Paul Nachman #fundie webcache.googleusercontent.com

Fidel Rivera [ Email him] 20th-generation New Mexican and author of tonight’s VDARE.com letter, angrily wrote:

You still have to pay for what you did to the Indians, THE REAL AMERICANS!

Mr. Rivera’s “real Americans” claim is a variation on the familiar trope that American Indians were “the first Americans.”

But they really weren’t, since what people almost always mean when they say “America” is the European-seeded polity known as “the United States.” Indeed, typing “America” into Wikipedia’s search box yields (without “disambiguation”) their entry for “United States,” and that article’s section on etymology concludes with this:

“American” rarely refers to subjects not connected with the United States."

So this place wasn’t really America until the whites came and developed it, a point that’s reinforced by a brief passage in Richard Bernstein’s terrific 1994 book Dictatorship of Virtue: How the Battle over Multiculturalism Is Reshaping Our Schools, Our Country, and Our Lives

(To forestall reflexive caterwauling about the nasty-nativist Bernstein’s violent hate speech [i.e. the three paragraphs just above], I should point out that the now-retired journalist was in his second decade at The New York Times when he authored Dictatorship, that he has a Harvard master’s degree in History and East Asian Languages, and that his wife is a noted Chinese classical dancer.)

So if the tribes inhabiting (before European settlement) what became the United States shouldn’t be called “the first Americans” or “the real Americans,” what should we call them? I propose “Turtle Islanders.”

Faust #fundie webcache.googleusercontent.com

A little bit of history "Alice n' Chains" was an L.A. hard rock band (in the vein of Crue, GnR Poison etc.) and remained that way up until they signed their record deal...They changed their name (n' became "in") look, and musical style at the threats of the record industry Jews to drop them. Yet even more proof that "grunge" was not a style of music but a carefully orchestrated plan to brainwash America's youth, and isn't it funny how it all came into being followed a few months later by the Cliton Regime.

As for Layne Staley, who cares, he got exactly what he deserved for being a monkey boy for the Jew.

J.D. King #fundie webcache.googleusercontent.com

4 Unexpected Reasons Why Demons Have Greater Faith Than Many Churchgoers

I was recently reflecting on a conversation that took place a few years ago. A young man approached me to receive some badly-needed words of counsel. As I listened to some of his underlying struggles, it was clear that he really didn't have an intimate relationship with Jesus.

After dialoging for a while, I was compelled to ask where he stood in terms of his faith. He anxiously shifted in his seat and mumbled something along the lines of the following: "I know about Jesus and what He did on the cross. I believe the Bible has a lot of truth in it. What more is there to say?"

Although I didn't know him all that well prior to this conversation, I had observed his struggles from a distance. It would have been hard to miss the sporadic church attendance and his continual disengagement during the times of worship. His participation in the things of God was, at best, marginal. Although claiming to be Christian, darkness was all over him.

Under the unction of the Spirit, I asked him once again whether he truly had faith in God. Although insisting that he did, I could hear the hesitation in his voice. It was clear that he was struggling. Somehow I wanted to enable him to move out of this place of difficulty and trouble, but he wasn't going to do so if he didn't see where he stood with God.

If I hoped to get somewhere with him, I knew I would have to shock him. I felt like he needed to be overwhelmed with the futility of his present position. Yet, in order to do this, I would have to take a different approach. So I felt inclined to say something I had never uttered before.

I looked him and said, "I am convinced that the demons have greater faith than you!"

As you know, that's not the kind of statement people like to hear. Just as soon as these words tumbled from my mouth, I could see the lines on his face tighten. It was obvious that he recoiled at my observation. I honestly expected as much.

To move this strategy further, I knew I was going to have to clarify my point. Though it was hard to receive, I explained that Satan and his minions are more convinced of Jesus' identity and role than many churchgoers. This is an unpleasant truth that needs to be confronted from time to time.

Come on, how dynamic is one's faith, if the faith of demons is actually greater?

1. Demons Believe Jesus Is The Son Of God

I pointed out that early in the gospels, even before the disciples were convinced of His messianic role, demons publicly declared that Jesus was the Son of God. Scripture reveals the following:

"Whenever the evil spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, 'You are the Son of God'" (Mark 3:11).

While many so-called "followers" struggle with who Jesus is, evil spirits are already firmly convinced of His status and position before the Father. They have no doubt that Jesus is truly the Son of God. It concerns me when the demons might be more assured of Jesus' role than we are.

2. Demons Read And Quote The Bible

I continued with this crazy assertion; suggesting that Satan and the hordes of hell actually know the Bible. This may seem unbelievable, but the forces of darkness are thoroughly convinced that scripture is true. In one disturbing example, Satan actually quotes from Psalm 91:11-12 in an attempt to undermine Jesus.

"The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 'If you are the Son of God,' he said, 'throw yourself down from here. For it is written:' ‘He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully; they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone'" (Luke 4:9-11).

While unwilling to submit to the admonition and guidance of the Bible, demons have absolutely no qualms about its truth. They understand that every word written in its pages will be brought to bear upon creation. It is only a matter of time before every "jot and tittle" is fulfilled. That is more than can be said about backslidden churchgoers. They not only struggle with reading the Bible, they are also conflicted about what it is saying. There is something wrong when "Christians" neither know, nor value what God is saying.

3. Demons Believe In The Final Judgment

I went on to explain to this young man that demons are also convinced about God's judgment and establishment of righteousness in the earth. Even prior to Jesus' death and resurrection, evil spirits were already persuaded that wickedness was on its last leg. They actually expected to be punished. A few of the demons publicly declared the following to Jesus:

“What do you want with us, Son of God?” the demons shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?” (Matthew 8:29)

I've met churchgoers unwilling to accept the reality of the final judgment. While demons believe God will subjugate all evil, some lethargic, pew-sitters aren't so sure. They are expecting appeasement, not eradication.

4. Demons Believe And They Tremble

Finally, I explained that the evil spirits believe in God and have such an awareness of that truth that it elicits an vigorous response. Imagine, their faith in the reality of God actually causes a tangible reaction to take place. The scriptures boldly declare the following:

"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder" (James 2:19).

The Apostle James suggests that the demons' faith in God is so intense that it causes "physical manifestations" to erupt. They quiver and shake in the revelation of His glory. That is more than I can say about many churchgoers. Many so-called followers of Jesus claim to believe in God but there is absolutely no manifestation of that reality in their lives.

Understand, that the demons believe in God and the reality of His purposes. They know who Jesus is and exactly what He accomplished on the cross. They believe in scripture, salvation, and the final judgment. They believe in God, but are unwilling to change their allegiance or submit to His wonderful plan.

By the time I was done talking, the young man understood what I was saying. He became quiet and began to tear up. The gravity of my words began to grip him. I offered to pray for him and bring a deeper sense of the presence of God. He, of course, agreed.

Like this young man, all of us need to search our hearts and determine whether our faith is greater than the faith of demons. I know that it's easy to dismiss all of this, but if you were to lay out where you stand today, what would we find?

Is your faith truly greater?

Robert Lindsay #fundie webcache.googleusercontent.com

You know how many people in meatspace think my stratospheric IQ is cool? Just about zero! It doesn’t benefit me in life. One more thing. You know how many chicks in meatspace think that Chicago Tower of an IQ is cool? Just about zero! It’s been this way my whole life. No one cares if you’re a brain. Definitely, no one has ever thought that that made me a superior person! I did, sure, but who cares what I think. What matters is society. Society does not treat us brains like we are superior! If anything, it’s the opposite.

So in the real world meatspace of ordinary humans, no one gives two shits about IQ or even intelligence really. All my life, females have been abandoning and scorning us brains in favor of blockhead dumbass hulking caveman, thug and jock types. Chicks don’t even want to screw brainy guys! They want to screw double digit IQ caveman with a club types.

So what good is a high IQ? Sometimes I wonder. But in general, society does not treat a higher IQ group, not to mention individual, as superior to a lower IQ group or individual, assuming the low IQ folks are not so dumb that it’s obvious that something is wrong.

In meatspace, if you bring up IQ, you get resentful stares and attempts to change the conversation. I can’t even bring it up on the Web. I get slammed all the time for discussing my own numbers on here.

It’s funny a guy can go on and on about his achievements with women, in business, in sports and in building up his bank account, and the chicks will shower him with propositions and flirtations like confetti at a parade. But dare mention those two upper case letters denoting intelligence quotient and most of the females will start screaming at you and calling you a braggart.

They’re lying, but women always lie. Thing is, women don’t care about braggarts; if anything, they like them. The biggest braggarts get the most and best women. It’s just that to women, they only give you pussy points for bragging about certain things, like the size of your damned wallet! The size of your IQ has no importance to a female in terms of their libido (in fact, it probably cools them down) so they raise a hissy fit if you bring it up.

Ricardo Duchesne #fundie webcache.googleusercontent.com

There is an inclination to underestimate these metapolitical activities because they are not immediately about political change, party politics, electing candidates, and having our views heard on the national stage. It is not that party politics is ineffective; it has been indispensably important in Europe, and now with Trump as a candidate in the United States. But the aim of metapolitics is to challenge the order at a higher intellectual level, not in a way disconnected from the people, but in a way that goes beyond political activism. It must question the basic assumptions of the establishment, offering new interpretations of events and historical developments and appealing to the many-sided ways in which humans live their lives in a broad cultural sense. We call the promoters of diversity “Cultural Marxists” for a reason. They have had immense success in bringing about a complete alteration in the way we think about men and women, about national identities, classes, races, marriage, and so on. We are Gramscians against Cultural Marxism. Unlike them, however, the Council also draws ideas from the rich intellectual heritage of the West. Leftists have been able to manipulate much of this heritage in such a way that it is seen as a progression of ideas leading to their “cosmopolitan” and “humanitarian” outlook. One of the goals of the CEC is to show that this Western tradition actually stands in opposition to Cultural Marxism, which is a recent, externally imposed way of thinking, with some roots in the “radical Enlightenment,” but mostly outside the Western tradition and incompatible with Classical philosophy, with Roman values, and even Christianity. It is also in opposition to what modern science has come to say about the genetic basis of racial differences, about human nature, the importance of having a rooted identity in nation and tradition, the difference between men and women; and what Nietzsche, Heidegger, Hegel, Kant, and liberal thinkers have said; and what the history of the West has been about. This shows that cosmopolitan peace, the concept of a federation of nations, and many more supposedly “progressive” ideals are really ideals put forward by European peoples – very ethnocentric, and therefore ideals for Europeans, and not ideals intended to promote race-mixing or to create a generically docile species easy to manipulate by corporations and bureaucrats of the nanny state.

Bryanna Bevans #fundie webcache.googleusercontent.com

This is what happened: I slipped on a wet floor, banged my head on something and woke up in an emergency room with a concussion and virtually no short-term memory.

For two weeks I contemplated the 24-hour news channels and I was unfortunately somewhat healed by the time Hurricane Katrina ambushed the Southeast.

(I say "ambushed" because apparently officials in Louisiana didn`t know it was coming.)

Interestingly enough, I now feel compelled to re-evaluate my life, my purpose as it were…and I know what I want to do with the time I have left:

Repeal the 19th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Why? Because time and consequence have proven that some women are not capable of handling the awesome responsibility of voting.

Look, it was the 1920s and I agree it was worth a shot. But the skills of a politician rarely include prophecy. So factoring the cataclysmic events of the 1940s was undoubtedly impossible.

What happened in the 1940s you ask? The four greatest threats to American civilization gnawed their way into the world, that`s what.

I am talking of course about Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Blanco, Kim Gandy and Hillary Rodham. I will explain why—umm, let me see…because they are full of it.

Ladies, we just have to give up the vote. The brain power of Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin would be missed at the poll booth, but so would theirs.

Admittedly, without women the conservative side of the aisle will lack a certain équilibre. And frankly the White House Christmas Card will seem dowdy without Condi`s legs.

But think about the benefits…Blanco, Pelosi, Gandy and Rodham would no longer be able to highjack the U.S. Constitution and warp it into some deformed manifesto for social equality and civil rights…oops, I mean women`s (sort of) rights.

Hey, desperate times call for desperate measures.

bob #fundie webcache.googleusercontent.com

I’m a woman, and I’ve voted in every election since 1976, but I would gladly give up my right to vote if it meant we would get more presidents like Ronald Reagan and not be saddled with any more Barack Øbamas.

After the 2008 election, someone did a statistical analysis (I wish I’d saved the article) which showed that demographic shifts were responsible for Øbama’s victory. Certain demographic groups can be counted on to vote certain ways (e.g., married men with children vote Republican, single mothers vote Democrat, etc.), and their voting patterns stay remarkably consistent over the years. What has changed is the distribution of those groups. Back when Ronald Reagan was elected, we had more married people with children (who tend to vote Republican) and fewer single women with children (who vote about 99.9% Democrat). Over the years since then the numbers have shifted — marriage is down, broken homes are up, illegitimacy is up, and of course so is immigration, which has skewed the numbers to favor Democrats. If we could somehow bring back the culture of marriage and family formation, and decrease the incidence of family breakup and illegitimacy, that alone would go a long way toward solving the problem. But I don’t suppose that’s any more likely than repealing the 19th Amendment. Sigh…

psychoanalyst #fundie webcache.googleusercontent.com

Okay, so I am currently back on the East Coast USA, visiting family, and I have to say, I absolutely hate this place! I moved to the midwest nearly two years ago, simply because I became completely disgusted with the political and social climate of this region. Every time I come back here to visit, I am reminded of exactly why I left this stupid place. I feel like I am completely behind enemy lines here. Even though there is a high concentration of whites here, most of them are raging liberal arrogant pricks. Obama2012 stickers abound. The politics here are totally jew-dominated (two jew senators in CT), and there are so many mudsharks and minority-worshipping douchebags here. Most of the landscaping and restaurant business owners employ illegal mexcriments, and they treat their fellow working-class whites with total contempt (plenty of personal experience to back that up, too).

Also, most of the middle and upper-crust white females here are totally brainwashed, spoiled, liberal b*tches, who worship Obama, and treat non-wigger white males like we aren't worthy enough of even being alive. It is so hard for me to get a date here, or to even find like-minded individuals. The cost of living here is astronomical, and this is partly due to the fact that much of the tax money here is funneled into welfare, foodstamps, and section 8 housing for minority thug criminals, and their little sh*tlet spawns. Not to mention the costs necessary to keep all of the ape buck drug dealers here locked up in the prison system.

Just for the hell of it, I went to look at a house for sale in my old hometown (since I thought it would be nice to have something close to family). Even in a semi-rural area here, they wanted $150,000 for some stinky, forty year old house. I saw the same house advertised on the market a year ago, and since then, some "flipper" - almost certainly a jew - had some cheap vinyl siding slapped on, and new asphalt shingles put on the roof, and they also stripped all of the copper pipes out (which of course have good value now), replacing them with PEX tubing. They didn't even replace the gutters and downspouts that were torn out. And they changed the price of the house from $85,000 to $150,000! That's over 75% markup for doing practically nothing in the form of improvements to a house that's nearly half a century old, on a half acre lot.

When I went to look at the house, the realtor team was comprised of a couple of obnoxious kikes, and I was immediately turned off by their scheming demeanors, not to mention getting a glimpse of my future potential mudshark neighbor, along with her little kinky-haired thuglet running around next door while I looked at the yard. I thought to myself: "There's no way in hell I am going to pay $2500 a year in property taxes to live in an overpriced stick home, in order to feed, clothe, and educate this little sh*tlet and it's wigger mother. Needless to say, I declined making an offer. What's sad is that this used to be a very white town when I grew up hear fifteen years ago.

Is anyone else here originally from this region, and who got sick of it enough to move far, far away? It's truly a shame, because some of the shoreline areas and rural towns in this region are very beautiful, and indeed would make a wonderful place to live in an ideal, white-run society. At this point though, it is, for all intents and purposes, a lost cause to ever think that the Northeast USA - specifically CT - has any potential whatsoever to become a true PLE. I'm not kidding here; this place is hopeless and unsalvageable! Not to mention that there are so many snooty, arrogant jerks here.

Obviously, nowhere in the US - or any European country for that matter - is ideal at this point for communities of White Nationalists to live and thrive in, but this place totally disgusts me. I can't wait to leave here again. Sorry for the rant; I am pissed off right now, and just need to get this off of my chest, and hopefully get some feedback from you all. Thanks for listening.

Matt Carr #fundie webcache.googleusercontent.com

[On the argument in the UK about whether to extend bombing of ISIS to Syria]

Benn even had the unbelievable gall to say this:

‘And it is why as we have heard tonight socialists and trade unionists and others joined the international brigade in the 1930s to fight against Franco. It’s why this entire House stood up against Hitler and Mussolini. It is why our party has always stood up against the denial of human rights and for justice. And my view is that we must now confront this evil. It is now time for us to do our bit in Syria and that is why I ask my colleagues to vote for this motion tonight.’

To call this playing fast and loose with the facts does not even begin to describe what Benn has done here. The ‘socialists and trade unionists and others’ who crossed the Pyrenees put their own lives on the line, something that today’s armchair bombardiers would never dream of doing.

It is a very different matter to go unarmed to fight for a country and a people you have never seen, knowing that you may never come back, than it is to stand up in parliament and describe a bombing campaign as an act of socialist internationalism. .

Some brigaders fought in defense of the Spanish Republic because they supported the Spanish revolution; others did so because they regarded Spain as a frontline in the coming war against fascism. But their efforts were actively undermined by the British and French governments, who used the Non-Intervention Pact to cut off military support to the Republic even when they knew that Franco was being armed to the teeth by Italy and Germany.

To evoke the international brigades in support of Cameron’s bombing campaign requires real audacity, bad faith, and an indifference to history or the political realities of the 21st century. Benn does not even seem to realize that the jihadist movement that ultimately spawned Daesh is far closer to the spirit of internationalism and solidarity that drove the International Brigades than Cameron’s bombing campaign – except that the international jihad takes the form of solidarity with oppressed Muslims, rather than the working class or the socialist revolution.

Jim #fundie webcache.googleusercontent.com

Christianity, or perhaps Churchianity, tends to endorse suicidal collective behaviors. Progressives and Christians eagerly strive to outdo each other in how thoroughly they get cuckolded. Note how Christians and progressives both demonstrate superior holiness by adopting subsaharan blacks – who tend to grow into adult subsaharan blacks, with consequences as disturbing as adopting a baby chimpanzee.

I have not yet noticed Christians imitating the progressives by adopting male children and then sexually mutilating them to save them from toxic masculinity, but it is early days yet in the war on toxic masculinity.

The Dark Enlightenment emphasizes survival as a virtue, as indeed the root of all virtues. For example homosexuality is bad because homosexuals spread disease and don’t care about the future or the long term. We should enforce the marital contract so that we can have grandchildren, and so that the race and the culture survives. And so on and so forth. The old testament morality is arguably survival morality.

If survival is the root of all virtues, then we should conquer other nations to survive, colonize space to survive. At which conclusion the Dark Enlightenment parts company with with most people’s understanding of traditional Christianity.

The Old Testament was pretty cool with genocide. God would just say “genocide those pagans, I don’t love them even if I created them”. Most think that Jesus had a different opinion. I would say his opinion was more subtle and sophisticated, rather than directly contradictory.


Evil exists, so either God does not will the good, or he is not able, or he is messing with us on purpose. (Testing our resolve, making us suffer so we grow more resilient.) Human Biodiversity would imply that innately evil or useless people are not part of God’s plan, only means of his to mess with you. Are we allowed to remove those tests of God?

Given that there is an Old Testament and a New Testament, it follows that there is a time to turn the other cheek, and a time to slay the women and children. And if one takes the New Testament seriously, the New Testament should give us a hint as to when it is OK to go Old Testament on problem people.


And now, the much promised, much foreshadowed, account of how to genocide inferior races and take their stuff in a good Christian fashion, as our ancestors did; Past best practice for acquiring land and resources currently occupied by no-good people who prevent it from being put to its highest and best use while supporting, rather than undermining, your society’s high trust equilibrium:

A bunch of white American settlers want to settle on American Indian land. Indians have previously indicated that they are unhappy with this, and there are previous agreements that white people will not settle on this land. You offer them payment, including a lot of barrels of firewater. Indians accept the deal, land for nice stuff, including lots of firewater. They get drunk, stay drunk, while settlers move in and build some forts.

After a while, the whiskey runs out. The Indians wake up with a blazing hangover, no food, and no hunting grounds. “We have been cheated”, they wail.

They demand their land back. The settlers in the fort tell them to go to hell.

Some braves agree to go bravely looking for some undefended or minimally defended white women and children. They catch a woman, and two small children. Whom they rape, then skin, then burn alive. Then they bravely go back to their tribe and tell their tribe. “Well now it is war. So which side are you on. The side of us very brave braves, or the side of the people who took your land and gave you this hangover?”

The tribe declares for the warpath.

And then you kill them all and take their stuff.

Weston’s error was that he proposed to kill them and take their stuff without first legitimately purchasing the land and tempting them into committing unspeakable crimes. Had he done so, and obtained the land in that fashion, then this would have created the dangerous precedent that some stronger party could take the land from him, undermining the high trust equilibrium that made the great achievements of his society, of which he was so proud, possible, for that high trust equilibrium and the ensuing high achievements rested on tribal taboos and copy-book maxims.

Greg Paulson #racist webcache.googleusercontent.com

Yes, I am a white racialist, and I admire North Korea. Let me explain.

North Korea is not communist, plain and simple. Juche, the official state ideology of North Korea, can be roughly translated as “spirit of self-reliance.” Kim Jong Il, the Supreme Leader of North Korea, said the basis of Juche is the idea that “man is the master of everything and decides everything” [1]. Juche can also be understood as “always putting Korean things first.”[2] This is obviously more nationalist than communist. In 2009 North Korea officially stopped using the term communism to describe itself and removed it from the constitution. Additionally, they inserted the term “Songun” into the constitution, which emphasizes the powerful position of the North Korean military in the government, and posits that it is model for society to emulate.

The most common criticism of North Korea is that it spends a huge amount on its military while its people starve. The US government estimates that North Korea spends roughly a quarter of its GNP on the military.[3] This puts North Korea at the top of the list for proportional military spending. What people don’t seem to understand is that North Korea’s radical autarkist ideology—in other words, its refusal to bow to the international financial order (putting Korea first)—absolutely requires that national defense be put first. Without a powerful military North Korea could not exist. So yes, North Korea accepts what little aid it can get and has struggled to adequately feed some portions of its population, but that is the price of independence for them, and they are willing to pay it—and for that alone the North Koreans get my respect. Whatever you can say about the North Koreans, you cannot say they are weak. Their will is strong, and they seem willing to die to maintain their independence.

Another misconception is that North Korea is a puppet state somehow controlled by China. Although historically China had great influence on North Korea, the relationship has been strained in recent decades, and North Korea has made it clear that it is no puppet state. China continues to be North Korea’s sole ally because of lucrative trade,[4] historic friendship, and the fact that North Korea, were it desperate enough, could be very problematic for China. There is no doubt that China enjoys some influence, but North Korea remains a firmly independent nation. If this isn’t made clear enough by their ultra-nationalism, their ethnocentrism surely drives it home.

According to B. R. Myers, the North Korean ideology maintains that “the Korean people are too pure-blooded, and so too virtuous to survive in this evil world without a great parental leader.”[5] He also asserts that in addition to feeling that foreign races are inferior, the North Korean government “occasionally criticizes the Jews’ influence on world affairs.”[6] Following in the footsteps of hyper-nationalist movements of the past, the North Korean government has established the belief that its people are uniquely intelligent, strong-willed, and superior in many ways to foreign races. The Japanese (their close racial cousins), had very similar beliefs before being defeated in the Second World War. Myers actually believes the Koreans adopted their racial beliefs from the “fascist Japanese” during Japan’s occupation of Korea. Regardless of their claims of superiority, or from whom they might have borrowed it, the average North Korean IQ of 105 is one of the highest in the world.[7] South Korea is reported to have an average IQ one point higher, at 106, which is almost certainly due to the population having greater access to resources. Keep in mind the severe sanctions North Korea is operating under.

While I don’t agree with the extent of the state-control of the economy in North Korea (i.e. controlling consumption), I certainly have no loyalty to the capitalist system, which I see as racially corrosive, among other things. And let us not forget the whole reason the United States got involved in the Korean civil war was to defend (or impose) capitalism and by extension the ruling international financial order.

Essentially I admire North Korea because it is in direct opposition to the hostile ruling elite in the West and the globalist destruction of distinct peoples and nations. North Korea is the only ethno-nationalist state opposing the current world order, and as long as it exists, it will stand as an example (and a possible future ally) for ethnic and racial nationalists everywhere, especially those of us in the West who see the only hope for our people in the destruction of the current world order.

Greg Paulson #racist webcache.googleusercontent.com

Admiring certain aspects of a government and people does not imply an endorsement of everything they do, and I certainly never said the North Korean government should be a model for the West.

I am not a collectivist, but that doesn’t stop be from admiring a foreign people and government who are. Asians have always been more collectivist in nature, it is both arrogant and ignorant to think they should adopt Western systems of governments.

Personally, I am not an individualist in the libertarian sense either. I think free markets, and capitalism as we know it need to go. I prefer the Fascist corporatism, or the something akin to the National Socialist model. Speaking in more general terms, I actually believe you can have both great individual freedom and collectivism simultaneously, though I don’t have the time and this is not the place to get into such matters. But these are just my preferences, and quite frankly they are irrelevant considering how far off we are from having the chance to implement them.

Jesse Powell #fundie webcache.googleusercontent.com

I am advocating for Traditional Women’s Rights or patriarchy, unconditional Chivalry by men on behalf of women, and belief in and obedience to a Superior Power. I can be found at the Why I Am Not A Feminist site. I am no longer affiliated with the TWRAs.

Men are the natural leaders of society; they are the natural leaders in marriage, in family life, in religious settings, in work settings, and at all levels of government. Leadership and authority is a fundamental part of the masculine role; it is a fundamental attribute of the man. Masculine leadership’s purpose is to serve the country, to serve the company, to serve the congregation, to serve the man’s wife, to serve women in general as a class, to serve the man’s children, and ultimately to serve God. In short masculine leadership is meant to serve those the man has authority over in accordance with the will of that which has authority over him, that ultimate authority being God.

Masculine leadership is effective in all spheres of life but of particular importance is the sphere of the man’s relationship to woman. Man’s relationship to woman is governed by the ethic of Chivalry; Chivalry is all male behaviors directed towards women meant to provide for and protect women that are based on the man reacting to the woman as a woman. This Chivalrous duty is imposed upon men by God; as such it is a duty owed to all women simply on the basis of the nature of the masculine gender role. There are three general categories of Chivalry; romantic Chivalry which is primary in marriage or in courtship behaviors, community Chivalry which is the man’s relationship to women he is part of the same community with, and public policy Chivalry where a law has a Chivalrous intent. All of these categories of Chivalry are necessary for a society to function well and all represent duties that men owe to women.

Chivalry must always be under the man’s control. This is a basic principle because it is the man who bears the cost of Chivalry and the woman who gains the benefit of Chivalry. As such the man must be the one who decides what his Chivalrous duty entails so that the person who bears the cost of Chivalry is also the one whose purpose or mission is achieved through Chivalry. There needs to be an alignment between bearing the cost of Chivalry and accomplishing the goal of Chivalry so that the provider of the Chivalrous benefit receives the reward they are entitled to for their effort and their noble intent. When Chivalry is under male control, this alignment of reward and effort is in place, leading to a stable flow of resources from men to women. When control of Chivalry is hijacked by women, the Chivalrous effort by the man only leads to the man’s exploitation and victimization. Under such conditions the man’s commitment to Chivalry weakens and the flow of resources from men to women declines. It is this reduction in the flow of resources from men to women which then leads to societal and familial breakdown.

The man is always in a position of authority in relation to women; this is due to the very nature of being a man. The man is always to treat women with a generous and protective spirit since again this is a fundamental part of the man’s relation to woman. In a marriage this means that the man is always the head of his household; he is always the head of his wife. The question is not, is the man the head? He is the head! The question is only how is he leading; is he a competent and responsible and involved head or is he an irresponsible and detached and lazy head. The man’s status within his marriage is fixed; the only question is to what extent he is living up to the duties of his masculine role. The man is responsible for the well being of his family; he is responsible for the well being of his wife and the well being of his children because he has authority over his wife and authority over his children. If the man’s wife or the man’s children are not prospering, it is the man’s responsibility to address the problem and seek to resolve it. Masculinity is taking responsibility; the man asserts authority and then uses his authority to provide for those he has authority over.

The husband has a covenantal relationship to his wife, not a contractual relationship. The marriage relationship is covenantal, not contractual. The husband is the covenantal head of the marriage; he has the leadership duty for the marital unit to be exercised through unconditional commitment to his wife and his children. As Mark Driscoll puts it, “Covenantal thinking says God wants me to become what you need, God wants me to love you as you need, God wants me to serve you as you need, God wants me to invest in you as you need.”

This is the man’s role in society, the man’s duty to women, and the nature of the husband’s role within marriage. All of these roles and duties are fixed; they are derivative of God’s design and they are immutable. They are constant and unchanging regardless of culture or law. They are the inherited status and nature of the man.

John Tyler #fundie webcache.googleusercontent.com

I am glad that Allan Wall has decided to write about the new Miss America. I wanted to see the supposed racism Nina Davuluri has experienced would be tackled by VDARE.com.

Anybody with half a brain can see that she won thanks to the multicultural icon she represents. Liberals will do anything to push the multicultural and diversity agenda, to set aside the true founders of American civilization, the regular Americans who, by the way, started the Miss America contest and even the Ms. World and Ms. Universe contests.

Miss Kansas (National Guard Sergeant Theresa Vail )even though she did represent a true Miss America, did spoil her chances by showing off her tattoos. She could have worn a full swimsuit to hide her tattoos, instead of a bikini. So I do agree with commentson how her tattoos ruined her chances.

However, those tattoo comments about her were used to stereotype all Americans as rednecks—and no one is making headlines about someone who wrote in a comment box “I hope this lowlife redneck does not win,” the way they did at the first sign of an anti-Nina tweet.

SLE #fundie webcache.googleusercontent.com

This post is very interesting to me, as I’ve had the same experience that others here, including Squire Western, have shared. Just last month, I had a 6:00 a.m. flight from Rochester, New York to Charlotte, North Carolina. While I waited at the gate, I saw two attractive young ladies dressed in pilot’s uniforms approach the counter. I was surprised at how young they seemed, and I could not take seriously the notion of them as pilots. I had seen female pilots before, but only as co-pilots, or otherwise teamed with men. As I was already anxious about the icy weather and wanted to get home, I felt relief when they turned away and headed toward another gate. I was filled with the sense of how silly it was to see these two, dressed like men with shirt and tie, pilot’s caps, lesser facsimiles of the real thing. I hearkened back to a flight long ago when I was 13, and a pilot named Captain Doubleday, whose voice came over the intercom: stern, masculine, an air of experience, yet friendly; a serious man in a serious line of work. This was comforting to a young boy who admired that captain to the point of remembering his name to this day.
When I boarded the plane about 45 minutes later, my concern renewed as I saw the two girls in the cockpit of my plane. It was a cold morning that required a de-icing treatment to the plane, and when the “captain” announced our take-off delay in her soft, elvish, girlish voice, I felt a wave of panic. Although I had awakened very early that morning with only around three hours of sleep due to a late company “Holiday” party (the holiday of course being CHRISTMAS), I did not sleep a wink during my two-hour plus flight back to Charlotte. I constantly worried, “What if there’s an emergency? How will these girls respond? Will they be able to pull a Sully Sullenberger move with his stern, calm, decisive resolve and save us if necessary? Where did they get their training? Why do both pilots have to be women? What the heck is going on here?!?” And how silly it seemed again after take-off, when the co-pilot’s voice came on in affected male “pilot” tones and inflection to make the typical announcements of flight time, weather, “enjoy the flight,” etc. I was petrified until the plane landed and my feet were on the ground.

Did they fly the plane? Yes. Did we make it in one piece? Yes. But as others have articulated, it’s not about that. It’s about an intangible sense that this just isn’t right. And among all the other concerns I have as a single father in this degenerating country, I continue to notice the upside-down world my boys will grow up in. Aging men in their fifties or obvious homosexuals are now my “flight attendant,” not stewardess, providing no genuine feminine care and comfort to weary travelers, and sexy little girls are my “captain” and co-pilot. Let me off this ride.

Mike #racist webcache.googleusercontent.com

Whites are the least racist and most generous ethnic group in all of human history. Consider the following.

Slavery: Only white countries abolished slavery for moral reasons (in some cases, anyway).

Colonialism: Only white countries surrendered the lands they conquered for moral reasons (in some cases, anyway).

White guilt: Only white people reject their own heritage as irredeemably racist and oppressive.

Immigration: Only white people are surrendering their majority status to unassimilable foreigners who bear historical grudges against them.

Welfare: Only white countries offer generous public benefits to minority groups who pay little or no taxes, makes lots of babies they can’t afford, and commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime (often against whites).

Crime: Only white people think it’s racist to complain about being victimized by hostile ethnic groups.

Crime 2: Despite being 74 percent of the population, whites commit only 10 percent of interracial crimes.

Culture: Only white people downplay their ancestors’ accomplishments (Western civilization) while glorifying the accomplishments of other races (rap music).

Charity: Only white people pair unceasing concern for poor minorities (“at-risk youth”) with contempt or hatred for poor members of their own race (“white trash”).

Internationalism: Only white people agonize over the problems of complete strangers on the other side of the world, spend hundreds of billions of dollars to alleviate their suffering, and welcome them into their homelands as “refugees” and “migrants.”

Environmentalism: Only white people gallivant around the world trying to save rare species and natural habitats in developing countries.

Legislation: White countries were the first to outlaw racial discrimination. Only white countries have special laws and penalties for “hate crimes” and “Holocaust denial.”

Affirmative action: Only white countries have laws and policies that put the majority ethnic group at a competitive disadvantage to minority ethnic groups.

Culture: Only white people feel guilty about their success and complain about their cultural dominance (“white privilege”).

Ideology: Only white people define their nations in terms of abstract ideals rather than culture, ethnicity, and religion.

Manners: White people are nice.

Political correctness: Only white people have a pathological fear of offending people.

Anti-racism: Only white countries engage in cathargic orgies of moral outrage over any hint of prejudice—no matter how small, isolated, imagined, or harmless.

Individualism/Universalism: Only white people reject the concepts of racial identity and racial solidarity.

Multiculturalism: Only white countries welcome the arrival and persistence of alien cultures, religions, and languages.

Diversity: Only white people feel guilty about a lack of diversity in their neighborhoods, schools, businesses, social circles, and entertainment choices.

Extinction: Only whites have allowed their birthrate to fall below replacement level; only whites glorify miscegenation; and only whites see their demographic decline as a sign of social progress.

Feel free to paste this list in the comment sections of anti-white articles on liberal and mainstream sites. Consider closing with the following: “I now fully expect other whites to attack me for saying good things about whites—which only proves my point! Whites don’t hate other races. Whites hate themselves.”