Muslims in the Obama coalition: an anecdote

Half of the families in my apartment building are Muslims.  I don’t interact with them much, but occasionally we run into each other.  I remember the night in 2012 when President Obama accepted his nomination as the Democratic candidate for president.  Ordinarily, I try to stay clear of all that political partisan stuff, but I was out for a walk, and one of the Muslim men decided to play Obama’s acceptance speech on his car radio loud enough for the rest of us to hear.  Obama was going on about a sinister cabal of rich men who are scheming to decide “whether you can have birth control” and “who you can marry”, etc, with Obama assuring us that he’s going to fight these miscreants.  And there’s this Muslim guy with his long beard and funny non-Western clothes grinning and nodding along.  Our eyes met, and he smiled, and went on listening.

Here’s the funny thing.  I haven’t talked to them, but the other American family in the apartment building has, and they’ve learned some things about our Muslim neighbors.  These guys are from Saudi Arabia.  The guy’s wife goes around completely covered except for her eyes, and she’s actually not supposed to be out at all if men might be present.  And there they are, seemingly as happy as can be with the Democrats’ feminist jihad, as if there’s no tension there.  I know this would make a better story if I would have gone up and asked him if it didn’t make him a little bit uncomfortable that the President was advocating contraception and sodomy, but I don’t know him, and I didn’t want to start an argument.  I suppose it’s possible that he was laughing to himself about what a bunch of degenerates Americans are, but I can’t help suspecting that he was just nodding with approval at the thought that his candidate was going to stick it to those white Christians.  Consistently applied principles are for suckers.  What one thinks of Muslims in America depends a lot on how one reads those grins.

Let me tell you how I think about Muslims in the West.  They’re liberals, married for life to the Left, just like Jews and American blacks.  Individuals among these groups might make common cause with us, and such are welcome, but their identities are too tied with the sense of opposition to Christian Europe for us to expect more than that.  Terrorism is a nuisance, much less dangerous to our civilization than blasphemy.  In the end, Muslims will only matter as communist voters.

63 thoughts on “Muslims in the Obama coalition: an anecdote

  1. “that he was just nodding with approval at the thought that his candidate was going to stick it to those white Christians. ”

    It was this, can confirm from personal experience.

  2. The numbers don’t lie. Correct me, but my recollection is that Hussein Obama received 89% (give or take) of the Muslim vote both in ’08 & ’12, whereas the “conservative” candidate received 4% or less. Meanwhile I’m sure the Muslim dwellers in your complex all embrace CAIRs constantly repeated objective to “empower Muslim-Americans.” The quickest, most efficient way of doing that is, of course, joining forces with the liberals/progressives. Ditto for the broader West.

  3. Pingback: Muslims in the Obama coalition: an anecdote | Reaction Times

  4. It was the eighteenth century when the enemies of Christianity really rolled up their sleeves, spat on their hands, and got down to work. One of their tactics was to mix members of different sects in a region that was what we now call religiously diverse. They recognized that it was easy to transmit one’s faith to ones children when that faith was practiced and embodied throughout the surrounding community, and hard to transmit one’s faith when all the neighbors had faith in something else.

    Here’s J. Hector St. John de Crévecoeur writing about Pennsylvania in his Letters from an American Farmer (1783). Pay particular attention to the passage I have italicized at the end.

    “In a few years, this mixed neighborhood will exhibit a strange religious medley, that will be neither pure Catholicism nor pure Calvinism. A very perceptible indifference, even in the first generation, will become apparent . . . . The children of these zealous parents will not be able to tell what their religious principles are, and their grandchildren still less . . . this religious indifference is perceptibly disseminated from one end of the continent to the other, which is at present one of the strongest characteristics of the Americans. Where this will reach no one can tell: perhaps it may leave a vacuum fit to receive other systems.⁠”

    Now we can expect to hear someone shout out that this didn’t happen, he United States is, was, and will be the most Christian nation on earth. This is partly vanity and partly a result of the extreme elasticity of the word Christian in the United States, an elasticity brought about for the “strange religious medley” Crévecoeur describes.

    This road leads, first, to moralistic, therapeutic deism, then to complete apostasy, then to guess what?

  5. As absurd as it is, you are almost certainly right. Muslims here are mostly liberals, as are everyone else.

    Although I am surprised that even illiberal Muslims support such evil, one would think they would have better foresight.

  6. I think there’s a few ways to look at this.

    1) He was indeed just laughing at how degenerate Americans are

    2) He wasn’t really concerned with the policies being mentioned, but perhaps sees an Obama presidency as good for his home country’s interests (can’t elaborate further… financial reasons perhaps?)

    3) The theory so many have about Jews, that is that they conspiratorially support the degeneration of Western culture while insulating themselves from it (private educations, no exogomy)

    4) Muslims have one interest in the Democrats that trumps everything else… sympathy. Similar to Muslims in the UK voting Labour. Not only do they increase the welfare state but they are not attacking Islam as an alien culture. It’s not dissimilar from blacks. They love one aspect of Democrat policy and don’t care what else they’re supporting. It’s a coalition of a thousand pieces, each getting a little something.

    • I tend to think (4). Most of the supporters of the Leftist parties do not support the whole Leftie agenda, they just go along with it because they too are part of the lowest common denominator. The Left (as in the Left-Liberals) are the agglomeration of every force that would destroy Christendom, or the smoldering remnants that remain of it anyway. It doesn’t matter that Muslims would chop the heads off the rest of the lot, because today they share the common foe of those wretched folks who just want their countries to survive and prosper with some kind of moral values.

      • I’d tend to agree. Muslims in the West tend to just see democracy as incidental, they’ll participate if they can get something out of it. It’s not, at base, ideological, and I think this is actually a weakness of liberalism. Those who are actually dyed-in-the-wool liberals are now a small but powerful minority, which has not always been the case. The dumbing down of the culture has largely led to a disinterest in ideologies in general, and more of a “what’s in it for me” attitude.

        So when SHTF, will such people we can hope will turn out to be ‘fair-weather liberals’ at best.

  7. I’d say Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are some of the most hyper-modern states in the world. The Saudis follow a 19th century theology that mandates they bulldoze ancient buildings in their holy cities, buildings dating to the time of Muhammad, because of the danger of “idolatry.” And yet in place of these structures they build posh shopping malls and luxury hotels:

    The oil-rich Gulf States still form the “bone marrow” of neo-liberalism by providing the life-blood of the industrial capitalism. Then they use the vast wealth they get from selling oil to ship the miscreants in there countries to fight and die in other (poorer countries).

    In some ways the neo-cons are right when they compare modern Islamism to the Western totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century- modern Islamic political theology has a kind of oedipus complex with modern liberalism- it seeks to destroy the very ideology that spawned it, but it doing so it destroys itself.

  8. Both Western Liberalism and Jihad are intricately bound together in their rejection of genuine white Supremacy AND desire for radical sexual autonomy. The “conservatism” of Islam is one of those Big Lies perpetrated by “white” Western self-annihilators.

  9. Why shouldn’t they support liberals? Democrats are the welfare party and the anti-Christian “diversity” party, so that’s a win for Muslims. The other part of liberalism is sexual debauchery, but what do Muslims care about that? They don’t need the government to keep their women in line; they do it themselves. Their women don’t tend to act like shameless whores because the men kill them when they do:

    • offtopic – Sunshinemary, I have heard your name mentioned in several instances as a rather prolific Reactionary commentator. Will you be sticking around after somewhat of a hiatus?

    • Sunshine Mary…

      There is much sexual debauchery to be found in Islam CULMINATING in what is the only indisputable evidence for total conversion to jihad… The act of murderous self-annihilation rewarded with 72 “virgins” for eternal sexual smashing. <– That is a desire for radical sexual autonomy NOT FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT than the de facto homo-ism of Western "white" male and the dyke-face of Western "white" female.

    • Sunshine, Muslims are sexual degenerates. They believe in sexual liberalism only for men (sodomy, rape, polygamy, bestiality, and pederasty) but expect their women to be pure. Lots of Muslims actually prefer boys to women. Women are for babies and boys are for sex to them.

      Mark Citadel, I believe 1, 3, and 4 are right. Personally I believe that the Muslims we see today are a lot like what the Jews were like when they first left the Levant and arrived in the West. That explains the strange affinity they have for one another. The only difference is that Muslims haven’t had enough time to blend in like the Jews.

      I feel that Jews are more than just idle participants in the Leftist coalition. They seem to be at the forefront of it all. There are way too many examples for it to be mere coincidence.

      • Jews seem to regularly be involved in the heavily moneyed interests of Modernity (at least most mainstream sects anyway) and among Jews who don’t really practice their religion at all they are definitely by and large corrupt.
        I believe this is very much down to historical factors involving the prohibition of usury among Christians, who then used Jews as a banking system to finance various things during the Medieval Period. Unfortunately, seemingly limitless money corrupts, just as it did in Christ’s time. The worst example I have found of such corruption would have to be in Romania prior to WWII, where it was just endemic and obvious in every state institution, which led to particularly brutal pogroms against all Jews no matter their income level or status.

        I don’t think Muslims have exactly the same kind of mindset as they have never really been a people in exile and so have never had to survive as such. Islam’s presence in the what could loosely be defined as ‘Christendom’ (with a few notable exceptions) has been a Modern phenomenon against the backdrop of this twisted ideology ‘multiculturalism’.

        I’d highly recommend Fjordman’s ‘Defeating Eurabia’ for more information on this. Not a Reactionary perspective per se, but highly informative.

        Islam as such does not really seek to occupy high levers of power. It doesn’t need to. The left is more than happy to accommodate any facet of its agenda at the drop of a hat. This allows them to focus solely on demographic seizure of urban areas and the creation of closed off sections of society where they can operate unhindered.

        The growth in Jihadi terrorism may complicate these matters as they are becoming harder and harder to ignore and make excuses for to the other important elements of the left’s base, e.g – feminazis, sodomites, ardent liberals, atheists, anyone with any survival instinct, etc.
        This is going to be an interesting area of study going forward.

      • Mark, I am not sure what is up with the Jews. Also Romania wasn’t the only place the Jews have caused severe problems. Around the same time Jews were wrecking things in America, Germany, Russia and Palestine.

        Either way, the Rotherham incident shows that Jews will cover for Muslim crime as much as they do black crime here. Remember the parable of the leopard, the dogs and the hunter.

      • Svar…

        The Jew qua Jew is the archetype ethnic self-annihilator who then devised a “spiritual” (Judaism) and “intellectual” (Marxist) self as the mechanism of biological perpetuation.

      • Thordaddy, how can an ethnic self-annihilator perpetuate themselves biologically via Judaism and Marxism? As in, why would someone who is annihilating themselves ethnically care about biological perpetuation?

      • Svar…

        One can convert to Judaism and adopt Marxism as their “spiritual” and “intellectual/ideological” being, respectively, and become Jew-like without being an ethnic Jew. And isn’t this the whole debate surrounding the Jewish people? Are “they” a race, a religion or an ideology? Well, “they” are all three, but ORIGINALLY, “they” were a biological entity WHO have been on the brink of annihilation since their known beginnings. This is why “we” call them the “Chosen Ones” and not the Converted Ones or Jewish Supremacists. Anti-Supremacy –> self-annihilation… And Judaism and Marxism are essentially mechanisms of perpetuation to avoid total ethnic Jewish annihilation.

  10. It’s Lenin’s “Who – Whom?” dynamic at work: Muslims see Democrats as being “on the same side”. In the most important respects, Dems indeed are on the same side: supporting open immigration, disassociating the terror threat with Islam, providing access to the highest institutions in the land (Islamic supremacist Mohammed Eliabery was on some Homeland Security committee).

    Same dynamic is at work with supposedly “family values” Latino voters and Dems. It seems all politics anymore is reduced to Who/Whom.

    • I would like to point this out:

      Terrorism is not necessarily linked with Islam(since many groups use terrorism) since terrorism is not an ideology or a race or a religion but a tactic. A tactic that Muslims just happen to use non-stop. And dare I say, I believe that we should take a page out of the Soviet playbook when it comes to Muslims. You must fight terror with terror. The Muslims in the Middle East once took over a Russian embassy due to Soviet actions in Chechnya. The Muslims apparently thought that the Russians were nancy-boy Westerners like Jimmy Carter. The hostage-takers called up the Russians voicing demands. The Russians knew that the terrorists were Shiites and they happened to casually mention how nuclear missile sites have the slight possibility for accidental release and discharge and how Tehran was so close to the border and it was very possible that a bomb might “accidentally” hit Tehran.

      So what do we learn from the Soviets? You have to play hardball with Muslims or other types of terrorists. Also, it must be disproportionate. For instance, say a Muslim butchers a soldier named Lee Rigby in your street. What do you do? You make Mecca look like what Hiroshima looked like after 1945. Hiroshima was a tragedy and crime(because the Japanese involved were civilians and Catholics and also because the Japanese are decent people) while Mecca-bombing wouldn’t be.

      However, better yet, we could leave Muslim lands(we should keep bases in Lebanon which is a Christian land and really, Islam should be pushed back in the Saudi peninsula), withdrawn support for Israel and Saudi Arabia and expel Muslims from the West.

      The Russians have to deal with them, as do the Greeks, Assyrians, Lebanese, Copts, Serbs, Croatians and Chaldeans but we don’t. There really is no excuse for Americans of all people have to deal with Muslims.

      • “There really is no excuse for Americans of all people have to deal with Muslims.”

        This is Lawrence Auster’s position (more or less), which he called Separationism. His summary:

        Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.
        But we cannot destroy Islam.
        Nor can we democratize Islam.
        Nor can we assimilate Islam.
        Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.

        What would this look like? First, we would stop exacerbating the problem by halting all immigration by Moslems, including “temporary” visas. Without diplomatic credentials, it should be nearly impossible for the average Moslem to visit the US.

        Next, employ a variety of carrot-and-stick approaches to encourage Moslems to leave the US—permanently. Don’t renew visas, stop naturalizations, reverse naturalizations (with cause), give financial incentives (i.e., cash payments) to those who leave (with prison for those who try to return), etc. With the change in climate, many Moslems will self-deport.

        Amend the Constitution to ban Islam.

        Disentanglement from Moslem-majority countries is also crucial. Abandon Afghanistan to its people, and put a big US military base in a remote area of Iraq, with a clearly marked, and rigidly enforced, cordon sanitaire (or kill zone, if you prefer), to prevent suicide bombings. Let the governments of Islamic countries know that if people in their territories threaten us (e.g., the Taliban in Afghanistan), we will topple the government, eliminate the threat, and let someone else rule. Such military actions should take somewhere between three and six months. This approach will minimize our involvement, keep us safe, and encourage local governments to police their own.

        Yes, we all know that in the current climate, these things will not happen. However, they could in a different climate. Liberalism will fall, and we must prepare for that day.

      • Mr. Auster came up a few steps short in not finally recognizing that separationism is a byproduct of genuine white Supremacy. In other words, when the white masses seek genuine white Supremacy, separation is inevitable not just from Muslims, but all radical liberationists.

      • Svar…

        Terrorism may not be the sole province of Islam, BUT a self-annihilating act of mass murder IS THE ONLY INCONTROVERTIBLE evidence of conversion to Jihad.

      • thordaddy:
        “Mr. Auster came up a few steps short in not finally recognizing that separationism is a byproduct of genuine white Supremacy.”

        That is because he wanted no taint of bigotry on him, not least because he was not a bigot. He rejected (rightly, I think) the belief that whites are intrinsically superior, while embracing the culture that our forefathers created.

        “I have had this thought going back decades. I believe in two things: God, and white Western civilization.”
        Lawrence Auster, ten days before his death

        Auster struggled with the issue of black inferiority: “How does it fit in God’s scheme that a major race is manifestly less endowed with civilizational abilities than the other races?” His conclusion: “I believe that man is created in the image of God, and that includes blacks. But that doesn’t mean that all peoples have the same abilities. We are all one, in that we are all human. But we are different, in that we belong to different nations, cultures, races with very different qualities. True diversity means accepting the diversity of the human race.”

        In short, he rejected white supremacy because such an approach dehumanizes non-whites and is immoral, yet at the same time, championed white Western civilization and its right to exist and defend itself.

      • Wm. Lewis…

        Although I agree with your assessment of Mr. Auster not being a bigot, you are, nonetheless, unfortunately embracing the radical liberal frame in your assessment of white Supremacy.

        A white Christian = white Supremacist = white man who believes in objective Supremacy…

        Racial superiorty need not even be part of the equation ALTHOUGH the white race can certainly seek a superiority amongst all other races and Christianity in no way prohibits or condemns such an undertaking.

      • It seems you are using the phrase white supremacy idiosyncratically. While you are free to do so, you should expect to be misunderstood when you do.

        For most people, white supremacy conjures up images of Neo-Nazis, the KKK, Stormfront and the like. It seems that’s not what you mean, and had you said that up front, we could have avoided misunderstanding.

        Of course, another option is to use a different term.

      • Wm. Lewis…

        No… I am not using white Supremacy idiosyncratically. I am refusing to use it liberally. I am refusing to grant the liberal frame that asserts white Supremacy = white degeneracy. In fact, I am using it CORRECTLY.

        A white Supremacist is a white man who believes in objective Supremacy. Objective Supremacy is Jesus Christ. Ergo, a white Christian is a white Supremacist.

        Orthosphereans should understand that the zeitgeist absolutely abhors the idea of a voluntary collective of white men striving towards objective Supremacy and will do AND CLAIM whatever it takes to CONFINE “us” to a radical relativist paradigm where the relationship with blacks is paramount. It is not. The degenerate relationship with the black collective is only worthy of separation.

      • Thordaddy,

        The reason why Larry Auster didn’t advocate “white supremacy” was because he was Jewish. Jews are a mixed people with Oriental origins like gypsies.

        The problem is not the blood but the spirit.

      • Svar…

        Yes… In my few private correspondences on the issue, Mr. Auster agreed to not speak out against white Supremacy and I accepted his rejection of the label due to his Jewish ethnicity and the highly controversial historical narrative.

        But as Wm. Lewis alluded to, Mr. Auster cast his lot with the white Christian. We’ll leave the reader to decide what that actually means.

  11. Perhaps the same can be said of your Hispanic voting block. The establicon’s constant harping about their “social conservative” credentials – as if these are natural Republican voters because they share a similar disdain for sexual perversion – betrays a lack of the mainstream right’s appreciation of the identitarian impulse among fidgety minority groups. The laws your president passes will be obeyed mostly by your people, not by those who – deep in their hearts – believe that the overt US state is an alien country to them. Institutional feminism and social accepted sodomy will impact on the lifestyle and cultural habits of the foundational people of traditional America, not the traditionalist oriented Hispanic or Muslim colonisers of the United States. They see the American foundational people’s election of an anti-president as a sublime indicator of collective erasure and self-negation: great news for the colonisers. Acknowledging this reality necessarily requires one to be able to distinguish – i.e. discriminate – between cultures and groups of people on qualitative grounds. That, of course, is sheer modernist heresy; don’t expect it to ever happen within the political mainstream. Hence the smirk on your Muslim neighbour’s face at the news of Obama’s victory.

    • “That, of course, is sheer modernist heresy; don’t expect it to ever happen within the political mainstream. ”

      This should read “don’t expect it to ever happen within the CURRENT political mainstream”. Do we plan to be always on the fringe?

      “Institutional feminism and social accepted sodomy will impact on the lifestyle and cultural habits of the foundational people of traditional America, not the traditionalist oriented Hispanic or Muslim colonisers of the United States.”

      I’m not sure how traditional said groups are. If they are traditional, they definitely won’t be for long. `Obviously, leftists aren’t expecting Muslims to stay Muslim for long and the same goes for Hispanics. In general, the children of traditional immigrants become good liberals and bad Muslims/Hispanics.

      • What we “plan” is immaterial. Given the degenerative ratchet and that fact that we remain motivated politically by principle and not pragmatism, yes, we will functionally always remain on the fringe. The mainstream is defined by cultural Marxism. Anything geared to explicitly counter it is ipso facto no longer mainstream. It is sidestream; the fringe.

  12. During the Prop 8 campaign, the local mosque was very supportive, putting out signs that the leftists would then pull down, but then putting out more pro-Prop 8 signs, which we were happy to supply them. And the whole mosque doubtless voted for Prop 8, i.e. against SSM.

    As for who is more likely to be “on the side of history,” Islam or the secular/sexual lifestyle left, I would say the stronger case is for Islam–the revenge of the cradle, etc.

    • Leo…

      I don’t believe one can look too far into that Muslim support for prop. 8. If Muslims would have stayed silent then the suspicion of them would have been even greater BY THOSE who are actually suspicious of them. But the real relationship between rival radical liberationists is a degenerate love/hate scenario.

  13. Thordaddy has been advocating white supremacy on a couple of Orthosphere threads, so I thought it might be useful to criticize the idea from the right. White supremacy is a concept that arose when the mistake of popular government was first recognized as a mistake. The phrase first appeared at the close of the Civil War and denoted men who opposed political and legal equality for Blacks. Advocates of white supremacy believed that white men were the only “citizens,” that these white men collectively constituted “the sovereign,” and that everyone else (especially Blacks) were “subjects.” They argued, I think persuasively, that this was the intent of the founding fathers, and they believed, I think quixotically, that this arrangement could be preserved.

    As we all know, once the ball of democracy begins to roll, it’s only a matter of time before dogs and cats have the vote. The debacle might have been postponed if the founding fathers had established an aristocracy of the original patriots, with strict rules of primogeniture, although this too would have broken down in the end. Older brothers take a rigid view of primogeniture when it comes to property, but look upon their younger brothers more kindly when it comes to political rights and legal immunities.

    In any event, it must be said that white supremacy is not a right wing position. It is a disease of democracy.

    By 1900 the phrase white supremacy had come to mean white control of government in areas where Blacks were a majority. It often entailed a curtailment of Black legal rights, but it was essentially a movement to deny Black’s control, or even influence, over state local government. Again, it was a disease of democracy.

    • Do you mean “at the close of the Civil War” or do you mean “during Reconstruction?” I thought that white supremacy got rolling in the South when Southerners were confronted with the choice between white supremacy and living in Detroit. Is my understanding incorrect?

      • Dr. Bill @ The first use of the phrase “white supremacy” that I could find was in a newspaper called The Old Guard, published in May, 1865. The article assumed what thordaddy would call the objective superiority of whites, but argued for “white supremacy” as a political arrangement. Supremacy meant sovereignty, which the article maintained resided solely in the population of white men. Nonwhites could live in the country, but with the status of present-day resident aliens. The Old Guard appears to have been the voice of those who lost the debate that ended in passage of the fourteenth amendment. The phrase “white supremacy” was revived at the turn of the century when measures were taken in some southern states to discourage Blacks from voting.

    • JMSmith…

      I advocate white men striving towards objective Supremacy. This endeavor has little to nothing to do with the black collective or the Civil War (although the desire absolutely drives them bonkers)..

      In fact, a white Christian IS a white Supremacist, i.e., a white man who believes in objective Supremacy…

      Objective Supremacy = The Perfect Man = Jesus Christ…

      White Christians ARE white Supremacists.

      One can only refute this equation AS A RADICAL LIBERAL.

      • thordaddy @ You are free to use the phrase however you like, but don’t expect to be understood. Anyone who hears the phrase “white supremacy” understands it to mean a political arrangement, and about ninety-five percent of them have been conditioned to think it is the worst thing in the world. In any event, your doctrine already has a name. It’s called Perfectionism, and its a heresy. Of course we all should try to be the best we can be, but perfection is something achieved only in heaven.

      • JMSmith…

        You have it exactly backwards. I am not free to use the term white Supremacy “however I like.” I use it in the correct manner WHILE you simply embrace the liberal frame where white Supremacy = white degeneracy.

        The first law of Perfection is nonduplication. I am not advocating perfectionism as one cannot duplicate what already is The Perfect Man. It is not the goal of a white Supremacist to duplicate the perfection of Jesus Christ. It is the job of the white Christian TO ADMIT HE IS, in fact, a white Supremacist in order to break the psychological stranglehold that the zeitgeist has on the minds of millions upon millions of white men.

        Again… Refute the following equation WITHOUT REVERTING to the radical relativist paradigm:

        White Christian = he who worships the The Perfect Man = he who worships objective Supremacy = he who worships Jesus Christ = white Supremacist.

        Are you actually arguing that the zeitgeist is NOT doing everything “it” can to ensure that the mass of white men DO NOT WORSHIP Jesus Christ, faithfully?

        Are you actually arguing that the zeitgeist is NOT doing everything “it” can to ensure that the mass of white men DO NOT WORSHIP objective Supremacy, faithfully?

        Are you actually arguing that the zeitgeist is NOT doing everything “it” can to ensure that the mass of white men DO NOT WORSHIP The Perfect Man, faithfully?

        Are you actually arguing that the zeitgeist is NOT doing everything “it” can to ensure that the mass of white men DO NOT BECOME white Supremacists?

        A white Christian IS a white Supremacist. <–This is not only irrefutable BUT it also differentiates one from the "self-annihilation for salvation" "Christians" that represent the mainstream white Christian.

      • O.K. I get it. In your private language a “supremacist” is someone who strives for, or honors, or attempts to become equal to that which is highest, or supreme. A “supremacist” is someone who recognizes the supremacy of someone else. Everyone else speaking our language would call such a person a subject, meaning a being who is under, or beneath, that which is supreme (i.e. on top). If this “supremacist” happens to be white, I suppose we can all agree that he is a “white” supremacist, just as he might be a bald supremacist or a handsome supremacist. But every other English speaker uses the phrase “white supremacy” to denote the idea that whites should enjoy special political and/or legal privileges and powers.

        Language aside, I

      • JMSmith…

        You’re being obtuse now. How about you answer a few questions?

        Are you claiming that the white Supremacist only exists BECAUSE the black man exists?

        Does the zeitgeist demonize the white Christian more than the white Supremacist?

        How does the white Christian separate himself IN THE EYES OF THE MASSES from the “self-annihilator for salvation” “Christian” who is both the subject of derision amongst the alt-rite/dark enlightenment AND the subject of adulation amongst the radical liberals?

        Finally, are you actually claiming that the white Christian IS NOT a white Supremacist? What is the fundamental difference between the two?

        If I say a white Supremacist is a white man who believes in objective Supremacy then please do explain how I have manipulated the language or have attempted to use my own private language?

        Do you agree or disagree that the white man will become extinct before Christianity will become extinct or are their respective existences intricately intertwined?

        I look forward to your 7 separate and articulated answers.

      • I have no idea what your Christian Ubermenschen ought to do. I just think it would be prudent to give them a different name. It’s like trying to market a chewing gum called Anthrax.

      • JMSmith…

        The “problem” is that “we” know what chewing gum is and we know what Anthrax is AND we know WHY the zeitgeist attempts to call chewing gum “anthrax.” But again, it does not change the truth one iota.

        White Christians ARE white Supremacists and no one has of yet said otherwise.BECAUSE to say otherwise would be to lie and stand hand and hand with the radical liberals.

  14. Forgive me, but this seems like a semantic game.

    What you seem to be advocating for is…

    White…. supremacy


    White supremacy

    That is, white people who believe in objective supremacy (God). Calling it white supremacy is liable to confuse a lot of people.

    • Mark Citadel…

      Of course white Supremacy will confuse a lot of people because a) most people are radical liberals and b) these same people are real believers in “equality,” i.e., anti-Supremacy.

      But this changes the truth not one iota. Our “society” rejects the white Supremacist. Our “society” does all it can to prohibit, impede, dissuade, pathologize the white male that strives towards Supremacy. And even the most staunch traditional Christians REFUSE TO ACCEPT that as white Christians that they are, IN FACT, white Supremacists AND NOT the “self-annihilators for salvation” “Christians” that are so popularly despised amongst the alt-rite/dark enlightenment crowd.

      It seems to me that even the Christians of the Orthosphere forget that they worship The Perfect Man as empirical fact and our enemies not only reject The Perfect Man as empirical fact, but use this rejection as the impetus to “perfect” man.

      Again… White Christian = white Supremacist. This is the plain truth and the zeitgeist will have you believe absolutely otherwise such that the white Supremacist = white degenerate = white Christian = “white” self-annihilator for salvation.

      It’s a psychological war, first and foremost.

  15. There’s the religious thing, yes, but they’re just alien in every way. Culturally, historically and (I’ll say it) racially. The sand-swarthies gotta stick it to the fair-skinned/haired/eyed old America.

    • Bruce, once again it is spirit not blood. Christian Semitics are a decent folk. Saracens (true Arabs from the Arab peninsula) are not and are depraved. Arabized non-Arabs tend to be like Arabs.

      • Not a bad time to remember Julius Evola’s preference for a ‘spiritual’ rather than purely biological concept of race. This view seems to have much more stock in the World of Tradition.

      • Mark Citadel…

        A deracinated “Christianity” is pathological. No different than a deracinated Liberalism, Islam, communism or any other deracinated religion/ideology. A deracinated “Christianity” is exactly the type of “self-annihilation for salvation” religion so beloved by the zeitgeist.

      • Svar…

        It need not be either/or as it SHOULD be both spirit and blood. Deracination is pathological and Christianity in no way calls upon its worshippers to commit acts of self-annihilation.

      • Well, TD, Western Christians have more of an infinity with swarthy Lebanese Christians than with blue-eyed Jews. JJewish psychology is quite different from Western Christians and are more similar to Saudi Arabs.

        But I agree blood has a role. I have an Evolan/Spenglerian/Yockeyian view on the matter. The West can not handle such large amounts of immigration anymore than the Hawaiians or Filipinos did before.

      • Islam is not a deracinating religion/ideology it is an Arabizing one. Liberalism wants to destroy all tribes while Islam wants to destroy all tribes only to supplant them with Arab folk ways and mentality

      • Svar…

        Islam IS a deracinated religion and those that consider conversion are certainly intrigued by the notion of “it” requiring no racial loyalty. This deracinated state in part explains Islam’s love/hate relationship with Western Liberalism.

      • I’m not saying blood is all that matters. I’m saying that racial aliens will tend to act like racial aliens. And cultural aliens will too. And religious aliens as well.

      • Thordaddy, nobody is arguing for multi-racialism. God knows there is a wealth of HBD material in the Reactosphere that is well researched and defended. The races should live separately Occidental people need a homeland.

      • TD, Muslims like liberalism only because it causes people to put up with their shit not because it is a deracinating religion/ideology. It is deracinating for non-Arabs because it is an Arabizing religion

      • Svar….

        Muslims like liberalism BECAUSE they are radical liberals themselves, i.e., anti-Supremacists. And if a white man converts to Islam and becomes “Arabized” then that seems to me to be a case of deracination.

      • Mark Citadel…

        We both agree with the idea of separation, but HBD will not get us there as the very paradigm REQUIRES that white man has no genuine free will. Separation IS A BYPRODUCT of white Supremacy.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.