugs,” and “scoundrels.” Now when black criminals show up in the newspaper, it must be made to sound like they crawled over the playground fence and stumbled into Mr. Wilson’s yard, trampling his freshly-seeded lawn. The mischievous little tykes! See the color of crime in Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. Imagine what these states would look like without black people, and how much money would be saved.
The least attractive women of any race are black, according to a study in Psychology Today authored by a sociologist at the London School of Economics. White women are, of course, the standard by which everyone else is measured. Concludes the professor: “Black women are far less attractive than white, Asian, and Native American women.” The student body has unanimously voted to have him fired, just because he reported average assessments that shouldn’t surprise anyone. The magazine has apologized for publishing the story.
Home births are up 20% in the last four years, and as you would expect, it’s driven by white women. Whites giving birth at home: 1 in 98. Blacks: 1 in 357. Hispanics: 1 in 500.
According to our friend Greg Miller, “To speak with and observe the average mestizo or Amerindian is to marvel at a biped patched together from impulse and hot dog parts.”
Here’s an excellent summation of Kinism from a Brazilian or Portuguese. I think his name is Rodrigo Sbarros, and his grasp of the subject is amazing. It’s definitely worth saving after cleaning up the English a bit. Kinism is sweeping the world!
“It is not enough to be white merely in color; you must be white from the backbone forward.” ~ John Ney
We really do hate the SCV. In fact, “hate” is a word that hardly seems strong enough.
The League of the South decided, to its own hurt, about a decade ago not to champion Kinism, but if you have any doubts that the president of the League, Michael Hill, is an extraordinary man, feast your eyes on his even earlier essay, Our Survival As a People:
When God foiled the building of the Tower of Babel on the plains of Shinar he did so in order that the people might be scattered into separate nations and no longer be one people with one language (Genesis 11:1-9). In the previous chapter, we are told that the sons of Noah – Shem, Ham, and Japheth – and their descendants would occupy specified parts of the earth. For example, we read in Genesis 10:5 regarding the sons of Japheth: “By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided into their lands, everyone after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.” It is clear, then, that God intended men to live separately with their own languages, kith and kin, and nations. Therefore, nations (i.e. peoples) have a Biblical mandate to exist and thereby to protect their interests from those who would destroy them either by war or more subtle means.
Because of a resurgence of godless multiculturalism and universalism (the new Tower of Babel), white Western Christians are threatened with extinction as a separate and identifiable people because of their own weakness and lack of Biblical understanding about the God-ordained principles of nationhood. While all other “nations” (i.e. groups based on race and ethnicity and “blood and soil”) are encouraged to preserve themselves and their cultures, white Christians in the West (the descendants of Japheth) are told that we must give up everything we have in order to placate those different from ourselves and who bear some alleged grievance toward us (i.e. slavery, “racism,” hatred, etc.) Sadly, it is often “Christian” ministers who lead the charge toward multiculturalism, pluralism, and universalism in the name of God himself. But they are false teachers.
By the grace of God, the philosophies and institutions of Christian liberty are the creations of Western European whites. In this age of rabid “political correctness,” this salient truth is buried beneath the monumental lie that all men (and hence all cultures and civilizations) are “created equal.” But truth is a stubborn and resilient thing. And the truth is that for at least the past 400 years, Western Christian (i.e. European-American) civilization alone has enjoyed the fruits of ordered liberty and abundant material prosperity. Elsewhere in the world despotism has been the order of the day. However, let us not boast for the simple reason that God has ordained things thusly out of His eternal wisdom. The Western world’s blessings of the Gospel, liberty, and prosperity are just that, a blessing. In Acts 16:6-9, Paul and Silas were headed for Asia to spread the Gospel, but the Holy Spirit forbade them to go into that region. Instead, the Spirit led them, by means of Paul’s dream, westward into Macedonia. Thus the Gospel was forbidden to Asia in that day. Conversely, it was God’s will that it be spread into Europe. Of this we cannot boast. Rather, we can only thank God that in His providence He saw fit to bless our ancestors with His word and all that flows from obedience to it.
Our white European-American ancestors had no trouble enunciating the obvious truth that Western Christian civilization was superior to all others. Moreover, they had no hesitation about defending it, as their God-given patrimony, against those who would denigrate or destroy it. Just a century ago, our civilization was still distinguished by a robustness and self-confidence born out of a realization of the natural superiority of the West and its ways. None but the most crack-brained utopians believed in social, political, economic, and cultural equality, nor did they believe in the equality of the races in intellect and accomplishment. Unfortunately, the present century has witnessed the old order turned upon its head.
Today, the descendants of those European-American whites behave as a shamed and defeated people. Not only do they refuse to proclaim the God-ordained superiority of their own civilization and its venerable institutions; they also refuse to defend the very ethnic and racial particularities that gave form and definition to that civilization. “White” has become a dirty word, and few whites can even use the term now without wincing and casting furtive glances to and fro. But to deny one’s identity in such a manner is to dishonor the God who made us what we are and who separated us apart from the other races for His own eternal purposes. While blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other groups revel in their natural peculiarities, whites will not dare even admit that race is one of the primary factors that determines who we are and what we create on this earth. This is a simple and fundamental fact of God’s creation. We are who we are simply because He has commanded it.
Because Christian liberty has been the product of Western civilization, should the white stock of Europe and America disappear through racial amalgamation or outright genocide, then both liberty and civilization as we have come to know them will cease to exist. As whites have lost the will to defend their inheritance, there has been a corresponding increase in the willingness of the colored races to destroy Western Christian civilization and replace it with their own vision of the “good society.” That vision, or nightmare, as it were, will have no truck with the rule of law, equity, or fairness. It will be predicated on the “intimidation factor” – the employment of brute force by the strong against the weak. In short, it will be “payback time” for the alleged mistreatment that minorities-cum-majorities have suffered at the hands of the White Devils.
Why do white Americans, in particular those who can trace their lineage to the founding stock, lack the backbone to stand for the civilization given them by their forebears? A major reason is collective guilt. The white man first came into widespread contact with the darker races through the institution of slavery in the seventeenth century. Slavery (and not “man stealing”) was successfully defended from a Biblical standpoint through the War for Southern Independence and beyond, but after the South’s defeat and subsequent “reconstruction” the institution’s legitimacy was systematically undermined in the name of “equality” and misappropriated “Christian ethics.” During the first half of the twentieth century, Communists in Europe and America seized on the issues of “equality,” “racism,” and “white guilt” and began to use them as battering rams to knock down the gates of the old social, political, and economic order in the West. Moreover, the bogus work of leftist intellectuals such as Franz Boas and Margaret Mead told white Europeans and Americans that all cultures were basically equal (i.e. what became known as “cultural relativism”).
Slavery and “racism” (the latter term was coined by the Communists), then, became instruments wielded by the left to destroy the very civilization, which allowed them the freedom and leisure to formulate and articulate their ideas in the first place. This nihilistic predilection shared by all leftists appears paradoxical at first glance; however, upon closer inspection it reveals a deep-seated hatred of God-given order and rationality, hallmarks of the white Western world. The leftist embrace of the antithesis of ordered Christian liberty manifested itself early on in a fascination with the primitiveness of non-white, non-Christian peoples and cultures. It was the “Enlightenment” philosophes in France who first became enamored with the idea of the “noble savage” who had not been corrupted by the vile civilization of the West.
The leftists’ success in introducing the concept of “racism” into the American social and political lexicon has led today to increasingly shrill demands from black leaders for reparations. This is clearly a policy of economic blackmail intended to transfer yet more wealth from whites to blacks. It also is another means of eliciting from whites an admission of guilt in order than their civilization might be further discredited. But instead of whites owing blacks reparations for slavery and its alleged attendant ills, blacks in reality owe white America (especially the South) a debt that likely will be neither acknowledged nor paid. Sold into slavery by their own people (or by the Muslims whom many blacks hold in such high regard today), Africans were transported out of a heathen and idolatrous continent and set down in the most Christian section of America – the South. There they were instructed in the Christian religion of their masters, given cradle-to-grave security, and generally treated quite humanely. In short, they were given a chance to live in an advanced civilization and have prospered mightily because of it. All one has to do is contrast the lot of today’s black American with that of his brethren back in Africa to see the truthfulness of this assertion.
The South’s military defeat in 1865 and the subsequent sudden emancipation of three and one-half million slaves was a disaster for whites and blacks alike. Former slaves, who found themselves on top in many areas of the Reconstruction-era South, generally proved unfit to hold positions of authority. Spurred on by the Radical Republican leaders, these black legislators and newly enlisted soldiers earned the enmity of disenfranchised whites who saw the destruction of their society at hand. Therefore, once the Union military occupation forces withdrew from the South in 1876, white Southerners immediately began to reassert their authority over a war-ravaged society. During the period from 1865-77, whites in the South had seen enough of Negro rule to understand that their [i.e. white] civilization would perish should blacks be given the vote and thus be permitted to control the political system.
Whereas whites and blacks in the antebellum South had lived and worked together in close proximity, once the situation changed at the end of the war (especially with the passage of the Reconstruction amendments) some new arrangement became necessary if whites were to preserve their society. Few Southerners of the late nineteenth century believed that whites and blacks could live together in a state of equality without serious social consequences for both races. Therefore, postbellum Southern blacks were disenfranchised and “Jim Crow” laws resulted in a segregated South (today “Jim Crow” has been replaced by what might be called “Jim Snow” policies that discriminate against whites). Through these measures white Southerners were able to exert some control over a still primitive black population. Nonetheless, the “black community” of the late nineteenth century began to experience problems largely absent prior to 1865: black-on-black crime, illegitimacy, abject poverty, and family disintegration, among others. Despite trillions spent on welfare and other programs, these problems – and many others – still plague the “black community” in the present day. Clearly there is an ever-present problem here that emancipation and money did not solve.
Today, it is fashionable for black leaders and their white liberal allies to blame slavery and “racism” for the continuing ills that beset the “black community.” These ills were not eradicated by the “Civil Rights” revolution, and now black failure must have a fresh excuse: institutional “racism.” To the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world the only remedy is the destruction of white Western civilization in which blacks and other minority victim groups cannot compete and its replacement with a society based on the principles and mores (usually some form of Marxism) of dark-skinned peoples. This is why whites (beginning with Southerners, the easiest targets) and their way of life must be demonized and then eradicated. Blacks and other minorities claim they simply cannot get a fair shake in the white man’s world.
The cold facts of history tell us that blacks have never created anything approximating a civilization in the Western sense of the term. Indeed, history gives the lie to the bogus claims of the Afro-centrists who hail Mother Africa as the cradle of a glorious civilization that the white man stole and made his own. What progress and light that did shine on the Dark Continent came only as a result of nineteenth-century European colonialism. Once those colonial regimes were dismantled after World War Two, Africa began a steady descent once again into decadence. One need only look at Zimbabwe (the former prosperous and orderly country of Rhodesia) and Nelson Mandela’s South Africa to see the deleterious effects of white disestablishment and black rule. Again, it is a cold and hard fact that if white Christian European-Americans should lose control over the North American continent to non-white, non-Christian minorities, then it will cease to be the civilized place we have known for the past several hundred years. As blacks and other minorities (e.g. Hispanics in the American Southwest) have gained political control over towns and cities, the decline in the quality of life for whites has become precipitous. Whites have quietly deserted the very places their forefathers built rather than stay and be subjected to the crime and disorder that frequently comes with minority rule. Especially intolerable is the never-reported epidemic of black-on-white violent crime. Whites, then, do not leave because they are “racists” (whatever that means), but because they fear for their lives and property in an unfamiliar and inhospitable environment. They have become cultural outsiders.
By inflating the moral worth of non-white cultures (we dare not call them civilizations) while at the same time diminishing the stature of white Western civilization, the left has succeeded in lowering the cultural aspirations of the white man. Why listen to Mozart when you can have Rap? Today, because of the influence of the MTV-Hollywood nexus, it is the epitome of “cool” among young whites to act like blacks or other minorities. Baggy pants, backward-turned caps, rap music, sexual license, all are manifestations of this descent to the lowest cultural common denominator. And stemming naturally from this sad state of affairs is not a sense of cultural equality but of cultural superiority – non-white over white. It is then but a short series of steps from white guilt over slavery and “racism,” to equality, to multiculturalism and diversity, to hate crimes and hate speech, to the ultimate compromise of racial (i.e. national) extinction through miscegenation. At that point (which we are approaching rapidly in 2000) the old European-American Christian civilization will be ready for the dustbin of history.
The appeal of non-white-dominated popular culture (especially sports and entertainment) combined with low white birth rates and massive Third World immigration threatens to engulf whites both culturally and genetically. What will happen when America is no longer a “white Christian nation”? Already we have seen that the “Civil Rights” revolution of the 1950s and 1960s (the Second Reconstruction) was more about special privileges for blacks and other minorities than about “equality.” Moreover, guilt-ridden whites have acquiesced to a campaign of silence about the epidemic of black-on-white violent crime (the media’s dirty little secret that never gets reported). It is an open secret today that many black and Hispanic leaders are calling on their followers to “get even” with Whitey for perceived past injustices.
There are, however, some blacks who see the truth and are willing to speak it. One is syndicated columnist and George Mason University economist Walter Williams, who opined that the antebellum South was absolutely right to defend its largely Anglo-Celtic civilization from the machinations of Yankee Abolitionist meddlers. Then there is Elizabeth Wright, whose views undoubtedly shake liberal egalitarians to their very core. Wright noted, “I am not fooled by the ‘diversity’ folk into believing that the institutions of this society will be preserved and honored by those who happen to share my gene pool… The multicultural ideologues…make it clear that they view these institutions with contempt. They are working for nothing less than total control…”
Wright indeed has pegged the multicultural egalitarians correctly. Raw power is their one and only end, and they will use any means necessary to obtain it. And when they do, white European-Americans will be their first target. Then we will understand what “equality” really means. Wright believes that “when these people [i.e. blacks and other minorities] come to power, their major aim will be to institute their ‘enlightenment’ policies in all quarters of society… I have heard them refer to liberties such as freedom of speech as no more than…’jive ass claptrap’…” She continues: “I predict that, once in power, they will actually create laws to impose interracial unions, in order to finally bring about the ‘raceless’ dream society… He…who insists on union with his own kind will be dubbed an intractable racist and sent off for further re-education.”
It goes without saying that few whites today would have the intestinal fortitude to say what Elizabeth Wright has said, and that is precisely the problem. Even in the benighted and “racist” South, most whites will no longer speak and act in their own interests. However, the situation in Dixie, as bad as it is (especially in the big cities, yuppie suburbs, and wimpy churches), is much better than elsewhere. If a spirited defense of white, Western, Christian civilization is to be mounted on these shores, it will be in the South among that remnant of proud Anglo-Celts who remember the glories of their past. As likely as not, the South will find it necessary to break away from a decrepit Union that has already succumbed to the poison of multiculturalism and then form a new Confederacy dominated by the mores and institutions of our own civilization.
Once again, Elizabeth Wright (and don’t you feel ashamed that a black woman has to do our talking for us?) seems to understand our predicament better than most whites themselves. She sees “no deep-seated, heartfelt opposition to this trend [i.e. multiculturalism] except among white ‘Southrons.’ Other types of conservatives talk tough until an epithet is hurled their way. Then they fold.” Undoubtedly she is making reference here to the Republican Party. Wright concludes her remarkable essay with a call to arms for white Southerners: “Who is most likely to fight the hardest to maintain and conserve this extraordinary experiment in freedom…? Who else but the actual descendants of those Founders, that’s who. That means you, white Southrons. Once you lay down the sword, that will be the end of resistance… I view the battle as one that can only be accomplished by whites… I would think that most whites would want to be among the last who would destroy that which came out of the genius of their ancestors. So, if a ‘white’ South would guarantee the preservation of those institutions…then let’s have a White South.”
Wright’s clarion call is refreshing indeed. But it is white Southerners themselves who must muster the courage to act and act soon. Demographers predict that whites will be a minority in this country by 2050 (this is already true in California). If we are not willing to fight to preserve that glorious heritage bequeathed us by men of honor, genius, and principle, then we truly deserve the disinheritance that will befall us within the next half century. We are sowing the wind because of our inaction regarding immigration and multiculturalism. We will likely reap the whirlwind.
We could not have said it better ourselves. In fact, there is so much packed into this short essay that a book could be written on every sentence. We especially appreciate Dr. Hill’s condemnation of miscegenation and his association of race with nationality, which you don’t hear from any “respected” conservatives these days, not even from those who have been in the leadership of the League of the South, such as Franklin Sanders, Tom Moore, Clyde Wilson, and Tom Fleming. Even in this recent LOS blog post, you can see the same confusion of nationalism with internationalism and imperialism that Crazy Uncle Tom Fleming taught from the beginning. Thankfully, there is no such confusion in Dr. Hill’s essay. Though you won’t find the word “Kinism” in the essay, since it was written before the term was coined, this is precisely the theme, and it is worlds away from the colorblind conservatism that is common elsewhere.
“[O]ur hearts are designed to love the particular, not the generic,” writes our friend from Cambria. “When you deny your own particular race, you will not become a great lover of mankind, even though you might profess to be such; you will be an abstracted human being incapable of loving anyone or anything. If you don’t care enough about your own people as a distinct race of people, why then should you care about distinct and separate sexes and distinct and separate faiths?” There is also to be found in this article one of the best definitions of liberalism that I’ve ever read, and it comes from liberal Senator Bill Bradley, of all people, one of the most boring men who has ever lived: A liberal is one who does not accept tragedy.
Richard Weaver taught that the Southerner is precisely opposite. While Yankees chase utopian dreams, the Southerner “accepts the irremediability of a certain amount of evil and tries to fence it around instead of trying to stamp it out and thereby spreading it. His is a classical acknowledgment of tragedy and of the limits of power.” The Southerner distrusts abstraction, idealism, and progress, and loves kith and kin, blood and soil; the permanent things, as Russell Kirk put it. The Yankee is “unhappy unless he feels that he is making the world over. He may talk much of tolerance, but for him tolerance is an exponent of power. His tolerance tolerates only the dogmatic idea of tolerance, as anyone can discover for himself by getting to know the modern humanitarian liberal.” Weaver used a couple of Oswald Spengler’s terms and called the Southerner “Apollonian” and the Yankee “Faustian.” The Apollonian man is classical and prefers “a permanent settlement” and “a coming to terms with nature,” whereas the Faustian is a creature of “restless striving” and “constant outreaching,” who is known by his “denial of limits” and his “willingness to dissolve all into endless instrumental activity.” As Weaver wrote, “The North had Tom Paine and his postulates assuming the virtuous inclinations of man; the South had [Edmund] Burke and his doctrine of human fallibility and of the organic nature of society.” Thus, the Southerner “has only contempt for the tender, querulous, agitated creature of modern artifice, sighing for the comforts he is ‘entitled to.’”
“The reigning upper middle class white view is that everyone should always act on the basis of Kant’s categorical imperative: ’Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.’” Thus, whites both run from their problems and throw money at them, with “success” defined as who can afford the most impregnable fence, topped with lethal finials, around his property. But the same whites are always suprised to find that other races do not share their self-loathing. “Their race is the largest extended family to which they feel an instinctive kinship.”
While you’re buying gold to hedge against inflation, the hedge fund managers are buying farmland. “Hedge funds and investment banks are swapping their Gucci for gumboots,” according to the Financial Times.
A history of home values from 1890 to the present.
Using the word “gay” in a negative sense is unexpurgated HATE.
“Christians” of the 21st century like to join with these fags and celebrate Loving Day, when the racism of our benighted Christian past was vanquished by the empire.
Uttering the word “fag” is now a more serious offense than rape and adultery. It’s a crime to offend perverts.
Here’s a fag heat map (sorry, Canada):
“Hollywood only has one story left. From The King’s Speech, to Thor, to Avatar, we’re just seeing the same movie over and over again. Aristocracy, identity, pride, and hierarchy must be humbled in the sacred name of equality. While conservatives bleat about the dangers of ‘moral relativism,’ Hollywood reflects a moral absolutism so rigid and uncompromising that we know the White Hats and Black Hats, how a story will end, and What We Will All Learn barely after the movie begins.”
“There used to be a real popular culture in America… In that veiled and lost epoch, many Americans played musical instruments they were raised to play instead of buying recordings produced by European musicians and Japanese corporations, wrote poetry for themselves instead of puzzling over thin volumes and crippled and bitter verse cranked out by whatever lesbian poetess-in-residence New York publishing houses have decided to make a celebrity for a week, and acted in and sometimes even wrote plays that they produced themselves in local theaters…” ~ Sam Francis
Here’s an excellent article on why world history is white history, not Asian history. Printing, gunpowder, and the compass “were invented in China centuries before Europeans began using them, but only Europeans developed them and applied them to transform their society and then the entire world.” In spite of this, “fascination with foreign cultures is uniquely Western.”
Teach your children about real heroes, like Dmitry Donskoy, who repelled the Mongol hordes from Russia and saved north Asia for Christ and the white race. We Americans don’t know anything about him because we’re too busy venerating rubbish like MLK, Harriet Tubman, and Rosa Parks, and studying the laws of niggerometry. But in the East, Donskoy is every bit as significant as Charles Martel is in the West. We’ll build great edifices in their honor after the Resurrection, if not before.