s0mdqqoempexvirate0o.jpg

Hi.

Prepare your anus, you’re about to get a red pill suppository.

JQanon

According to the Mother Jones US Mass Shootings Database (1982-2016), when you break out Arabs as a separate category from whites (the US Census classes Arabs as white), you will find the source of so much mis-information about whites being overrepresented in mass shootings. In point of fact, Arabs are approaching twenty times more likely to commit mass shootings than whites. I wonder if it has anything to do with a particular ideology? Perish the thought. *Noticing* that violence tends to follow someone yelling Allahu Akbar is strictly verboten. *Noticing* that many Jews seem awfully preoccupied with open borders (except for Israel) and repressive speech codes will get you hard time in the UK, Germany, Austria, and a spate of other Western countries. As Jim Goad quipped, “I don’t know what the Jewish Question is, but I know the answer is ‘anti-Semitism.’”

To err is human but to notice is monstrous. Dr. J. Ligon Duncan, Antonio Gramsci Professor of Systematic Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, notices:

If the Nazis hadn’t noticed that the Jews were actively debasing Germany during the Weimar era, the Holocaust would have never occurred, in which 6 million of the 2.4 million Jews in German-occupied Europe were mercilessly slaughtered, and their remains turned into useful household products like soap and lampshades. If white Southerners and South African Boers hadn’t noticed the criminal propensities of blacks, their reckless envy of whites and white accomplishment, and their general affinity for strongman-rule, we would have never had the brutal horrors of Jim Crow and apartheid. If Jesus Himself hadn’t noticed the man-made traditions and self-idolatry of the Pharisees, the specter of anti-Semitism would have never reared its ugly head. Noticing led to the greatest acts of oppression and injustice ever known in human history.[1]

In the contemporary parlance, the language we use to define ourselves and the language we would use to defend ourselves has been corrupted. For at least a century, since whatever largely-dormant sickness the West had was made latent by World War I, everything foundational to Western civilization has been withstanding blow after blow. It is a testament to how powerful this civilization is and how deep its roots go that it is still standing, and still the preeminent global force. But no culture, no civilization, is invincible. Dominique Venner wrote in The Shock of History:

We are in possession of a spiritual heritage that has nothing to envy in those of other great civilisations, but we are unaware and misinformed about it. To this massive spiritual crisis of Western nihilism, we must provide our own answers. [...] There are no universal answers to the questions of existence and behaviour. Every civilisation has its truths and its gods, all respectable so long as they do not threaten our existence. Every civilisation creates its own answers, without which the individual, man or woman, lacking identity and archetypes, is thrown into a world of chaos. Like plants, men cannot exist without roots.

From the ashes of Greco-Roman civilization to the Norse expanse, the paganism-infused Christianity that carried Europe from Charlemagne to the doorstep of modernity always respected and, more importantly, was inextricable from European blood and soil—hence why Europe was always referred to by chroniclers as “Christendom.” It was a regional variant of Christianity, unique to its people and with its deracinated universalism largely ignored, no different with respect to its people than Mexican Catholicism—and we can see its animating energies in La Raza’s confidence in the territorial acquisition of much of the Western United States and its ability to turn undesirable migrants away. The cultural confidence is there, while the European Diaspora hurries to dispossess itself in the face of this southerly threat which, on paper, should be nothing.

I have written before of the need for a Second Renaissance in the West, a need to re-investigate our roots and to use them to impel us forward into a new age of greatness. The decrepit and warring Italian polities turned once again to Greek and Roman civilization and used these texts to imbue their contemporary discourse with a freshness and vibrancy that was, particularly in the case of Rome, central to their identities. They did not resist the “pagan” impact on what was then contemporary Christianity, and the explosion in European development on virtually all fronts had Western Man cresting this momentum into the 19th century and beyond, though as I mentioned, somewhere between the Industrial Revolution and World War I, European Man lost himself, and we are grappling with this loss today as the forward momentum grinds to a halt. The United States remained steadfast, but it, too, began to buckle in the 1960s. We must reject the dictums of contemporaneous Christianity and return to the interregnum period where it was inextricable from the roots and soul of Europeans. It is little wonder so many have lost faith and abandoned the church; its present state is antithetical to our continued existence. It is our enemy. To quote Davis Carlton:

Christians will agree with non-Christians on moral issues only insofar as unbelievers unconsciously borrow from Christian moral principles. Some people are nominal Christians, deists, or secularists who nevertheless inconsistently and sometimes idiosyncratically adhere to Christian morality. This is why eighteenth-century deists who were nevertheless culturally and nominally Protestant retained so much Christian morality. Conversely, our society has strayed far from Christian moral foundations as the collective beliefs of our society have deviated from the theological truths of Christianity. This can be seen in how the consensus in Western society on moral issues has changed dramatically over the course of the twentieth century…[Today] pastors cannot be troubled to defend even basic traditional Christian morality in an age when morality is in precipitous decline, but never fail to deliver when asked to denounce “racism” and affirm the value of “diversity” (white genocide). The Bible’s teaching on worldliness makes it clear that the behaviors, attitudes, and priorities of the world are to be rejected. Jesus pronounced woes on those who seek and accept the acclaim of the world, for they follow the example of the false prophets (Lk. 6:26). This perfectly describes the modern Church. Her leaders seek prominence and approval from the world, and thus have turned their collective backs on traditional Christian morality. Judgment will surely not be long in coming. Jesus warned the lukewarm Laodiceans that they would be vomited out, so he commanded them to repent.[2]

There is no European civilization without “continental Christianity,” which remains strongest in Eastern Europe and Appalachia in the United States. We certainly should not abandon the lessons of the Enlightenment and “reform” the church back to burning heretics as the Islamic reformation is intent on doing, but again, that is why I call this the Second Renaissance. You take the good, leave the bad, and do not allow yourself to be ossified by the past. For all of his nonsense about denying identity (but not for Jews as it were), Jordan Peterson’s ruminations on Christianity are often very illuminating, and they address in no small part the foundational myths of the various peoples of Europe. The dragon, which recurs throughout Europeans cultures, for example, is best understood through both the metaphorical lens Peterson provides and the blood-and-soil nationalism of a time when Europe could confidently refer to itself as Christendom. My favorite line in the entire Bible is: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). You might just have to pick up that sword from the Spengler passage that we’ve dropped in order defend what is yours. To quote Geerhardus Vos:

Nationalism, within proper limits, has the divine sanction; an imperialism that would, in the interest of one people, obliterate all lines of distinction is everywhere condemned as contrary to the divine will…Now it is through maintaining the national diversities, as these express themselves in the difference of language, and are in turn upheld by this difference, that God prevents realization of the attempted scheme… [In this] was a positive intent that concerned the natural life of humanity. Under the providence of God each race or nation has a positive purpose to serve, fulfillment of which depends on relative seclusion from others.[3]

Charles Hodge supports the notion of divinely-sanctioned nationalism and diversity of peoples (which is, clearly, contrary to the Leftist “ideal” of “diversity”) in his Commentary on Romans 9:

Paul had two classes of brethren; those who were with him the children of God in Christ; these he calls brethren in the Lord, Philip, i. 14, holy brethren, &c. The others were those who belonged to the family of Abraham. These he calls brethren after the flesh, that is, in virtue of natural descent from the same parent. Philemon he addresses as his brother, both in the flesh and in the Lord. The Bible recognizes the validity and rightness of all the constitutional principles and impulses of our nature. It therefore approves of parental and filial affection, and, as is plain from this and other passages, of peculiar love for the people of our own race and country.[4],[5]

The most vociferous opponents of “identity politics” somehow never get around to “critiquing” Israel. The “classical liberals”—many of the most visible of whom are themselves Jewish, or have Jewish representation, such as Jordan Peterson—have no problem going after the Alt-Right or the “Democrat Plantation,” so why the hesitance? These are not questions you are supposed to ask. In fact, if the Thought Police have their way, the questions will never even form in what’s left of your mind.  

[1] http://tribaltheocrat.com/2016/02/pca-prepares-to-anathematize-the-sin-of-noticing-at-44th-ga/

[2] http://faithandheritage.com/2017/02/alienism-and-worldliness/

[3] https://ironink.org/?p=3587

[4] Ibid.

[5] I don’t necessarily agree with all of the points presented, and some I only partially agree with, but an understanding of “kinism” I think is very important for readers who are not familiar: http://tribaltheocrat.com/2013/08/what-is-kinism/. As always, make up your own mind.

The Naming of the Jew

The Naming of the Jew

American Stasi

American Stasi