Posted on June 4th 2014
Our brothers' zookeeper
By Alex Linder
Joe_Smith wrote:
Again, call me a commie all you want, but you're the one who wants to eradicate a very relevant element of Western tradition and history. The irony is that East Germany was more homogenous, normal, community oriented, and moral under an ideology literally invented for the purpose of destroying the white race, than it is today under occupation from the combination of liberalism and Judaism called America. I can tell you this because I know East Germans who lived under both systems very well.
The jews established their dictatorship through terror, and their fearfulness kept that terror in place for decades. Which had the unintentioned consequence of not filling their lands with Third Worlders. Which turned out to be good for Whites, ironically. Yet no one points to East Germany or Russia as a success story. The latter, at least, no matter what WN falsely imagine, is full of abortions and drunkenness. Russia will have to work hard to overcome the Muslim demographics in the surrounding half-white nations. It's not like it's some great success story that we want to emulate, it's mostly a failure and a tragedy. Russian's unfortunate christian heritage left it unable to cope with a tiny revolutionary jewish minority which, after taking power, subjected the people to the worst terror in white history.
Like it or not, no matter what system you live in, someone's going to be bossing everyone around. My view is to come to a consensus and decide who it will be, while yours is to leave it up to a Wheel Of Fortune spin.
That's a misstatement of my proposed solution. Just be honest: you want to live not in a racial authoritarian state but in a racial totalitarian state, in which white men are treated like ants. I don't.
So Jews can win over cultural marxist nuns to support abortion, homosexuality, etc that Francis recently cracked down on, yet we can't work with factions like the St Pius X people?
Can you? In practice, no. Because the Greek Orthodox church is decentralized, you can find a few churchmen here and there who will work with you. I'm not against that - informally. The minute any kind of concession is made to church doctrine the racial stuff goes by the boards. That is a mistake.
The way to do it is make racialism strong. Since racialists favor social normality, any group that desires that normality will be forced to join racialists - if they are the only group that can provide it. It's a political mistake to act like the church is capable of defending the society it wants; rather, racialists should be doing the opposite - pointing out just how weak it is. The church loses as a ninety-percent majority!
It's wrong to cater to some institution you can't compel to respect you, as Parrott and Heimbach should learn. White racialists should build up their forces until, like the jews, the church is forced to respect and afraid to go against them.
Like it or not, most whites have at least a respect for Jesus. I'd prefer these people read Mein Kampf or the Bhagavad Gita, but what are we going to do about it?
We take power. The question is whether we can do that working with or through the church. I say no. Once we have power, most of these christians will say they always privately respected Hitler and had their doubts about 'the' 'holocaust' and were sick of hearing about it. That's how whites are. Not many heroes among them.
I have never advocated destroying christianity. I don't believe it can be destroyed. I do suspect it can be superseded. We can help it die out by offering something better - which is a race-specific doctrine of strength, as embodied, by, say, Marines or SS or any other elite military unit, who are seen by the public and publicly acknoweledge themselves as serving their race. The idea that one's kind is most important is what can and must replace race-free universalism. Is this not self-evident? What will not work is simply burning down churches or murdering priests, as the sicko cult of sadomasochism thrives on oppression. To defeat christianity, you simply treat it with scorn - with mocking and facts rather than physical abuse and legal discrimination. Just keep the church out of racial politics, point out its lies, continually mock it for its disgusting ideals - identify it as the Church of Weakness -- and continually lay before average people something undeniably better - just as science did in the 19th century. Then you will have your victory, later or sooner.
Christian churches are simply a way for the left half of the bell curve to feel like it's on a winning team. Race offers all whites a home, and a good one, not a spurious one. But never should race be used to drag down the strong and capable to the level of the EBT defectives, which is what christianity attempts to do. Race mustn't subsidize genetic or behavioral defectives in any way, shape or form. A national community will mean something different in America than in Germany, where the people are more closely related, and that's why my solution isn't national socialism but white-man-ism. It's tough where it needs to be tough - on race - and its flexible where it can be flexible - the individual stuff. But of course everything works in theory, and as one who grew up reading the conservatives, I know the inevitability and danger of unintended consequences. So I read what the smartest whites out there are saying about what is possible, and I study how they put it into practice. This thoughtful thinking comes at least as much from the folks you despise as libertarians as from racialists. I notice that where financial stuff is concerned, you prefer to avoid debate at the level of ideas, and stick to bandying categories. Yet money control is at least as important as media control in defining the conditions of white lives. The fact that a white controls the counterfeiting machine doesn't mean it can't be used to enslave whites, just as it is now. Simply calling someone like Rothbard a jew isn't useful. If what he says about the Fed is accurate, and it is (that it's the sole cause of inflation), and it's relevant, then it must be taken into account.
It is clear that central government is outmoded. If the US central government fell apart overnight, in whose interest would it be to recreate it? No one's save the classes who benefit from it: the jews, the EBT parasites, the defense contractors, the bureaucrats. Everyone else suffers from it. Most states are pretty well run, really, at least the white ones. The political problem whites face in the US are caused almost entirely by the central government, which is now trying to expand itself into a global dictatorship.
I agree completely about alienating evangelicals and most Protestants, who are lost causes, but declaring war on every person that has some belief in Jesus is not going to get you anywhere. Give them a comfortable alternative that will at least get them out of our way.
Catholicism is and always will be a big, dumb, oaf of a religion. But if you're in prison with a bunch of niggers and that one big dumb oaf, would it be wise to alienate him completely?
Christianity can live with a racial government, but its universalism (I have to pause here to explain to dummies that universalism means the church accepts people of all races, and that this is its core doctrine and has been since it started) will be a latent danger to that government. That's what WN are too anti-intellectual to understand. We need to worry about growing our strength, not about appealing to christians. Christians are mostly the willing tools of whomever's in power. Right now, we Whitists are after the winter patriots - the people who can think against the grain because they have the qualities of mind and character not to be dissuaded by social pressure. The reason we attack christianity is to raise our own cause to public prominence. It's the same reason we attack the conservatives. We must be a jealous cause. We have the answers. The church does not. The conservatives do not. Where has sucking up to the church got Parrott and Heimbach? Where has trying to work within the church gotten them? Where has submitting to universalist anti-white authority gotten them? Someone produce me a single priest who will speak out in favor of white racial views? A man or group that behaves like your enemy...is your enemy. The church, functionally and doctrinally, is our enemy, as it teaches our kind that concern for their own kind is immoral. It will continue to do that until we take power. Then it will shut its mouth, or even flip to our doctrine. Something that weak, blowing hot and cold with the political seasons, is hardly to be respected. It is characteristic of an institution unworthy of white men.
You have to understand what christianity is: an Alcoholics Anonymous for Losers.
Ah was addicted to losin', until ah fahnd this hear church where ah can be uh winner in da nex lahf.
It's not a pretty thing, this church. It's pretty overtly an association of losers. A brotherhood in weakness. It's for people without imagination or spirit. I speak not as a theoretician but as one who went to church for the better part of 20 years, and a church full of professionally successful people, not Baptist dirt eaters. I know very intimately what is wrong with it; I've observed it first-hand.
The christian cult isn't worthy of the white race.
Well if you're too emotionally tied to something to see it for what it is, then there's not much to do. Southerners are the only people in America with an actual culture, do you see the correlation in that and white nationalism finding its highest support in this region?
It has higher levels of support for historical reasons, namely because the South imported levels of niggers, and had to find a way to cope with them physically and explain relations with them legally. It failed to do this, needless to say. Christianity is the reason the South adopted the position that niggers are our dusky little charges, whom we are to superintend, to steward, not as zookeepers but as loving elder brothers. This in fact was the mentality of the South at the very highest level - Lee and Davis. The supreme irony is that today The Illiteracy's leaders are attacked as evil hateful racists when in fact they were benignly paternal to their negro property. They treated nigs reasonably and fairly, within their conception of the natures of and proper relations between the races. My point is that their conceptual framework concealed a latent danger, which time and shifting circumstances quite painfully brought out. The Southern conception of racial relations was and is demonstrably dangerous to whites, just as apartheid in South Africa was. We are not the brothers' zookeeper is what whitists should be saying. The christians are one with the jew overlords and the democrats in saying we're all in this together (or you're, in the case of jews). We're not. Christianity has always seen coloreds as natural members of its community. Not even the most fervent christian can deny that, it is historical fact. Yesterday coloreds were savages to be converted and civilized by christians - not cleared by white men. Today, same thing. That's why the christians are always on the forefront, whether Lutheran protestant or Catholic, of the race-replacement scheme, helping (for profit) the State Department, for one example among hundreds, put 40,000 Somalis in a small town in Maine.
Someone who acts like your enemy is your enemy. Someone who preaches the opposite of what you preach isn't on your side. White nationalists who refuse to take their own side in an argument becomes illiberals. Not to say fools. Why do white men continue to make excuses for a religious cult that never sticks up for us?
As I always and accurately say, Christainity is not a racial religion and cannot be made into one. It takes all comers. Always has. I don't see what's so difficult to grasp about this concept. . . . What, are we so free of tasks at hand that we can try to figure out how to turn brotherhood-of-man cult into a vehicle serving our race?
I'm even tired of insulting people who think like this. I mean, it's not just that you're fighting one of the very few core doctrines that has stood unchanged in the cult in all times and places, you're fighting an organization long subverted by the enemy, and whose preachers, nearly to a one, support white-hostile ideology, and whose churches are a fully integrated part of the anti-white system. Who will deny that christianity is a fully plugged-in and functional part of the judeo-System for controlling white people? If a belief system or an institution isn't overtly pro-white, then functionally it's going to be anti-white, given the influence our enemy the jew is able to wield. So it is today, and so it has been for a long time. So it is inherently, to repeat, given the doctrinal racial universalism at the heart of the cult.
Golden Dawn has all these wonderful supporters in the Greek Orthodox church - has even one official state-employed metropolitan or other prelate attacked the government for throwing GD's entire leadership in jail? If not, why not? If not, then why do you make excuses for them? If you're not taking your side in an argument, and they're siding with the enemy, then who the hell is on our side?
I love how we're supposed to support the church and look after its interests, but when it doesn't do the same for us, we're supposed to make excuses for it. Let's keep on playing the battered wife to this miserable cult. Yeah, that's the way the winner would play it.
White nationalists who make excuses for the church are just like christians with God. He's all powerful, but they won't hold him responsible for anything.
Southernism, if we can call it that, goes way beyond the American constitution, and puts more emphasis on the myths of General Lee and Stonewall Jackson than it does on sterile enlightenment Jew-tools like Washington and Jefferson. The only good president America has ever had is Andrew Jackson. You can start with him if regionalism makes you uncomfortable and use him like Golden Dawn would use Metaxas.
Southerners correctly saw themselves as the true Americans because they were carrying on the genuine spirit of '76, which means operating within the terms of the agreement reached by the several independent states, so your distinction fails. I've always maintained that the South were wrong to switch flags and go with the X, though it does hilariously symbolize their commitment to illiteracy. Wanting to live in an all-white society is the only thing that all white nationalists share - and the only thing they need to share. Race is that important. That's our case. I maintain that even dimly observed social reality reflects this. The fact our enemy makes our self-segregation illegal, while carrying on same in his own country Israel, strengthens the argument. Racial separation and ultimately white sovereignty is good for Whites. It's the only social arrangement he can thrive with. The enemy knows this. That's why he forbids it.
We foolishly complicate matters when we drag in politics beyond race. There, we have no agreement, so we can't unify. I can't persuade you to be a man, and you can't persuade me to be a socialist. So why worry about it? The entire point I'm making is that, race aside, there is no reason, in 2014, to force people to marry who want to live apart. . . . We have a continent. We don't have to live in the same space. Or even live the same way in the same way. If the libertarians want to live in New Hampshire, and live the way they want - let them. And that was the Southern spirit. It was taken for granted that it only applied to white men, since blacks were obviously animals. It was hoped, by Jefferson and others, that one day blacks would graduate from animal school and become humans, but they haven't. Whitism along reflects that bio-social reality and takes it into account -- makes it the basis -- of its politics.
The problem whitism has today is that our cause is tied to and confused with conservatism, which itself is tied to and confused with christianity. We can only solve those problems by cutting all the ties that bind us, and that means publicly attacking christianity with an eye toward creating in the mind of the average white the conceptions that
- 1) what christians are doing is hurting me, my family, and my community, and
- 2) there is another way - the racial way. The white nationalist way.
But we can't do this when racialism is tied up with christian nonsense and historical baggage the way it is in the South. That's why I always say, the solution will come from outside the South. It will come from disaffected northern bourgeois like me, or even from queers like you know who, before it ever comes from Southerners. But once we regain our racial sovereignty, underneath the new racial umbrella, the South will be free to live its own way, internally. It just won't be able to have any niggers to make its losers feel like they're not the bottom rung of the ladder. They'll have to find some other way to feel superior to animals. This might encourage some of them to learn to read, or wear shoes. Who knows? The important thing is, they won't be allowed to spoil things for the rest of us. "We control our niggers down here." Southerners are mostly lazy jackasses. Without niggers to play with, they won't cause better whites any problems. Without the confusions religious primatives cause our cause, we'll be better positioned to take on the jews and their allied northern illiberal whiteskins.
You're not going to be able to inspire a Norwegian-American in Minnesota and a Scots-Irish in Arkansas to fight and die on the basis of just being white and some abstract concepts on a piece of paper, you need to create a collective myth to bind them and tie them with something deeper, so that they can see destiny in one another.
Then by definition I and this forum should not exist, since I hate myths of all kinds and don't need them. Mythology isn't needed, that itself is a myth. Do snowboarders need a myth to try to achieve the world's first 720, which might well result in their breaking their bones, or losing their lives? Hell, no. Does that Ukrainian kid troupe that dangles off buildings need a religious myth to undertake death-defying stunts?
Whites are distinguished by their comparative lack of faith, lack of religion, lack of belief. It's always the lowest and dirtiest and most cowardly whites who are attracted by religions. Athesists always dominate religious folks despite inferior numbers, precisely because they aren't scared and stupid.
And that something deeper is never going to be some tax-revolt by freemasons getting funded by Polish-Jew bankers.
You're underrating an important secondary appeal of our cause, which is restoring to whites the chance to live as adults. You see people earning money and having it stolen from them by your buddies in government as business as usual, and no big deal. Whites enslaved to other whites is a big deal, and it's a big deal to the most competent whites. National socialists must beware their socialism doesn't turn whites into light-skinned EBT monkeys. Poor whites bring most of their economic troubles on themselves, that is the fact of the matter.
Hitler and Mussolini were right. Tom Payne and Jefferson were wrong.
Individualism and abstract concepts didn't build up America, Aryans did.
Aryans who weren't controlled by central government.
And America would today be 100 years ahead if they had coherence and a real ideology besides making money.
You still think like a progressive. Ahead of what? We're not in a race. You just want to replace the jews as shepherd, but plenty of whites aren't sheep, and those are the ones who must make a revolution. Sheep get what sheep get, we shouldn't worry about them. If they want a say in their future, they must evolve.
Crediting some 300 year old enlightenment age garbage conjured up by elitist fags in powdered wigs for the technology and innovations of America would fail to explain any of the great Western civilizations before it.
Two are unrelated, except the Founders studied earlier civilizations and found much not to admire and not to repeat. And they did a good job devising a format for the new country, and it worked fairly well for a good period of time. Can't judge them for not seeing what lay ahead, ie, the technical developments in mass communications and racial science that would obviate good portions of the Constitution.
Want to see what a social liberal, anti-Christian, individualist all (or mostly) white state looks like? Go to Portland.
Exactly. How is that not better than Alabama or Mississippi, even with lefty politics? Race is by far the most important. I can live under white Franco or white lefty in Portland, where the population is all white, far better than where the population is 50-50 with most of the whites agreeing with my racial views.
Get rid of the jews and the muds, the left will have to find something else to play with. But so will the religious right.
[ The above is from a forum thread posting. ]