Thursday, September 22, 2005

The Vainglory of Self Defense

Recently it has been suggested by a certain Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that kinism is a sin because it is characterized by “malice and vainglory”. Nowhere in the attack by this minister is there an acknowledgement that defense of one’s people has any legitimacy. If every people group in the U.S. were held to this same standard then they (the anti-racists) would only be neo-Babelists. That’s bad enough since it destroys diversity and healthy skepticism and replaces it with universalism and utopianism – it supplants the American Revolution with the French. As it is, since the standard is only applied to Whites in the U.S. and worldwide, they are hypocrites, race traitors, and advocates of genocide.

Was it vainglorious of the American Indians to try and defend themselves from the invasion of their lands by Europeans?

Was it vainglorious of the U.S. to invade Germany in two world wars when they had never invaded us?

Was it vainglorious of the U.S. to build a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons as a deterrent against possible Soviet aggression?

This minister would probably say no on all counts. Apparently unilateral disarmament is a leftist/pinko thing when we are fighting Soviet imperialism but is a virtue when our people’s survival is concerned. It’s not vainglorious to attack and commit mass murder, only to defend your people (and only if they are White) from annihilation.

Some might ask why are these kinists so nasty by posting stuff about murder and mayhem committed by foreign peoples? The answer is simple. It answers the question of “why” to the masses indoctrinated into the religion of political correctness. Why should we (the average white person) care about defending the White race? Are we really different or is it only skin color? Etc. As undiplomatic and uncharitable as these posts may seem they are a necessary antidote to the completely contrary flow of information by our culture which demonizes Whites. 24/7 the average White who uncritically consumes the mainstream media sees that his people are uniquely vile and worthy of destruction. Does this Minister of the Gospel fight this? Of course not. Any “relevant” Minister of the Gospel has got to agree that the White Race is expendable. To say anything to the contrary would cause the minister to face the PC Inquisition and be denounced as a racist. The PC Inquisition is the authority any respectable Minister of the Gospel really fears. Any respectable Minister of the Gospel must refute his PC heresies pronto since his image might be negatively impacted and the seekers might look elsewhere.

If vainglory and malice are evident isn’t it in the advocates of amalgamation and genocide instead of in its opponents?

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Japs and Serbs

Does anyone call the Japanese racist? Or, more specifically, is calling Japan racist normative? The answer to the second question is no just as the first question is meaningless – does “anyone” not do anything? The Japanese are a very race conscious nation. You cannot become a citizen unless you are genetically Japanese. Japan is considered a liberal and enlightened “western” nation. Yet one of the contemporary characteristics of an enlightened western nation is racelessness. Why this is so is a good question but please accept for now that it is. Almost every other nation in the lineup of the enlightened first world has embraced multiculturalism, not just in word but in deed. As best I can tell every country dogmatically multiculturalistic has a (still) White/European majority population. Every country that is not MC is non-white. One of the few White countries that in recent memory made any modest efforts to reverse this course is Austria which a few years ago, through democratic elections, chose a political party that, at least rhetorically, was not as committed to MC as is commonplace in the West. Whereas the enlightened, liberal Japanese have a much more nativist, racially-conscious and self preserving system in place than anything the Austrians have initiated it is the Austrians who were severely rebuked by the West’s ideological torch bearers – not Japan.


Why are White countries, all of them, expected to be multicultural and not non-white countries, even among the supposedly enlightened? By the standards of liberalism it is arguable that a country like Chad be exempted from “progressive” anti-majority policies, since it is very poor, and the poor are usually held to a different standard in the egalitarian mindset (at least if they are the right type of poor) than the rich. Of course the poverty of Serbia didn’t stop the enlightened from bombing her into line for daring to defy MC. Serbia was defying the takeover of its historic lands by Albanian Muslims and international jihadists and the world community would not allow this since Muslims are on the approved list of people who can be self-preserving and Whites are not. What would be a dilemma for the Jews, along the lines of free pork, is if more and more Whites become Muslim. Will their Christian hatred or their White hatred win out? I think the answer is obvious.

So Japan is exempted though a prosperous first world country. Austria is not exempted though it is also a first world country (though not nearly as prosperous as Japan). Chad is exempted since it is very poor but not Serbia which is also poor. Other very rich and MC-exempt countries include Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf states.

What is the common thread here? It is clear that White racial identity and nationalism is not considered legitimate while for every other race it is. Though many would argue that Nazi Germany should hold a distinct place in our memories this raises two questions. One, why are the white nations that defeated Nazism not exempted from the current anti-white bias? Unless these White nations shed their blood and treasure to defeat Germany in two world wars there would be no anti-white paradigm at all. So the free White countries that ended a menace, less to themselves than to other races, are now being treated like trash. Charles Lindbergh warned of this in 1941 and history is proving him right even though he was and is being vilified for saying so. Two, why are Japanese racial atrocities virtually ignored, at least in comparison to the Holocaust? Especially in regards to the Chinese, Japan was ruthless and this barbarity had a clear racial element.

On a related note, the Soviets were clearly genocidal to many of their classes and ethnicities, notably the Ukranians. If the Soviets were notably ethnic Russians then I have little doubt their crimes would be a much greater part of our collective memories. But since the soviet leadership was a racial polyglot (though disproportionately ethnic Jews) and their victims mostly White they have largely been given a pass.

I just gave a hint as to what I think is a compelling answer to the original question of “why?” Japan, as with all other non-white countries and people groups, is exempted from multiculturalism because they are not considered corporately responsible for transgressions against Jews. Even though Whites fought against Whites to, among other things, save the Jews to the point of tens of millions of deaths of our best young men, Whites are now considered illegitimate as a race. As the black writer Shelby Steele recently commented in defense of this double standard:

"No group in recent history has more aggressively seized power in the name of its racial superiority than Western whites. This race illustrated for all time—through colonialism, slavery, white racism, Nazism—the extraordinary human evil that follows when great power is joined to an atavistic sense of superiority and destiny. This is why today's whites, the world over, cannot openly have a racial identity."

In other words, Whites are uniquely evil compared to the supposedly more moral and less dangerous non-whites. He argues this in parallel with justifying non-white racial consciousness. Shelby Steele is considered very mainstream and his reasoning here is orthodox according to polite society. He will not be shouted down or boycotted or otherwise made into a pariah. To reverse some of these words and replace white with black or brown is considered in bad taste to even think much less speak.

We are called racist when we want to restrict who we allow in our countries. We are called racist when we demand that our governments confiscate less of our money for the purpose of domestic and international interracial wealth transfers. We are ridiculed for standing up to the anti-natal, culture destroying movements of radical feminism and homosexual rights.

Now all of these movements that are deliberately destroying the White race have an unmistakable level of Jewish intellectual leadership. Many argue that Jews are White and they are, when it suits them, just like they are non-white when that suits them. Does anyone suspect that the disproportionate representation of Jews in college admissions and in cultural leadership positions will be hindered by affirmative action? No, since at those times Jews will wear the mantle of minority victim of white, gentile persecution. Yet when it comes to selling things to the public as politicians, CEO’s, and actors Jews will turn as white as snow. Gentile Whites will lose either way. We will be squeezed out between Jews and the preferred minority groups when diversity reigns supreme. We will be hindered by our people’s demonization, leading to no sense of self, when merit reigns.

Wealth, religion, and language mean nothing in the paradigm of political correctness. Everything is subordinated to the goal of destroying the White Race. When will a critical mass of Whites see this and start working to save themselves? If we won’t do it no one else will. We are expected to save the world as our posterity is swept away. What would P.T. Barnum call someone who fell for that deal?

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Empty Ritual

Last night we went to Back to School Night at my oldest daughter’s school; she is now in 3rd Grade. I hate to admit that it is a government school and it is a shining example of the New America where Whites are dwindling to nothingness through infertility, amalgamation, and flight. I want so much to homeschool her before the PC claptrap propagated by this seminary overwhelms her parent’s beliefs but that’s not want I want to talk about right now.

After all the parents were gathered in the Auditorium we were all asked to rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I couldn’t do it – recite the Pledge that is – even though I stood and placed my hand over my heart. The stars and stripes that we have all been raised to revere I now reel from. Up until a year ago I would regard my own thoughts now as disrespectful at the least, if not treasonous. I don’t care anymore about that. I care about the truth, justice, and the survival of my people. When I see that flag now I see lies, injustice, and genocide. Most Whites don’t see this. They see Iowa Jima, Gettysburg, Normandy, and the all the fallen heroes of America; our kin and kith who died for it and what they thought it stood for. It now spits on their posterity. Should we now honor it or them? I choose them. This is a conundrum most neither see, or if they do see can handle. Most choose to hope what I say is not true. They put their faith in false idols like empty patriotism, empty symbols, and empty ritual.

Recite the Pledge in your mind and see if the words are truth or lies. They maybe used to be true but are they now?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America (united by coercion) and to the republic (we are a republic like North Korea is a republic – in name only) for which it stands, one nation (used to be of blood and faith, now it is based on an anti-White abstraction), under God (a blasphemous lie now, at least for Jehovah – we should not desecrate His holy name by associating Him with something approaching or exceeding Sodom), indivisible (thanks to Lincoln and his disciples), with liberty (maybe adolescent libertinism fits), and justice (Marx’s and Trotsky’s variety) for all (all who are of a preferred class and have preferred thoughts).

I understand that principles are good and it is good to try to aspire towards principles we can’t even keep, even if it often makes us hypocrites. The problem with the Pledge is that it means (either from its original Socialist intent, and/or through reinterpretation) exactly what is says in an Orwellian way to our current Masters and their adoring slaves. It is a lie from the perspective of a Christian who wants a society built on Christian liberty, freedom, and justice. When words are twisted like this it makes no sense to keep repeating them hoping they mean something different.

America has been changed from within into something diametrically opposed to its very foundations. The pre-Constitutional American States were all (with the possible exception of Rhode Island) explicit Christian Republics. The post-Constitutional Union was at least not hostile towards God’s Law. From the 1860’s until now we have been in a death spiral ever accelerating. Reciting and believing the Pledge is tantamount to digging our own graves. It’s a tough realization for a former mainstream (in the terms of Bob Whitaker – “respectable”) conservative.