The irony of the human dilemma in regard to politico-economic culture, and comprehension thereof, is that the heights of moral conscientiousness involve recognition of the severe limits upon the proper application of moral precepts.

Moral universalism, for example, is fatuous - when the possibilities for its consistent, complete, and definitive formulation and application are examined.

And I do not have to prove this - for it is the burden, of anyone who disputes this, to produce that complete and coherent body of law (which exists only in pretense, at the present, in regard to any polity of consequence).

Not to understand this basic aspect of the human dilemma is to remain an obnoxious and impertinent juvenile, at best, and a threat to the maintenance of any ordered existence on the planet, in the extremity.

As I have said elsewhere, this is not a world of sin-and-salvation, it is a world of actions-have-consequences. It is not a theater wherein good-and-evil are played out, it is a mundane arena of the merely good-and-bad. Much of what is declared “evil” is a dealing with the world as it is known to the intellectually adult - the “virtue” of the morally pretentious, rather, is that of the woman, the child, and the fanatic.



I realized that my prior framing of political phenomena in terms of form-of-government (as is the foundation of orthodox PolySci) was a gross error interfering with the proper, comprehensive conceptualization of events, past and present - and is thus a powerful weapon in the maintenance of goyische ignorance of how the politico-economic world works.

[Mark I.:]

I came to a similar realization sometime ago. It has something to do with the fact that political-economic systems (and with them the Oligarchies/Elites which you have stressed of late) arise organically, or at least they did until the parliamentary regimes of the 19th cent in Europe. It creates, among other things, the misconception that we commoners have more influence over larger affairs than did our ancestors in ages past. Perhaps you could expand upon the point?


The history of the period of emergence you mention reveals that the irony and beauty of the adoption of "democratic" pageantry and pretense, rather, was that the post-revolutionary Permanent Secret Governments à la manière du Parvenu were thus never in jeopardy of an old-fashioned inter-regnum or of a popular revolution, for having disappeared from the sight of the childish masses (infants have to reach a certain age before they can realize that an object moved behind a screen does not disappear in other than immediate visual terms). It is telling, however, that invulnerability to a coup by an alternative elite was not enhanced by this technique (hint, hint, nudge, nudge, wink, wink) - and in fact it could be said to have been greatly reduced.

[Mark I.:]

Another misconception which arises from the materialist view is that history then seems to lead inevitably to both parliamentary systems and "cosmopolitan" civilization, not to mention secular humanism (latter-day nihilism). So the supposedly "atheistic" and "rational" system of thought is in fact some other form of messianism.


It is certainly a form of egalitarian utopianism - derived, however, not from the mere pretense of rationality and atheism that is involved, but rather from the falsification and ignorance of pertinent social sciences and the adoption of a savagely-defended secular faith. The slavish dualist elements thereof are all too familiar in the diabolization of those who have recognized the "apparent world" of actuality for its racial differences and irreconcilable conflicts and who have acted accordingly in that light. And one notes that our End-of-History boy, Francis F., never bothered to explain the formula according to which the "liberal democracies" are constructed so as to have eschatologically resolved the "internal contradictions" characteristic of any regime that is truly "liberal".


In donning that uniform and taking to the streets, NN showed more courage and dedication than most people here ever will.


For me, this blog is far more an exercise in courage and dedication.

For when I took to the streets, no courage on my part was involved - in the sense of overcoming one's fear of violence. I've always been prepared for it, and always considered myself a threat to others, physically and intellectually, rather than they a threat to me. I will, however, accept the imputation of courage on behalf of those of my comrades who *were* afraid and who *weren't* prepared, and who nevertheless did what needed doing for the awakening to come.

But now that forty years of dedicated study are a part of me, and I am responsible for others than myself, I do not hold my life and health so lightly. Yet those who intelligently address the issues with which this blog is concerned *are* engaged in a display of courage and dedication, in my judgment of the hazards that lurk and the investment of work. So, ironically, I consider myself worthy of that assessment by virtue of *this* exposure of hard-core truth, rather than by virtue of the exploits of my youth.


If you fail to see how an intentional community — a self-sustaining, racially conscious folk community — benefits our Cause, then I’m not sure any argument I can make will convince you. I think its merits are obvious. (Robert Campbell)

As are its de-merits, when viewed in larger perspective.

Most obviously, the “self-sustaining” aspect must be qualified, in that while such a community may be independent in its requirement for raw materials and foodstuffs, its protection from foreign invasion and domestic suppression is provided by an overwhelmingly larger and provisionally indulgent surrounding community with formal armed forces. (Though peasant visionaries hereabouts will have adopted pleasing misconceptions au courant as to the passing (”collapse”) of all foreign ambition for liberating North America from its present cultural regime, thus allowing Arcadia to survive in their minds as a day-dreamer’s aspiration for yet another (fatuous) colonial refuge. And “Red Dawn” fantasists will confidently declare themselves ready to bring to bear their trusty AK’s and whatnot to repel any number of Redcoats, foreign or domestic - should the peasant visionaries have miscalculated in their expectation of a perpetually indulgent and aggression-free environment.)

Without a spiritual goal at the forefront of the social consciousness, man’s ideologies inevitable descend into arrogance and self-destruction. The first step to conquering the world is conquering thy self!

“Conquering the world”? In what sense?

Our masters seem to be Jewish, not sub-continental (the former having had no more time than the latter toward achieving that global objective). So you must mean the “inward” world - in which case “conquering thyself” is tantamount to “conquering the world”. For *actual* world conquest/liberation, and resistance thereto, necessarily involve those nasty ideologies, with their arrogance and organic cyclicality.

But let us grant that those who have the inward discipline to douse themselves with flammable liquid and set themselves alight without evident sensation of pain, or to stop their own hearts from beating in autonomic activity, have truly mastered themselves. They have no need to conquer the world or even defend themselves against it. What matter if wife and child (should one have compromised oneself to that extent) are violated and killed or captured as slaves by intruders? One is well-composed and has a superior perspective on such developments, and one is thus undisturbed in one’s equanimity, by such events.

[Lesser India as an alternative to Greater Judea - an idea whose time has come?]


But multiculturalists consider themselves superior to ALL CULTURES!

And this is of the essence of the power and attraction of “moral” deliberations:

A priceless feeling of personal worth transcending that of all others (and some others are held to be less than worthless, depending upon how one constructs one’s morality) - and purchased, initially, at the price of lots of hot air.

Such a *Deal* - *who* could resist?

So, *step right up*, Ladies and Gentlemen!

We have two - yes, TWO - lovely varieties of moral superiority to appeal to that little slave lurking in your soul!

Over here, we have on display your traditional brand of spiritual afflatus: Yeshua’s Sayings, with a bonus addendum authored by Saul of the Thirty-Nine Stripes.

And for those of a more contemporary taste in ethical fatuities, we have pseudo-Christian, quasi-Communist, egalitarian utopianist Liberalism!

(Do I see a flush of warmth in many a face in the crowd at the mention of this latter delight, simulating the sensation of a bracing intoxicant as it slides down that inward canal - soothing that tremulous little girl inside? I think I do!)

So don’t be shy, Ladies and Gentlemen! Step right up and make your choice! It’s all free for you and won’t be paid for until your precious children wake up one day, staring the Devil in the eye, with old El Diablo demanding payment for the fatuous indulgences enjoyed by their parents.

["It is here and nowhere else that one must make a start to comprehend what Zarathustra wants: this type of man that he conceives, conceives reality as it is: it is strong enough for it —, it is not estranged or removed from it, it is reality itself and exemplifies all that is terrible and questionable in it, only in that way can man attain greatness ..." (Ecce Homo, "Why I Am a Destiny," 5)]



Our time window would seem to be generally between the mid-19th to the mid-20th centuries perhaps, the era where there were densely populated democracies but before the alleged Jewish Oligarchy had been established world-wide. What is your estimate of when the Oligarchy would have achieved its nation-dominating strength?


According to Disraeli’s remarks, we may take the “democracies” of your “window” to have been merely cosmetically so - just as is the case today. Fundamental policy was not subject to popular review.

Only the Weimar Republic, naively imposed by the Allied Powers in a fit of idealism, was an authentic vehicle for the expression of the will of the masses, allowing thus the extraordinary regime of “Adolf Legalite’ ” and the National Socialists. “Fascism” *elsewhere* had to be established by irregular means (the “March on Rome” that Hitler himself tried to imitate).

As to reckoning *when* the boast of the Protocols had been realized is, again, to wish to examine the contents of the black box.


Do you believe there have been other secret Oligarchies in the past as well? For example, do you think that Masons worked behind the scenes in early America or after the Civil War (before the Jews arrived)? (The recent film, “Sherlock Holmes”, which shows a secret organization similar to the Masons managing late 19th Century England from behind the scenes). My intuition tells me you would say that the hated National Bank was part of such an organization.


Cults and Secret Societies have long existed and some may have been influential. I do not believe, however, that any of these have constituted a nation- or cultural-wide oligarchy. The problem is that cults and secret societies are artificial “conspiracies” of otherwise unattached individuals. Oligarchies are *natural* phenomena derived from tribal and national affiliations. The latter are thus much stronger in their cohesiveness - the essential quality of the ruling stratum of a society - a stratum that, as I strongly emphasize, *cannot* be guided altogether by legal formalities and artifices, and so must rely upon a natural, *implicit* agreement as to the policies and agendas to be pursued. Hence there can be no other identity to the present regime than that of Jewry, following the passing of the WASP.

And the principle, mentioned above, is illustrated by this and other examples.

The WASP oligarchy was weak and easily displaced because it was, in part, the coming together, artificially, of otherwise unattached plutocrats who happened to be largely of common ethnic origin but not of long-established natural community nor of a transcendent agenda for governance of a rapidly evolving society seriously strained by class antagonisms. In further illustration, the modern regimes of the USSR and NS Germany had to make do with oligarchies merely aborning in the KGB (Andropov) and the SS (Himmler), thus having to be firmly disciplined by the active pursuit of ideological goals as the “glue” holding a regime together. Hannah Arendt, in one of her few valid appreciations of Totalitarianism, recognized this element in ideologically-based “movements” - in that they must constantly *move* in order to maintain themselves.

And this is why the Russian and Chinese regimes have not retained the rigid police-states of the past. They must evolve toward a globally catastrophic attempt at the immantization of the eschaton, as we have seen them doing, or they will devolve into civil war, as has *not* happened and as would confirm a *genuine* “collapse” of Communism in either of these regimes.


I think the explanatory value of a “hidden hand” theory makes it attractive, because it allows an individual to conceptualize and comprehend what is otherwise an incredibly complex system that otherwise defies one’s ability to really grasp or predict it.


The essence of the administrative challenge - to which oligarchy, hidden or otherwise, is the answer - is not one of complexity, however.

It is one of the exclusivity - as with “Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem,” - of coherence and completeness ("all coherent formulations of number theory are incomplete").

Likewise, and pretenses to the contrary, there has not been, and there cannot be, a complete and coherent formulation of law such as will be adhered to under the constraint of *universal* attendance to “Rightly Understood Interest”. Thus the necessity for authoritative oligarchy to deal with societal conflicts that cannot be satisfactorily addressed by formalities - and as it is in the rightly-understood *particularist* interest of an organized minority to exploit an unorganzed majority.

Also, it must be mentioned that an essential part of the governance of settled populations is the service provided by theologues (priests) and ideologues (”intellectuals”) in the mis-guidance of dominated populations as to their “Rightly Understood Interests” - since, as said, there is no formula for its achievement, in law or in adherence thereto.

One should note that the Marxist concepts of “false consciousness” and "opiate of the masses" are instructive in this regard.




I see what you are saying about the long term goal of rigorous Marxism.

However, I think the “withering away of the State” is something Marxists always conceptualize as being carried out by future generations of Marxists.

I doubt very much that Chinese Marxists will have the clear eyed fanaticism to carry such a scheme out to its final stages.

Even with the madmen of the Bolsheviks, only the Jew Trotsky actually wanted to move in a meaningful way toward the destruction of all Western Political Entities.

And guess what? His foreign policy ideas along these lines were shot down, so to speak (!), by Joseph Stalin.

What reason is there to think that a Chinese Trotsky won’t have his foreign policy ideas shot down by a Chinese Stalin?


It has already happened.

Just as Trotsky was followed by Stalin, then followed by Khruschev,

So Mao was followed by Deng, and now Mao is being revived.

And apostolic Christianity, failing to deliver the promised Advent, was replaced by institutional Catholic Christianity, which was rejected by puritanical Protestantism, in a return to the roots of the faith.

See the pattern?


What [Maurice] Samuel is saying [in *You Gentiles*] is not that the Jews are deliberate destroyers, or want to be. He is saying that we inadvertently destroy Gentile society, which is nothing but pageantry and spectacle, because we demand a seriousness, a reality and a morality from life that is far greater than gentiles can ever provide and so among the gentiles we are forever trying to create moral structures that, as gentiles are not able to bear them, break under the weight of them. (Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel)

Unlike the righteous Jews of ancient Israel, who well withstood the rigors of righteousness as Zealots, Sicarii, messianists of various other stripe, Pharisees, Saduccees, et al., and thus are recognizable as shining examples of the possibilities for such society that the Gentiles perversely refuse to emulate?

It would seem, rather, that the Gentiles must remain skeptical of this thesis - since “reality,” to judge by all historical example, including the aforementioned, evidently cannot accommodate “a seriousness, a reality, and a morality from life that is far greater than gentiles can ever provide,” - and since the destructive effect of that inevitable and predictable failure to bear up looks suspiciously like the after-effect of deliberate subversion hiding behind a sanctimonious pretense and pretext. Beyond that consideration, the Gentiles have this perverse tendency to note that the proclamations of the Talmud do not lend themselves to the notion that moral solicitousness for the welfare of other than Jewry is involved in Jewish moral motivation.

And what sanctimonious hypocrisy is not involved in the Jewish pattern of Nazi-racist-in-his-own-(apartheid/chosen-of-the-one-God-who-gave-this-land-to-me) country and Commie subversive in yours? [Even the nominally "Capitalist" Jewish elite purchased the Bolshevik overthrow of the Kerensky regime!]

And finally, deliberate or not, the santimonious Jewish agenda simulates a termite-like effect on the political and cultural structure involved - whether it's a Jewish entity or that of others. So, what’s a righteous Gentile to do with the Jew - or the Jew with himself, in the light of the *real* reality that is evident from investigation thereof rather than from the emetic moral pretense and nonsense?


“Good summary up to this point - but my sense of the “ultimate design” involves global anarchy rather than empire. Though it is evident that a *non-sectarian* expectation of one-world-government is held by the goyische paladins involved.” (NN)

Well, it would have saved us some time and trouble if you had provided this summary at the beginning, but for some reason you appear to enjoy seeing people bump their head and stub their toe in the dark before finding the light switch and figuring out what you believe.

I was puzzled by this remark, now supposedly to be taken tongue-in-cheek, but which reflection suggested to me was significant of the popular confusion of government form with government agenda.

So it appears that, in speculating as to the *organization* of the black-box guidance of Greater Judea, we were, for you, thus characterizing its *agenda*.

Which means that if I say the organization is oligarchic, for *you* the point and agenda of the organization, to the extent that there *is* such organization, is simply to *be* an oligarchy.

Thus, if I freshly introduce discussion of the (ultimately anarchistic) *agenda* of the organization, I have “found the light switch,” in your terms, and finally made up my mind with a characterization of its *organizational* form.

Now I think I understand your remark. So let me explain why the distinction between organization and agenda, means and ends, form and function, is vitally important under our present regime:

Maurice Samuel long ago instructed us that Jewry demands a “God World”.

Thus, as Oligarchs, they are not content just to be normal oligarchs in an imperfect world. They seek to perfect it (thus wrecking it) by means of Communism or Zionism or a combination of both.

So, young Andrew, your mission - should you decide to accept it - is to stop the tikkun olam fanatics, wherever they are to be found - before they can manage to deceive every goy, such as yourself, as to the simultaneity of the organizational form and functional agenda of governments - and so facilitate the perfecting of us all - to the point of a miserable death that we do not deserve.


Then why would China destroy the West?

“Aw shut up, silly woman, said that reptile with a grin - you knew darn well I was a snake before you took me in!” (”The Snake”)

It’s The Scorpion and the Frog.

It’s the meaning, purpose, and unifying principle of a Marxist regime.

In this song and story, the West is the bourgeois vehicle and obstacle to the eschaton, the stateless final society promised by the ideology - the millenium, in Christian fancy - the Spartacist rampage, in Nietzschean expectation.

It seems to me you’re saying that while the Judeo-Communists are smart enough to see that if China destroys the West it will lead to its own collapse, the Chinese themselves lack this degree of foresight.

To the contrary. The Chinese, as do the Russians, understand that their ultimate goal is global statelessness. Thus the “collapse” of any State, having served its purposes, is a victory, in Marxist terms. The Russian Communists, in shedding the Soviet pseudo-empire in behalf of strategic deception, are even farther along than are the Chinese. For Mao was premature in dismantling China, before it had a chance to compromise the West, and the “technocrats” under Deng had to retrieve the situation and make up time, toward achievement of the global objective.

Also, understand that the “liberalism,” of both the modern Left and Right, in the West, is quasi-anarchist - in the libertarian disposition of the Right and in the anti-establishment sentiment of the Left. Thus the orientation and appeal of Communism, properly understood as crypto-anarchism, is not surprising, and is supposedly an ideological cousin, descended from Enlightenment thought.

But Marxist Communism *is not* properly recognized by adherents of these bourgeois concessions to reality, because, despite sharing with radicals some of the same liberationist sentiments, the moderates are confused as to this convergence by the radical fatuity and brutality in the antithetical (police-statist/megacidal) structure and governance of radical regimes.

Nevertheless, Marx *is* explicit in the promise he makes. But that promise is *unrealizable* amidst the intractable limitations on the administration of human society. And the tragic results of the attempts to overcome those limitations make the Communist goal *unrecognizable* amidst the inhumanity of the means to which the radicals must resort in establishing, maintaining, and advancing the regimes needed toward achieving the promised world-wide liberation.

[P.S. - As reported in the Red Column, to the right, a revival of "Maoism" - the true faith of Chinese Marxism - is underway (and is significant of the superficiality of the technocracy, the only intended function of which is to disarm and disable the West and, derivatively, all ordered existence on the planet).]


There are good arguments to support the belief that the Israel Lobby is very influential in the United States, or that to-day’s American Jews are disproportionately liberal, but when one starts suggesting that Jews collectively are the historical enemy (or at least one of the main enemies) of Western society, and thus deserve to be removed, one is plunging into lunatic territory, and displaying a degree of petty chauvinism that is more befitting of an African (or a latter day Kraut) than a civilized Anglo-Saxon.

Jews aren’t the problem. The problem is ideological. And the ideology has infected American Jews and Gentiles alike, though in different proportions. And that ideology is liberal democracy.

And is one of the tenets of “liberal democracy” the Reverse Discrimination policy?

Use of troops to enforce busing of students for racial integration?

Institutional suppression of scientific investigation and information regarding racial differences such as promote the necessity for AA/RD toward achieving, rather, a radical egalitarian regime to be imposed only upon those not of the means to escape to elite enclaves?

Or the resultant homogenization and atomization of society, simulating the desideratum of an alien elite seeking to secure itself against nativist resistance?

This is certainly not “liberal” in the classic sense of political, rather than socio-economic and racial/sexual equality, as you maintain was its origin. But you have it that the classic became the modern out of an internal evolutionary logic that has yet to be explained as logical and other than the product of promotion by illiberal parties.

The question, then, is why should have the spirit of freedom, paramount in the political egalitarianism of classical liberalism, have devolved into the quest for uniformity. It is because classic libertarian liberalism has “internal contradictions,” the consequences of which are societally unendurable, leading thus to government regulation of commerce, i.e., bureaucratic socialism. And Communist Jewry explicitly adopted the tactic of passing as “Socialist” for the sake of forwarding their crypto-anarchist, quasi-messianic Communist agenda, world-wide. And they have subverted the Western world under that cloak and on that otherwise-legitimate pretext, which is resisted by those who fail to distinguish meliorist bureaucratic surgical socialism from Communist police-statist terrorism and butchery and who then are vulnerable to the exploitation of the errors of their own ideological position. Thus have the masters of the present dispensation long played off the two erroneous ideological positions and representative parties (egalitarian utopian socialism/Democrats vs. laissez-faire free-enterprise capitalism/Republicans), to the advantage of their own crypto-anarchist Communist agenda, misunderstood and mis-labeled first as "socialism" or "welfarism" or "affirmative action" and now more agreeably as “liberal democracy" - predictably with none of these agendas realized in terms of the justice and fairness inclusive of all parties that was thought to be their charge. The recent capture of the Republican Party by Kosher-con elements has interrupted and climaxed this victorious campaign of duplicity and corruption by placing Republican-cloaked Judeo-fascism on a popular basis to complement the century-long Judeo-Communism behind the Democratic Party.


WE are following them like imprinted ducklings. And why? Because they’ve actually become our elite. They’re not uniquely evil. They’re not particularly special. They’re a managerial elite. If they hadn’t stumbled onto the biggest wide open opportunity in human history, we would be under the thrall of some other alien managerial elite.

The aristocrats became decadent without their wars. The Catholic priests lost their faith. The Freemasons entertained universalist ideals that left them open to infiltration and subversion. The Protestant “leadership” are totally at the mercy of the congregation which is totally at the mercy of the choke-point institutions. It’s important to be Jew-wise, to vividly and directly reject their self-appointed role in our society. But the only actual solution, the only path which will yield any fruit for our people, is to raise up an indigenous elite and then direct our loyalty toward it.

Our people are mal-indoctrinated and drowning in universalist fantasies. The Anglo world needs a racial/ideological revolution in thought, in the worst way, yet only seems to ever come up with more self-defeating delusions and shadow boxing. We need a racial-political revolution, and instead beget ‘tea parties’ and feel good flag-waving. What kind of make-believe fool’s paradise do these people inhabit? When simple street-Negroes exhibit racial moxie in spades, and even know about the Protocols, what’s to be said about the enslaved mindset of our deracinated people? How can our people be so cluster-fornicated stupid??

The answer, I believe, lies in the fact that the world’s Anglos have been ideologically Judaized for centuries, and most of them are essentially clueless about it. Many are even pugnaciously “proud” about their willful ignorance of most vital interests. Our people’s philosophical, spiritual, and political immaturity is astounding; huge segments of the White Anglo population think and act like juveniles in adult bodies. Our people's mindset and behavior is nauseating, to say nothing of being flat-out cowardly.

Something needs to be done, and in a hell of a hurry. Most of the posters at this blog are the most savvy, race-wise and literate Whites that I am aware of, and I salute you all. Most posters here seem to be very able to separate the real McCoy from the decoy, in a Jew-Yawk minute. Yes, Wiki, we need to build that indigenous, elite, White vanguard, and support it loyally and faithfully. We need to be the organized will of the people.



Maybe you should reflect back upon your roots, and admit that the Superman myth has been a miserable substitute for sound moral behavior. The line that separates the animal from the human is MORALITY. If you deny that axiom, the corruption within your nature will condemn those who seek a virtuous struggle. Neitzche’s way has been tried. and it came up wanting.


1) The man that Zarathustra wants is a man of *master* morality, the code of all durably civilized existence. The "sound moral behavior" which you tout has been anything but.

2) Animals have their own "morality" which well suits them. You are a mere bigot in this regard.

3) I adhere to the "customs of war" among those of culture held in common. Otherwise, a "virtuous struggle" is for females resisting rape.

4) Nietzsche's way is that of healthy human civilization before the pathogenic emergence of Judaism and its heresies.



The Abyss:

1) God is Dead

2) Justice is transient

3) Utopia is a graveyard

4) The world of men is governed by lies and violence

5) It is left to men of violence to create and maintain order in the midst of this truth


How can such a creature as man who is governed by lies and violence created from within himself create and maintain order and maintain truth. In your world truth at the most is relative, so how does one know truth.


The man of violence as a victorious warrior and soldier is inclined to the eventual ordered exploitation of that which he conquers, should he choose to maintain an occupation. He does not have to *lie* about his world in the sense of *inverting* its reality, as do those he has conquered and made powerless otherwise, for he can see the world for what it is with certain *enhancements*, since it basically suits him by virtue of his victory. *This* has been the genesis and course of all human high culture and civilization of which we have knowledge prior to the Jewish intrusion. In "my world" truth is not relative - values are relative. My "good-and-bad" is that of master morality, not the "good-and-evil" of slavish morality.



I have been reading your posts and pondering on them.

I almost feel that I should offer you an apology. To say something like

"I'm sorry I haven't been a ravaging beast today.

I'm sorry that I have not plundered any cities or raped any women.

I'm sorry that I haven't been a Viking and slaughtered and enslaved any of my own people.

I had my puppy on my lap and to be frank, I kinda love the little fella. Sorry for engaging in weak emotions!

I'll try and do better (or worse) tomorrow! I'll try and be more of beast."


Make sure you do, punk!

Any more slacking off on the beastliness and the puppy gets one in the back of the neck, see!


Arabs aren’t especially good at fighting, even relying on kidnapped White children (Janissaries) to augment their military prowess. I assert that Whites, more than any other population, excel at leadership and military pursuits. The problem for us, in a nutshell, is that Jews, Mandarins, and Brahmins are superior at management, having been both genetically and culturally adapted over millennia to excel at managing grain surpluses, trade networks, and the logistical issues therein.

We’re more innovative and imaginative, but lack the patience and attentiveness of the existing managerial castes. Relative to them, we as a people suffer from attention-deficit disorder and this vulnerability is exploited time and again. Jews who excelled at reading Talmudic discourse and patiently applying usury need to merely make things too boring and byzantine for the gentile and he hands over his civilization without a fight.