Diaspora, 2

Food for thought from Kevin
MacDonald’s Diaspora Peoples:

Puritans forbade the worship of Christmas, both in England and Massachusetts, and whipped, burned, and exiled those they found to be heretics, all the while believing themselves to be the beleaguered defenders of liberty…

At that time certain religious non-conformists, especially Anabaptists and Quakers, were still prevented from settling in New England and imprisoned, tortured, and even executed if they returned there…

As in the Old Testament, God’s wrath would be leveled at entire communities, not only individuals. Each member was therefore responsible for the purity of the whole, since transgressions of others would result in God’s wrath being leveled at the entire community. Puritans were therefore highly motivated to control the behavior of others that they thought might offend God. This included, of course, the sexual behavior of other community members.

Both East Anglia and New England had the lowest relative rates of private crime (murder, theft, mayhem), but the highest rates of public violence—“the burning of rebellious servants, the maiming of political dissenters, the hanging of Quakers, the execution of witches”. This record is entirely in keeping with Calvinist tendencies in Geneva…

Puritans waged holy war on behalf of moral righteousness even against their own cousins, perhaps a form of altruistic punishment described by Fehr and Gachter and found more often among cooperative hunter-gatherer groups than among groups, such as Judaism, based on extended kinship.


Militarily, the war with the Confederacy rendered the heaviest sacrifice in lives and property ever made by Americans. Puritan moral fervor and its tendency to justify draconian punishment of evil doers can also be seen in the comments of “the Congregationalist minister at Henry Ward Beecher’s Old Plymouth Church in New York who went so far as to call for exterminating the German people, the sterilization of 10,000,000 German soldiers and the segregation of the woman.

In England, Puritanism never really developed into a group evolutionary strategy but remained a loosely bordered faction among other Protestant sects. In New England, however, it developed as a hegemonic religious and political movement in control of a particular territory. Membership in the church required a vote of the congregation. “The principal criterion, besides an upright behavior, was evidence that God had chosen the candidate for eternal salvation…”

On America



Excellent essay by Matt.




And it will.


In any event, again, the above is debatable.













On the US Constitution

by Jack Frost

“The Naturalization Act of 1790 says that the country is open to Free White Persons.”

There’s quite a bit of interesting history involved with this discussed at considerable length in the Dred Scott case from 1856, especially in the dissenting opinions given by Justice Maclean and Justice Curtis. For example, Maclean wrote:


Also, Curtis:

On the 25th of June, 1778, the Articles of Confederation being under consideration by the Congress, the delegates from South Carolina moved to amend this fourth article, by inserting after the word “free,” and before the word “inhabitants,” the word “white,” so that the privileges and immunities of general citizenship would be secured only to white persons. Two States voted for the amendment, eight States against it, and the vote of one State was divided. The language of the article stood unchanged, and both by its terms of inclusion, “free inhabitants,” and the strong implication from its terms of exclusion, “paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice,” who alone were excepted, it is clear, that under the Confederation, and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, free colored persons of African descent might be, and, by reason of their citizenship in certain States, were entitled to the privileges and immunities of general citizenship of the United States.


Did the Constitution of the United States deprive them or their descendants of citizenship?

That Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States, through the action, in each State, or those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon, in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of that State. In some of the States, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on this subject. These colored persons were not only included in the body of “the people of the United States,” by whom the Constitution was ordained and established, but in at least five of the States they had the power to act, and doubtless did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption. It would be strange, if we were to find in that instrument anything which deprived of their citizenship any part of the people of the United States who were among those by whom it was established.


It has been often asserted that the Constitution was made exclusively by and for the white race. It has already been shown that in five of the thirteen original States, colored persons then possessed the elective franchise, and were among those by whom the Constitution was ordained and established. If so, it is not true, in point of fact, that the Constitution was made exclusively by the white race. And that it was made exclusively for the white race is, in my opinion, not only an assumption not warranted by anything in the Constitution, but contradicted by its opening declaration, that it was ordained and established by the people of the United States, for themselves and their posterity. And as free colored persons were then citizens of at least five States, and so in every sense part of the people of the United States, they were among those for whom and whose posterity the Constitution was ordained and established.

So it turns out that, despite being a nation in which white supremacy was enshrined in law, there were numerous places and times in America when this was honored more in the breach than in the observance. Without any Jewish “control” whatsoever, unless Christianity is admitted to be such a controlling influence, there had always been a strong undercurrent of anti-racism and of America being a “proposition nation,” which eventually and disastrously grew to the whirlpool of destruction that sucked the whole nation down into the carnage of the Civil War. After that, through ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, it was made explicitly so.

Oh say can you see, by the dawn’s early light, a proud Christian nation of racial cuckolds? American patriotism = cuck pride!


by Jack Frost


“But [abolitionism] certainly was not a factor in the decision to wage the war, and was not the primary motivation for most Northern soldiers.”

It would be interesting to see some evidence for that assertion. Lincoln was raised in an anti-slavery Baptist church, and was morally opposed to slavery all his life. As early as 1855, in a letter to Jonathan Speed, he revealed himself as a dyed-in-the-wool racial egalitarian:


We’ve already talked about the difficulties inherent in determining motivations. If even self-reporting, as in the song lyrics I referred you to, isn’t reliable, then how can you claim to know what the motivations were for “most Northern soldiers”? If it wasn’t a popular cause, then how do you explain the immense success of Uncle Tom’s Cabin? In any event, it’s inarguable that the setting of the negro on equal footing with whites was a catastrophe for the white race in N. America, and that was indisputably the result of the war. Are you trying to claim that the result was unintentional? What kind of idiots do you think whites of that era were? “Whoops! We freed the slaves, and even made citizens and voters out of them. Gosh darn it anyway, we sure didn’t mean to!” That would be a hard case to make.

“There is just no evidence to support the notion that the war was fought over slavery and we have numerous explicit statements from Lincoln that the war had nothing to do with slavery. If you don’t find that compelling, I’m not sure what else would make any difference.”

I suggest you pay more attention to what Lincoln actually did than what he said. Lincoln is more responsible than any other single man for the racial disaster whites face today. [emphasis added] It’s not for nothing that Obama was sworn in on Lincoln’s Bible; not for nothing that he’s a personal hero of his.

Now that I’ve answered your question, I’d have to ask you this one: Do you seriously think the American people would have endured another draft and 600,000 dead in a cause that lacked clear moral justification? It’s ridiculous to think so. Also, since you seem to want to believe everything Lincoln ever said, what about his reputed statement upon meeting Uncle Tom’s Cabin author Harriette Beecher Stowe in 1862, “So you’re the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war!” Even the fact he met with her at all is a significant indication of the powerful abolitionist influence.

“So it seems clear enough that even absent slavery, these economic issues would have still existed, would have still come to a head and still left Lincoln facing the same problems and the same choices.”

You think that the soldiers and the people would have endured all the destruction and 600,000 killed for the sake of some lost coins. I don’t. That’s the substance of our difference.

Why don’t you just answer the question instead of dancing around it? Do you seriously believe that freeing the slaves was accidental, or was it intentional? What about giving the negro citizenship and extending them the vote? Were those accidents too? I hope you don’t believe that, because that has got to be one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard. However, lacking Jews to blame I suppose you have no alternative but to depict it as an accident. There is a tendency in our circles to try to exonerate white people of any wrongdoing or culpability [emphasis added], and I think you’re falling into it again here. You ought to face that fact that a vast number of white people, possibly even the majority, are unsalvageable race traitors.

“I suppose one could argue that freeing the slaves was the first step in integrating them into White society, but it would be a pretty feeble argument. There was no integration of Blacks into White society or culture following the war.”

You’re ignoring a little thing called Reconstruction. Hundreds of negroes were elected to public office all over the South. Worse, making them citizens and the legal equals of whites once and for all abolished any hope of a nation based on race. Lincoln was the true founder of the modern American state, a “proposition nation”, anti-racist and hence inevitably anti-white by creed and public policy.

Another problem with the conventional thinking on the right, which you exemplify here, is not seeing the big picture. The legal equality of blacks, placing them on parity with whites, was resisted and slowed down by custom and tradition, but not stopped by it. Racial segregation was a hypocritical compromise that was doomed to fail from the outset. It was only a question of time.

It’s Christian ethics, stupid!


































toms cabin





Old John Brown’s body lies moldering in the grave,
While weep the sons of bondage
whom he ventured all to save;
But tho he lost his life while struggling for the slave,
His soul is marching on.

Christ who of the bondmen shall the Liberator be,
For his soul is marching on.










On turning Americans into nazis

by Jack Frost

US naziAlthough it might be possible to develop a racist interpretation of Christianity (e.g., what the Nazis tried), I’ve never seen a convincing theological justification of it. The fact that all major churches and 99%+ of all who today call themselves Christians reject racism ought to tell you something… You probably want to hang on to most of Christianity as it has been “traditionally” practiced in relatively modern times, while discarding only the anti-racism. Everyone who ever tried that has failed, but I guess you don’t see that as a problem.

Then again, the cognitive dissonance issue is nearly as problematic. In order to accept being called a racist or a Nazi with equanimity, normal American whites would have to reconcile that with their country’s history of being violently opposed to racism of any kind, from the Civil War forward. They would have to admit to themselves and to others that all of that blood shed in trying to stamp out racism had been shed in vain, and in fact, worse than in vain, in an evil cause. They would have to admit that their ancestors were evil, and that they themselves had also been evil before they saw the light and became racists.

It’s safe to say the chances of that happening on a mass scale are almost zero.

The 1st cuckservative

by Jack Frost

Terms like “White supremacist,” “racist,” “anti-Semite” “Nazi” have been devastatingly effective, but they are only effective because they are disseminated by our hostile elites. [a quotation from a Kevin MacDonald article]

They are only effective because whites take them seriously and accept that they’re evil. But this was no mere invention of modern mass media, as they were accepted as evil long before its advent. Racism and white supremacy have been out of style in America at least since the Civil War. White supremacy was offensive to Christians back in that day because it goes against so many Biblical teachings: the insignificance of race, the equal importance and uniqueness of all souls to God, the unimportance of the body, etc.

MatthewThus they abolished it, at great cost to themselves in blood and treasure, before Jews even began arriving on these shores in any great number. Further, doesn’t the Bible (Matthew 19:28-30) predict that when Heaven on earth arrives, that then when Jesus’ followers have completely forsaken their blood relations in order to follow him, that those who were last shall be the first, and the first shall be last?

Here we have the essence of cuckservatism, foretold in the sayings of Jesus. Hence, a devout Christian must prep the bull, in order to make up for having sinfully been first (cf. Mark 9:35). It shows proper humility.

On cognitive dissonance

by Jack Frost

Given the general Christian insistence on regarding all souls as “equal in the eyes of God,” cognitive dissonance without doubt has had a lot to do with the evolution of anti-racism throughout what used to be called Christendom.

Ben-Franklin-DuplessisFor example, the discomfort (i.e., cognitive dissonance) of the Founding Fathers with regard to race-based slavery conflicting with their worldview is palpable when you read their writings. Some, like the deeply religious Benjamin Franklin, became abolitionists, and freed their own slaves (n.b., but only after using them for most of their lives). The descendants of those same slaves no doubt are still preying on whites even today. How many murders, rapes, and robberies of white people have been the result of Franklin’s act of Christian generosity? How many shattered, ruined lives?

We’ll never know. Given the prevailing worldview, the question is uninteresting, just as the ongoing genocide of whites in South Africa is uninteresting. Eventually, of course, other abolitionists even fomented America’s Civil War over the issue, and their descendants, such as the founders of the NAACP, worked sedulously to make the negro the white man’s equal in law. Nearly all of these abolitionists were Christian fanatics who framed their objections to slavery in moral terms. Confronting such people with evidence they are wrong will usually only increase their fanaticism.

This being the case, could it be that efforts at “education” are not only fruitless, but counter-productive? This would explain much about the racial right’s long history of failure.

March of the Titans

























A secondary infection

“No one who is familiar with the 18th century and the 19th century can possibly believe that Whites are blameless” said Brad Griffin (“Hunter Wallace”) a little more than an hour ago. In another thread on the same subject, a commenter asked:

Why are Jews leading white nations to begin with? What level of idiocy does it take to allow your nation to voluntarily be led by a foreign tribe? That’s the question.

Griffin responded:

Ever since the French Revolution—see what happened in Haiti—, the answer has been liberalism.

Yankees believed in liberal capitalist democracy and their ideology legitimized the Jewish takeover of their society without a shot being fired. Germany put up more resistance under Hitler because Germans were less committed to liberalism.

It’s really that simple: Jews thrive in liberal democracies, under communism, and other systems that substitute abstract ideology for ethnic or religious solidarity.

Is Jewish influence bad? Of course.

It is a secondary infection. Jews don’t thrive in the Muslim world, China, Japan and other places because the conditions there aren’t favorable to Jews like they were in early twentieth century Yankeeland.

Yankees believed that Jews had a right to own their newspapers and film industry. They had a right to accumulate vast amounts of wealth and participate on an equal basis in their political system. The rest is history.

It couldn’t have ended any other way. See also Weimar Germany.

The strong feeling that Jews are bad and should be expelled is a healthy sentiment because Jewish influence has negative consequences.

What allowed the Jews to become so powerful? The culprit is Americanism which left the native population defenseless against the Jewish assault in the early twentieth century. Even without the Jews, Americanism alone had already inspired Yankees to destroy the South.

Liberalism also inspired Britain and France to inflict incredible damage on their Caribbean colonies.