Charles Murray may call himself a libertarian. He endorses public financing of schools and is also for the Iraq War. Therefore, he is not a libertarian even in the minarchist sense.

Prof. Gottfried,

First, it is worth remembering that Euro-Americans did not vote for Obama.

Secondly, it is also worth remembering that the more corrective traditionalist instincts within our people have been suppressed by the Left, via its monolithic control of our information, education, and academic organs.  Wherever more traditionalist-minded White Americans labor to plant seeds of their own the Left quickly shows up with its bottle of cyanide and as a consequence the past few decades have seen us lose mainstream society.

Our task is revolutionary in nature because the Left is denying us the freedom needed to heal our people from the decadence that they’ve been led into.

I wonder how many anti-immigrant people here would complain about allowing the Viking and Saxon invaders into Britain during the dark ages when the original native people there were the dark skinned picts.

Just asking.......

With all due respect to my critic, almost half of the white population in this country
voted for Obama. Even more importantly, all kinds of Nordic people and most
conspicuously the therapeutically sensitized
Teutons were dancing in the streets over our national atonement, which was seen as
reflected in the American endorsement of President-Elect Obama. Only Euro-American
people impose such ideological lunacy on themselves. Others take advantage of it but
Euro-Americans in contrast to everyone else revel in overcoming their supposed
sinfulness by practicing collective suicide.

“Others take advantage of it but
Euro-Americans in contrast to everyone else revel in overcoming their supposed
sinfulness by practicing collective suicide.”

Voting for Obama was “collective suicide”?  So I guess the other option, voting for a guy and gal who had no problem starting a war with Nuclear Russia, was the “non-suicidal” option, right?

I hate it when “we” is used for the state of affairs in one’s country or the election of high political office.  “I” hate what has been going on in America and the West in general, but “I” have absolutely no say in the matter. 

Let me state the position of the Right, which most of the regulars on this site would like to experience in reality.  The body politic is a social organism of people with similar history and outlooks (old school restraint and morality found in the Old and New Testaments) and aesthetics (Greco-Roman aesthetics in literature, philosophy, visual arts and architecture).  In pre-Modern times, and even in some areas in the early 20th Century, there were elites who financed and ran public goods for “their people and culture” and had a sense of noblesse oblige and the oblige was to “their own”. 

Starting in the 19th and especially 20th centuries, commercial and financial aggregates with “global presenses” took over the “State” and the uprooting of white people from traditional or self-owned agrarian social units to the socially unsecure cities led to their eventual moral and ethical degredation (look at urban whites who vote Democratic).  This potentially could have been counteracted if the “robber barons” believed in civic virtue and the moral uplift of their citizens, but they would never have become robber barons if they were of that mindset, though, would they?  Our current elite have no higher impulse within them except self-enrichment and they are ascendant everywhere in the West.

As a white in California though, many of the whites I know absolutely hate what has happened in our state and are opposed to it.  It must be admitted that our family still is proud of its Midwestern roots, so we never were part of the hippie/leftist element that was present in California.  However most of the whites in Los Angeles are not natives of the area, indeed it is rare to find a native white Angeleno here.  Most of them are transplants from elsewhere who love being around coloreds and hate white culture and love “diversity”.  I believe the same can be said of New York City.

Prof. Gottfried,

Everything that you said is true, there is no denying the state of our suicidal decadence.

However, I would liken our condition to that of a regular human being whose immune system has been dismantled for many years and who, in the fullness of time, has contracted exotic diseases that would otherwise have been naturally repelled.  And while we can marvel at the depths of our sickness, the question remains of how to go about restarting our immune system.  How many limbs will we have to amputate before corrective measures can be taken (and so on).

Personally, I can only conclude that our people are, at best, partially responsible for having their immune system gutted.  The older generations couldn’t foresee the long-term consequences of what technological mass media would do to their culture if left in the wrong hands because it was so new.  Surely the Left wouldn’t have been able to reach its current zenith if it wasn’t for the technological media innovations of the early 20th century.

Here is a video clip of pro-sodomy protesters reacting violent to a traditional marriage supporter: http://www.kpsplocal2.com/global/video/popup/pop_playerLaunch.asp?vt1=v&clipFormat=undefined&clipId1=3115942&at1=News&h1=Prop 8 Rally Turns Violent - Live Report

Prof Gottfried
I agree with most of your comments, however, I disagree with your disparaging views on whites. Remember that virtually everything of substance that the average citizen is exposed to in newspapers, TV, films, radio etc has been “scrubbed” to make it propaganda for the doctrine of “political correctness”. Further, most whites understand that voicing non-PC views is social and career suicide. Need I remind you of the ethnic group in western societies that controls most of the mass media and has invariably been an enthusiastic supporter of the heavy-handed imposition of political correctness?

Prof. Gottfried,

Another excellent article by you sir. As someone who openly calls himself a White Nationalist I want to put in my-two-cents about some of the things you have brought up. First off what happened to Europeans that put them on this suicidal path? One needs to look back just over a century ago when whites were in total control. Our empires expanded the globe, our technological progress was matched by none, our arts and literature were held as the standard of beauty, and non-whites like the Japanese were scrambling to adopt our progress to keep from being dominated by us. Indeed history will probably record the 19th century as the century when whites conquered the world and our people and culture was at its greatest height; what happened?

This no doubt politically incorrect but it must be said. What happened was the infectious teachings of three of Prof. Gottfried folk: Marx, Boas, and Freud. Marx gave birth to Communism which was all about dividing our people through economic envy and hatred but more importantly gave birth to Cultural Marxism which I hope doesn’t need to be explained on a paleconservative site. The teaching’s of Boas made having a belief and indeed love of our race seem backwards and ignorant in his preaching that it didn’t exist. And Freud’s teaching took away personal responsibility and gave legitimacy to every form of perversion imaginable. Nearly all of our problems: Marxism, hatred of race, homosexuality, institutionalized irresponsibility, free trade, and general cultural pessimism can be traced back to the teachings of these three Jews.

How can we defend our borders on an ethic & racial basis when Boas taught they didn’t exist? How can we denounce homosexuality and pornography when Freud taught that Christian sexual morality was oppressive? How can we defend our economic stability when Marx taught that profit was the evil of history? Their ideas have infected our universities (I know I just became a college graduate) whose students then became the leaders of our nations that than try to implement them. Where did our rot begin? With the ideas of those three Jews.

Lest anyone say that I’m a raving anti-Semite whose comments should know that one of the influences of my White Nationalism is the British Jewish conservative Benjamin Disraeli. In his day Jews were discriminated against by law and hated by the wider culture. Dizzy embraced his Jewish heritage in a Romantic sense to give himself a proud identity, love of his heritage in a growing materialism, and a middle finger to his enemies; I have done the same thing in this age of Affirmative Action, diversity, white guilt, and mass non-white immigration. Also like Dizzy my Romantic Nationalism and artistic Romanticism are in the service of my country and nation (America and white); like Disraeli’s England and Jew.

When it comes to the question of why White Nationalists prefer PC whites to unPC non-whites is simply: they are our family. No matter what they are members of our family in ways that traditionalist Muslims could never be. I could a prohibitionist and have an alcoholic sister who I would love and try to help over another prohibitionist who was merely a friend. No matter how bad they get they are members of our family who have been infected by the poison spread by the ideas of the three men I mentioned above. To say we should stop love and trying to help members of our family because they have a different political philosophy is political fanaticism.

As I said in other comment sections here, White Nationalism is not a political philosophy in common since. It is not about simply government reform, political parties, or abstract ideologies; it is about the survival of a distinct genetic people in this time, our darkest hour. If my alcoholic sister is broke and laying drunk in the gutter I don’t close the door on her in disgust, I do everything in my power to help cure her of what has brought her down to that level.

Consistent with Paul’s analysis here, it is undeniable that leftist Christian theologians were not pressured by minorities or immigrants into reinventing Christianity as a PC dogma.  Harvey Cox penned “The Secular City” long before America became a fully multicultural republic.  Additionally, leftist Christians in the western world usually end up preaching to dwindling numbers of their own kind, rather than to minorities with socially conservative values.  The few conservative Anglicans (Episcopalians) who survive in my country of Canada receive oversight from conservative bishops in Africa, having rebelled against the leftist atheology of the established synods.

Thank you for the video link, Daniel.  I had no idea Palm Springs is such a wrath-filled hive of angry, sodomite (ahem, old queen) bees.

Craig hit it on the head IMO.

As a proud southerner, I can say that we as a culture are fighting on as the rebels we have proven to be.

Another commenter suggested that the tones of our nationalism remain, we just aren’t as vocal anymore. Among the working class, of which I claim to proudly be, this couldn’t be more true.

If the Prof could be the fly on the wall as a few working class whites sat around and drank a few after work he would see just how proud we still are.

Dr. Gottfried slags on a certain kind of white:  the ones who hate Christian Europe and its descendant, Christian America.  There are a large number of White Nationalists who are also hostile to Christianity, so they twaddle their lips while saying “JOOZ”.

Of course many White Nationalists have hostility towards contemporary Christianity. Christian churches have become one of the barricades of Cultural Marxism. Many Christian churches are strongly pushing for mass non-white immigration, homosexuals and women in the clergy, diversity, Tukey’s acceptance into the EU, and even Sharia Law (see the head of the Anglican Church); Christianity today is not the Christianity that made Western civilization for 2,000 years. The Christianity of the Crusaders, of “Onward Christian Soldiers”, of G.K. Chesterton, of Roy Campbell, and certanly not of Hilaire Belloc! Christianity has been the lifeblood of whites for 2,000 years but now is another poisonous strain of Cultural Marxism.

There is no way to put this poetically but Christianity today has basically given up on Christ and says we can find salvation only through Jews and Israel; something people forgot to tell Christians for 2,000 years. The idea of a Judeo-Christian anything is a contradition since the whole basis of Christianity is that it believes Christ to be our Lord and Savior while the basis of Judaism is that it says the Lord and Savior hasn’t arrived yet. This idea of Jews being somehow beyond criticism especially by Christians has made any bad thing they do something that can’t be talked about. Kind of like not telling a burgler that what he’s doing is wrong out of fear it will make you a bad person.

I truly want to know what these conservatives who refuse to talk about race, whites, Jews, or anything else controversal are truly trying to conserve? Is it a political party? Is it a political ideology? Is it limited government? They truly can’t be so arrogant to think that what they believe can be exported and maintained by any diverse people on the planet, that’s the mark Jacobism and Marxism. There is no tradition of fundemental limited government in sub-Sahara Africa or the Muslim world, there is no tradition Libertarianism in Asia, there is no tradition of anything they believe in anywhere across the globe except in white nations. Do they truly think Mexicans will return the United States to Jeffersonian limited government? Do they truly think that Muslims will return Europe to Christian civilization? If they do their abstract thinking is on the same level as the egalitaritans they claim to oppose.

A husband and wife with kids buy a house and buy the furniture, arrange the furniture, paint the walls, plant the garden, decorate the house, create the house rules, and maintain all of these things as long as they live in that house. They then move away and another family moves in. Do you really think the new family will keep the house exactly the same way the previous family did? Of course not! They will redo all those things to thier desires and taste. So with this senerio why does anyone think if Mexicans gain America over whites they will keep it as it has been for over 200 years? With this senerio why does anyone think if Muslims gain Europe over whites they will keep it as it has been for over 2,000 years?

“Conservatives” really need to take a hard look at the future minority white Western world if they expect to play any part in it.

Has anyone polled Muslim voters in California (and other states with “hot button” issues) to inquire how they voted regarding these issues? 

I haven’t seen the results of a such a poll. Many American Muslims appeared to be for Mr. Obama. Did Muslims turn out in large numbers?

The results in California lead me to believe that many Black and Hispanic voters do not favor “gay marriage.” That is, they see marriage as an institution that favors the formation of families and care of children produced from the union of the man and woman. They may or may not have religious sentiments attached to the license. I also believe that many Blacks and Hispanics are more conservative that many of the left-wing politicians.

I predict that, in the future, the civil authorities will insist that a legal “civil union” will be required for all couples (of any stripe) before a church “marriage” (of any kind) can be performed.  The “civil union” is the public contract; and the “marriage” is a private and/or religious contract. This is the rule in Europe. 

Many American clergy will object to this.  However, we’re already halfway there by requiring a marriage license to be produced (with appropriate blood tests) before the clergyman can officiate at the marriage ceremony. Of course, they wouldn’t be required to perform marriage ceremonies for those who either didn’t belong to that particular church and who haven’t undergone pre-marriage counseling, etc.

@ jerry…
“I wonder how many anti-immigrant people here would complain about allowing the Viking and Saxon invaders into Britain during the dark ages when the original native people there were the dark skinned picts.

Just asking.......”

CAN’T YOU JUST SEE IT!

Blue-painted Celt #1:

~~Shading his eyes while gazing out to sea~~

“Look at those people!”

Their faces are as white as the sails!

Blue-painted Celt #2:

OMG, they’ve got their women and lifestock with them!  They plan to stay!

Blue-painted Celt #3:

Great Merlin! There goes the neighborhood!

;-) :-)

Sorry, I couldn’t help myself!

The acts of throwing open our borders and gnashing our teeth over our collective social and racial sins are not occurring exclusively because minorities have been allowed to gain disproportionate influence and special rights in Western countries.

Correct, but it misses the point of the more intelligent white racialists.  Their goal is to change white people, to make whites proud rather than guilty.  Then whites will have the courage to deal with racial problems themselves.

As I’ve said before, I think race realism is important for all opponents of liberalism, not just racialist ones. Pro-conservative rhetoric will never persuade on its own.  Conservatism in any form can come about only if liberalism is seriously weakened, either from internal contradictions or from external shocks.  So conservative rhetoric needs to be negative, against liberalism; and the reality of racial differences is an arrow aimed at liberalism’s Achilles’ heel.

Paradoxically, the best strategy for non-racialist conservatism is to emphasize race, as much as they can get away with in any given setting.

In the Agricola, Tacitus writes that the Picti were large limbed with reddish-blond haired.

If “Wilmot Robertson” was correct, our recovery will include a revival of healthy levels of anti-semitism ala Russia. Does Professor Gottfried support this?

“.... are not occurring exclusively because minorities have been allowed to gain disproportionate influence and special rights in Western countries.”

We thank you for the tough love professor, but don’t the MacDonald-ites say the same thing, that is, “necessary but insufficient???”

if Mexicans gain America over whites they will keep it as it has been for over 200 years?

Depends upon which Mexicans.  I don’t know if you are aware of this Craig, but “white” and “Mexican” are not mutually exclusive categories.  Same holds true for all “hispanic” categories.  This is partly what makes analyzing “hispanic” anything inherently difficult from a racil perspective - hispanic is not a “race,” it is many races just as “American” is.

The Mexicans and hispanics coming over here, however, are largely of non-white descent, which skews the perception.

Another great column by Prof. Gottried, but he is wrong to say half of whites voted for Obama. The white breakdown was as follows:

55% McCain - 43% Obama.

“It is whites who go around removing references to Christmas, banning “hate speech” and exalting sodomy.”

You have “Whites” confused with “jews”.

You’ve got a helluva a lotta gall (chutzpa?) blaming Whites for the genocide being perpetrated by your tribe!

It took until the 29th comment for someone to say it: it is not whites who ban Christmas decorations. Unless you consider Abraham Foxman a typical white man. The people who hate Christmas, and by extension, Christians, are the people who went nuts when Mel Gibson made his movie “The Passion of the Christ.” Yeah, the whites really went nuts trying to ban that! It’s one of the top grossing movies of all time. Those who tried to have Mel Gibson arrested as a “terrorist” for making that movie are the ones behind multiculturism (except in Israel), open borders (except in Israel), wars for Israel, abortion, etc, etc. It does take a certain amount of chutzpah for Prof. Gottfried to think he can get away with blaming whites for trying to ban Christmas!

White nationalist? Heck, weren’t the founding fathers essentially white supremacists?

Also, why the increased focus on white nationalists by the author as of late??

“Boxing isn’t called the “sweet science” for nothing, Joe.  You gotta know what punches to land and what punches to pull; also to let others land the punches you pull.”

That would be fine if he were boxing; he’s not,he’s writing an article and being disingenuous about the real cause for the problems he claims to abhor.

Dr. Gottfried: “Let me cut to the chase. I think that those on the right who call themselves “white nationalists” have a lot of explaining to do about why their preferred race is happily committing cultural and social suicide and punishing those of its members who happen to notice this unhappy fact.”

He’s still blaming the victim. Whites are not so much “happily committing cultural and social” suicide as we are being murdered. Decades of brainwashing by hostile aliens who control our media have taken their toll.

The dear Professor is obviously not talking about Jews captainchaos because he used the word “thier”. Show me a White Nationalist whose preferred race is Jewish and I I’ll show you a bridge I have to sell.

Jim Kalb identifies Gottfried’s tendency to “blame the victim.”

http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2730

“I think here he’s taking too seriously the idea of the majority as an actor that deliberates and makes decisions that are attributable to the people in general. In fact, the active part of the “majority” that’s doing the encouraging is our ruling class of experts, managers, and functionaries, the heritage they want trashed is not their heritage of social rationalization but the competing incompatible heritage of classical antiquity, Jerusalem, the European middle ages, and normal life in general, and the “majority” targeted for discrimination is not experts, managers, and functionaries but normal white men, who are not as such our dominant class.”

Dr. Gottfried: “Let me cut to the chase. I think that those on the right who call themselves “white nationalists” have a lot of explaining to do about why their preferred race is happily committing cultural and social suicide and punishing those of its members who happen to notice this unhappy fact.”

We’re not “committing suicide” so much as getting jewed out of exsistence.

We White Nationalists have been “explaining” that for years.

“skeptical” is correct above.

It was so new, ‘mid-20th Century’ technology i.e. t.v. in particular, no one except those motivated toward control (like Stalin who saw quickly the impact of ‘moving pictures’), could fathom the depths of depravity and decadence a (newly) ‘liberal’ mostly white people could be led into, if such media fell, as it has, into such hands. I.e. Has fallen into the hands of those who do not have the white majority’s interests at heart, in fact quite the opposite.

Sadly (or happily) the minority and controlling ‘yin’ in this case, is tied more than it can yet realize to the majority (newly liberal and misled) ‘yang’.  Chinese are too intelligent, or old or both to care one jot about the white-looking ‘yin’. Otherwise into their arms they’d rush headlong, next.

I have always up till now enjoyed Prof. Gottfried’s writings. I was very impressed with his talk at the past Amren Conference and have read all of his articles at Lew Rockwell; but here is showing that he is like other Conservative’s taking it hard that thier place in hsitory is finished. The Conservatism that began with Russell Kirk is done, finished. Just take the columnists on this site. Justin R. engages in childish name calling against White Nationalists; John Z. waxes poetically about long dead monarchies, The Southern Avenger makes bad jokes in his videos; and now the usually great professor is attaking whites people while ignoring the deeds of his own people. If columnists like this are the best Conservatism has to offer its a wonder it lasted this long. The election of Obama has shown that for all Conservatism’s values, ideals, and platitudes they have nothing to offer the American people. Instead they kick and scream at those showing them up like a kid who refuses to get off the stage of a school play.

On election night Stormfront crashed because so many people tried to log onto it. In the days after there was so much traffic that only members could enter links to prevent another crash. Did Takimag or any other Conservative or Libertarian website crash election night due to traffic? This past Saturday night the board at RBN crashed as so many people tried to tune into The Political Cesspool’s live coverage of the Euro conference and David Duke; has Takimag ever crashed from people trying to watch the Southern Avenger’s videos?

Conservatism gave up on the epitomy of Western conservatism, blood and soil, for Liberal style values and abstractions. And so they failed and now they are going through cognitive disodanse as the movement the movement they lived for is crashing down and being replaced with something new.

To: Craig

Craig I empathize with you.

And know that I agree. But you’re not educated enough to post on his site.

See my post directly above Craig’s in case he was a shill.

As for Scimitar’s directly above sure, ? It’s yet difficult for even you to get real.

I ditto Captainchaos to Scimitar above.

der’captain’s a good weader or leader. cool.

It’s difficult as I said too above, to get real.

The more the merrier! ... el’capitan… tickle-tickle. You tickle’ish?

p.s. given i.q. in any language i’ll do alright, which is relative, so specifically then in relation to captainchaos. my bite is bigger than bark. See Captain you have too many ‘tells’ as we say in poker.

Peace.

ditto Scimitar’s post directly above and mine saying same thing & “skeptical“‘s too. Lets grow our numbers, friends. But grow our awarenesses via education ongoing eternal.  It saves time. Oh, and room too for alleged leaders on committe like captainchaos, a big barker. I like him too, he’s ‘tickle’ish.

p.s. poor captainchaos - everyone agrees, you ‘Scimitar’, ‘skeptical’, poor ‘me’, yet captainchaos always legend in his own mind - him big band leader.  I say ok, we need one.

sorry I like talking now like foreginer, since captain said I was one. It’s fun.

where captain, from… him not like David - Frum canada, no?

(sometimes, shills ------- d e e p ------ )

RE #14 look at the voting patterns in the counties surrounding Milwaukee vs the rest of Wisconsin. They ain’t so enthralled with the multicult messiah.

Good post captainchaos, above. Now our leader’s back on track. He got over himself and his battle
with poor little me. Captian, we’re peers, all if we are...then sometimes you’ll be my teacher, and I your sutdent other times vice versa. That’s maturity. Only primitive groups need top-chimp. Or even t.v. to provide the ‘alleged’ moment.

Even absolute Roman consuls served for only 1 year at a time. 

Whiteman wake-up.

It is all so simple.  Prof Gottfried’s people are too filled with hatred of the impertinent European Christian to allow him to survive.  Even before the Great Fright of WW2, their most cunning Frankfurter-eaters were working out how to force the trope of an original sin of racism on European Man - tuned up, of course, as anti-semitism where required.

Then, with the blessing and the bucks of the real lords of the dance, they set to work.  Many of their victims, being genetically disposed to faithism, took up the notion of a sin to be washed, washed, washed out of the European heart with religious fervour.  After all, wouldn’t there be a heavenly reward on Earth for this labour of universal love?

The rest of us - all except a tiny, brave, resistant and demonised few - were too spiritually weakened by the noumenal gifts of other Jews (the film-makers, the music industry execs, the pornographers, the Holo-artistes, et alia) and by the liberal dominion which sanctioned them, indeed sanctioned it all, that they shrunk in fear from their accusers.  They could not find the will or the means to fight back, even for the very lives of their children.

And that, brothers and sisters, is where we stand today.  Forget what the good Prof says.

There are, however, solutions.  Two of them, both revolutionary.  The first is the “final” one, a bloody and difficult, extremely unlikely contingency.

The second is the long, bloodless, intellectual road of replacing what’s left of liberalism - and thereby disaccomodating Prof Gottfried’s unhelpful kinfolk - with a just and mete philosophy of European life.  I’m for number two and work away at it, in my own blind and foolhardy way, every day at my blog.

But I would gladly take the other option before I see my people die.  Survival is, after all, the only true morality.

It’s Pym Fortuyn and Oh Fortuna, by the way.  Carl Orff, as far as I know, did not bugger anybody.

Captain Chaos wrote:

“He [Gottfried] fears the inevitable or at least too high likelihood of the return of something like Nazism.”

Is that what you fear too, Captain Chaos?

As Jim R. wrote:

Sometimes - shills - deep

Our fated demise might serve the ancients as fodder for Tragic/Comedy, if not for the likely possibility such a “Play” would fall outside their scope of comprehension.  What difficulties might arise from the attempt to eulogize a declined race, which exuberated its own demise? 

The question goes begging in spite of the thoughtful responses posted by Skeptical, Havers, Craig and others.  What explanation can we provide for this pathetic state of affairs?  The good professor has shone the light upon us and our response to him is the familiar echo we get over and over from the two prevailing camps of what remains of the paleo-conservative White man.  From the White Nationalists (who Thomas Mann once referred to as “cave bear nationalists”) we hear about our victimization at the hands of the clever Jews.  From the Chronicles Christian corner we hear bleating about the necessity to return to God and religion. 

Both these perspectives seem flawed.  Removing Jewish power structures, influence and parasitism might bring about the longed for utopia, unfortunately, it is likely to be rather short lived.  Soon enough, the next Master Race will arrive to renew the symbiosis, and likely with far less scruples. . 

As for those who might suggest the “Dutch Reformed Church” (or any other of the same sect) is “in no way the continuation of the religion of the seventeenth-century Dutch burghers” this is particularly inaccurate and dangerous.  It is the SAME church; only the adherents have become more Christian-like, moving politically ever more Leftward.  This is an important point because the reason for this leftward movement may contain the skeleton key as to why we are sliding into the abyss. – Being Christian means being a Leftist, what else exactly does it mean?  Former ages of Christians simply had not had time for their instincts to be perverted to the current levels of insanity.

Recently, this site (or members affiliated with it) initiated the H.L. Mencken club, which would not be complete without including Mencken’s greatest hero, F. Nietzsche who wrote that Western Man lives under the worst sort of curse imaginable.  That curse has laid waste our sense of Being, destroyed our Past and threatens our Future.  Mencken’s translation of Nietzsche’s “Anti-Christ” informs us of both what ails us and places the blame where it belongs, at OUR feet.

We’re getting knee deep in neo-nazi gobbedlygook here. “Being Christian means being a Leftist?” What planet is this guy on?

Actually it is white clergywomen. The high priestesses of the church of Henry the eigth are overrepresented among spokespersons supporting homosexual marriage.

Perhaps it was the WASPs with their realization of the long march through the institutions.

yes, me too. thanks for a fine piece.

most turks view decadent europe just as the author supposes. so in europe they marry within their own faith, arrange marriages between families and so on. they have european friends, but on things that matter they are conservative.

in turkey, the turks are small ‘c’ conservatives, and now a majority of them (as of 18 mos ago when i was there) prefers to remain outside the european union, chiefly fearing a loss of autonomy and socio-economic intrusion from brussels.

WASPs cut off immigration in 1924 because they felt too many Catholics were coming here from Italy, Ireland, Germany, Poland, etc. But the WASPs were outsmarted by the Jews in the 1965 immigration act which opened up immigration from the 3rd world and cut it off from Europe.

I’ll bet a lot of our Protestant “friends” would rather have Italian or Irish Catholics living next door than Mexicans! Think of how many more White people would have been here in the US if immigration had not been cut off in 1924; especially when you consider the drop in the White population that started in the 1960s which birth control and then abortion in 1973. Way to go, WASPs! You’re always so forward- thinking!

@ Alex –

I thank you for your response and for the links you posted.  You also wrote, in part…

“We’ll never be as naïve and trusting as we were back then and we learn from our mistakes so such parasitism as you called it will never happen again.”

Your comment presumes a state wherein we have already won the host/parasite arms race alluded to in my post. (our culture vs. liberalism let’s call it).  If such were the case, your insight would likely prove valid. This because our victory would be the direct result of our having self-diagnosed, resulting in an increased likelihood of resistance to similar infection.  In such case, our former parasite, (or some other) would likely have to develop a more sophisticated tactic in order to re-acquire its former position.

The sad reality is we are losing this battle so profoundly we are close to cultural extinction and our current trajectory offers little in the way of hope.  My former post attempted to highlight the fact that if one simply “arbitrarily” took away the influence of Jewish radicalism, our current condition as Host would hardly improve unless we ourselves were to find the breach in our immune system and close it.  Nature does not provide such luxuries of course; it is up to us to determine what ails us.  Repeatedly faulting Jewish radicalism for our own ineffective defense seems rather counter-productive. 

Your articles cited amount to a call to a return to Traditionalism and Religion.  Clearly, many of the values inherent in our Christian Heritage are beautiful and valid with their emphasis on the nuclear family, communitarianism, and a united faith.  But why have these values not protected us from the onslaught of the incursions duly noted? 

Liberalism gets packaged in such a way that it seems to glide past the guard gates erected to detect their insidious poisons.  The Frankfurt school no longer relies on psychological dissection; they have determined a far more effective method of transmission via our inculcated values of Universalism and Tolerance.  Present day “critical mass” Christians (not the Hellenized version which dwindle between the pages of Chronicles and Taki-Mag) have moved ever further leftwards towards a modernist interpretation of Christian Values supplied by denizens of Liberal eschatology.  Of course, they have been helped along this path, but the Path already exists so … why shouldn’t they simply help herd the herd along?  How to prevent this?  Perhaps first a recognition of whence such “values,” (i.e., our religious values) spring.

I sympathize with a lot of the posts here that attack Christianity as leftist.  But don’t forget that even the great rightist Julius Evola, who was no friend of Christianity, thought it was one of the last remnants of spirituality the West had. Attacking Christianity, in other words, probably plays into the hands of the Left, the real enemy who hate anything spiritual while worshipping the material.  Let’s just ignore the church altogether, take whatever Christian teachings are useful, and plan for the next battle with a pride in a western consciousness.  Let’s show no sympathy to white leftists who have sold their culture down the river; they are the real enemy.

Gottfried’s disingenuity on white nationalism is annoying.  He must surely know very, very well the reason why whites are hurtling along the path of self-destruction.  He rightly recognizes that blacks, hispanics, turks, muslims, whatever, have little use for loony left pieties; loony left pieties exist for one primary reason: they are stick to beat the white race with, to punish it for its original sin, to prevent from considering its true interests, including its greatest interest, its survival.  Instead of interrogating WNs, racialists, race-realists, or whatever he chooses to call them, Gottfried should simply state forthrightly whether he is for white racial survival, or against it; whether he is for racial separation, whether immediate, or gradual, or against it; and he should admit that if he is against racial separation, he is against white racial survival, since separation is the only measure which can secure racial survival.  But enough obfuscation. 

If Gottfried is pained by what such separation might mean for him, personally, he should state that forthrightly.  He could discuss the reasons why it so pains him, whether that be the sense of exclusion, of rejection, or the fear of being scape-goated, or the fear of upheaval and the unknown, or the fear for the well-being of other races, including the fear that separation cannot be peacefully achieved, or the fear of cultural dislocation, cultural (and/or racial) limbo.  By doing so, he provide an example for others to follow. Just solutions can be found and provided for all, but we must first be honest with ourselves.

To continue from the previous posting, non-whites are far, far from the demons neo-nazis make them out to be.  But their qualities are best appreciated inside a framework which provides for white racial and cultural survival.  The erection of a new order which would provide that framework presents conservatives with almost endless opportunities to discuss social issues from their perspective, as well as the opportunity to engage and parley with liberals in ways the current winner-take-all zeitgeist hasn’t permitted.  There is so much that is possible if we just begin talking about it—all of us—rather rushing to hush up racialists, or exiling them to the neo-nutzi fringes.  Pragmatically, why not?  Have modern conservatives got anything much better to do?

Sarah, whom no one less than the New York Times intellectual David Brooks assures us is the favorite political leader of “traditionalists” (of course those of the neocon style) was grousing that her critics had dared bring up her extravagant shopping habits. In the above sentence, “whom” should be “who,” since it is a pronominal subject of the verb “was.” Otherwise, I find your writings delightful. As such, I have placed your blog on my list of shortcuts. More power to you.  Daniel Bonner