The Obsession With Purity Of The White Race For The White Anglo Saxons

My Confusion Series: Part-5b   Part-1 , Part-2 , Part-2-Balfour , Part-3 , Part-4 , Part-5 , Part-5b , Part-6 , Part-6b , Part-7 , Part-7b
February 24, 2010
A White Christian Anglo Saxon correspondent from the Southern United States, a non-supremacist comrade in common cause against the hectoring hegemons du jour, noted to Project Humanbeingsfirst:
... Now, regarding David Duke, I have not heard him speak in this [white supremacist] fashion at least not of late. I am fairly certain that, today, Duke like myself believes in the survival and continuation of one's race and heritage. (The word racism defines this concept but like antisemitism in today's modern times it has a negative connotation, so what other present day word defines the race concept of survival and continuation?) Every human in a cultured society has the same personal aspiration. Yet, today, the white race is the only race the world over made to feel ashamed of their skin color, their heritage and collective history. Of course, you and I know the reasons behind this warped frame of mind. The parasitic Jewish agenda, in essence, fractured white society literally beating us into the ground over the past 10 decades with drugs, psychiatry, multiculturalism, diversity, miscegenation, immigration, rock music, feminism and the biggie - debt slavery, so that the tribe would eventually feel safe from their host culture, and the Jews believe that the darker races will be more easily controlled once they are in total, absolute power, which is right around the corner.
At the turn of the last century - 1900, white society was the largest most successful culture on the planet, now, we make up about 16% of the world's population. It is estimated that by 2060 the black races (sub-Saharan Africans) will have racial dominance on the planet with their populations doubling over the next 50 years. All one has to do is take a long, hard look at black controlled South Africa versus white dominated South Africa (not that I agreed with Apartheid) to get a glimpse into the future. It will be hell on earth. I am relieved that I will be long-gone from this world when that happens.
I am of the opinion that all races are unique each defined by their culture, heritage and customs and they all should be given the respect accorded them and each other. But lets face the truth here, the races were not designed to mix and mingle. There is an old Christian saying that kind of goes like this - If God wanted all the races together he would not have placed them in isolated geographic regions around the planet.
Project Humanbeingsfirst responds:
Thanks for sharing your views so candidly. I can't resist a good intellectual conversation in good faith among ordinary peoples.
So I hope you will permit me to ask one question on your statement, and offer some pertinent chitchat-commentary:
“But lets face the truth here, the races were not designed to mix and mingle. There is an old Christian saying that kind of goes like this - If God wanted all the races together he would not have placed them in isolated geographic regions around the planet.”
Is your statement of “truth” based on some Biblical scripture? Could you cite me the relevant passages in the Bible so that I can study this aspect for myself.
May I further share with you some chitchat-commentary as just an ordinary plebeian?
"Christian saying" often does not actually mean Biblical saying. Many a tortuous act, philosophy, and belief has been wrought upon mankind in the name of religion as you well know. Institutional Christianity is no different, and traces its history to the Council of Nicea where the scriptural selection was first canonized in the service of the Roman Empire. The same source selection (but in different source languages) has been the official source base for all transformations in Christianity, Lutheran, Anglican, Orthodox, et. al., as well as all forms of institutional Christianity, from Eastern Orthodox to Western Reform. There are no other Gospels besides those four canonized ones comprising the New Testament, and all reflecting Pauline Christianity. Other Gospels and any remaining early Christians' writings were burned by Emperor Constantine after the Council of Nicea canonized these four in order to stop promulgating doctrines contrary to what was deemed official Christianity. Even the Universalist Unitarians who do not espouse the Holy Trinity have the same set of New Testament Gospels. And these Gospels are the very foundation of all institutional Christianity, which in turn is largely the source base of cultural amalgamation which is often anecdotally termed "Christian saying". A learned moral Christian scholar familiar with his or her own traditions and history will not entirely disagree with the above description, although I have yet to meet a living priest who has actually even heard of the Council of Nicea.
A "Christian saying" isn't always "Christian", either in its letter, or in the spirit of the lofty teachings of Jesus in its best pristine form even if it is present in the scriptures. Contortions in interpretations and mythologies in support of the ruling class – be they the Medieval clergy, the ancient or contemporary emperor, or the plantation owners of yesteryear – are more culturally abundant than one might think.
After only a few generations of crafted dogmas or interpretations being passed down through cultural osmosis and diffusive narratives, these become accepted wisdom without question as part of the 'religion'. This is true of all 'religions', and all dogmas, but is most assuredly true of Christianity.
Here is an example: The Southern states of the United States, for instance, maintained negro slaves in cotton-service to the British empire and argued their 'la mission civlisatrice', inter alia, with the same kind of pronouncements from their pious pulpits to justify their attitudes, as your statements. They did it to prevent the whites marrying the negroes, slaves or not. But raping the negro was okay, of course. You know this history better than I, and surely must also be more familiar with Sojourner Truth than I. Please do revisit her "Ain't I a woman" speech. And the 'white man's burden' is a Rudyard Kipling poem, not a Judaic contribution to civilization. Today, the same white man's burden has been made politically correct among the 'left'. Unsurprisingly, it is expressed by many a Southerner today in a natural sanitized way just as it was only 40-50 years ago when it was actually used to justify segregation, with as much thought to its source as to one's natural act of breathing.
A conscientious white moral person today among the Anglo Saxon race taking a Black Studies and/or Native-Indian Studies course at a local university, as respectively taught by the Black and the Native American Indian professor, can be the best favor he and she can do themselves to learn of the victims from the victims' own narratives, rather than from the white man's! The same is surely beneficial for the moral Jew, taking a study-session from a Palestinian teaching his own Palestinian history and his people's contemporary travails, and of course, rather than the Jew trying to teach the Palestinian the victimizer's version. This would perhaps mitigate the desire among the genuine but misled white Anglo Saxon champions of humanity for pursuing such particularistic racial aspirations which appear right out of the “chosen people's” anachronistic vernacular:
'And someday all Whites on this planet will have not only this civil rights movement in their respective countries….. ….. but they will come together politically and be UNITED in ONE GLOBAL WHITE FEDERATION: safe, strong, Aryan, noble and FREE.' --
Those accusing the Jews of particularism with a victim face might first abandon their own chutzpah – their own brand of Aryan particularism – in favor of other more universal constructs for the pursuit of equitable fairness, global justice, and peaceable, livable existence for all among mankind against its common enemies. Just as “hegemony is as old as mankind”, and divide et impera its prime modus operandi, racial discourse, in any garb, is its poisonous doctrinal warfare to implant the “high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification” necessary for long term “imperial mobilization” and primacy of the glorified white Anglo Saxon races:
“It is the destiny of the pure Aryan Anglo-Saxon race to dominate the world and kill off or else reduce to a servile status all other inferior races.” -- William Allen White, quoted in E.C. Knuth's The Empire of “the City”
Separating scriptural statements of a religion (in their accurate and in full context of the message) from its followers' statements, is always important to any student of comparative religion. I hope it is also important to those who seek truth in all matters, no matter where it might lead them, even if against their own selves!
So please do let me know the relevant Biblical passages of your "Christian saying" if you can find it.
Having said all that, the Bible obviously also has some really "interesting stuff" upon which, indeed, many an empire has been built. This is why Pauline Christianity laid the foundation of the Roman Empire, and not any of the other narratives of the other disciples of Christ! My favorite among this genre of "interesting" is "Honor the King", a scriptural statement, I believe Romans 13, upon which the tortuous agenda of the "New American Theology of Civil Submission" is constructed.
Here is its sampling: "even bad governments do god's work ; I am free to give up my freedom; honor the king, do it anyway whether the king deserves it or not ; you are free to respect the authority of the government that god gives you ; I am free to submit to authority ; I am free to make myself a slave"!
Imagine a good Christian from that congregation coming to tell you that message of servitude in the name of Christianity at your own home. Since you are well-informed on that front, you might just throw them out of your house. Can you imagine the same happening to you, belonging as you are to the 'white race congregation', when you bring your message of racial segregation in the name of Christianity to some others who are similarly not un-informed on that topic?
Here is my pertinent Press Release, Just FYI:
So, you may very well have found some Biblical passages to support your statements of racial pride and racial hygiene. I do notice that you did not advocate white superiority. In fact, you came out against any kind of superiority complex, but you do advocate pride and congregating based on race, and lament the denigration of the whites as a race, and the erosion of their rights as a race. Perhaps you are unaware that this is also the politically correct form du jour of the white supremacists, especially since they are also in opposition to the 'chosen peoples' mantras who fundamentally claim precisely the same thing, that their race is distinct. This is the discourse model which also follows. You'd be hard pressed to find even one author there who isn't a white supremacist, even as he or she may vociferously dissent with empire and its support of the Zionist agenda. That is Paul Craig Roberts, that is Kevin MacDonald, and that is also David Duke, et. al. But stripped of its political correctness veneer, it reduces to the same ideology that races must differentiate and should not mix, because, one is deemed inferior, and the other superior! That is, at least to my mind, the psychological basis upon which Paul Craig Robert issued his invective to me – unless he is outright a fabricated dissent-chief for dishing "Hegelian Mind Fcks" by introducing beneficial "cognitive diversity" among the handful of conscionable dissenters – that how dare a brown man challenge the white man's narrative on what's happening in the brown man's own neck of the woods! How can the brown man possibly know more than the white man:
History of course does not begin at one's convenience, nor at a point convenient to one's narrative, such as "At the turn of the last century - 1900". What underlies that ubermensch psyche is not something antediluvian, nor something that I have just made up, but the long held Anglo-Saxon spirit of the white man's burden that colonized all the 'untermenschen' races and harvested all their riches it could lay its hands on in the name of 'la mission civilisatrice'! Please catch its unvarnished glimpse in this famous speech made to the British Parliament in 1835 by Lord Macaulay, titled “Minute on Indian Education”:
[10] I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic. But I have done what I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanscrit works. I have conversed, both here and at home, with men distinguished by their proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the oriental learning at the valuation of the orientalists themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is indeed fully admitted by those members of the committee who support the oriental plan of education.
[13] The question now before us is simply whether, when it is in our power to teach this language, we shall teach languages in which, by universal confession, there are no books on any subject which deserve to be compared to our own, whether, when we can teach European science, we shall teach systems which, by universal confession, wherever they differ from those of Europe differ for the worse, and whether, when we can patronize sound philosophy and true history, we shall countenance, at the public expense, medical doctrines which would disgrace an English farrier, astronomy which would move laughter in girls at an English boarding school, history abounding with kings thirty feet high and reigns thirty thousand years long, and geography made of seas of treacle and seas of butter.
[14] We are not without experience to guide us. History furnishes several analogous cases, and they all teach the same lesson. There are, in modern times, to go no further, two memorable instances of a great impulse given to the mind of a whole society, of prejudices overthrown, of knowledge diffused, of taste purified, of arts and sciences planted in countries which had recently been ignorant and barbarous.
[15] The first instance to which I refer is the great revival of letters among the Western nations at the close of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century. At that time almost everything that was worth reading was contained in the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Had our ancestors acted as the Committee of Public Instruction has hitherto noted, had they neglected the language of Thucydides and Plato, and the language of Cicero and Tacitus, had they confined their attention to the old dialects of our own island, had they printed nothing and taught nothing at the universities but chronicles in Anglo-Saxon and romances in Norman French, --would England ever have been what she now is? What the Greek and Latin were to the contemporaries of More and Ascham, our tongue is to the people of India. The literature of England is now more valuable than that of classical antiquity. I doubt whether the Sanscrit literature be as valuable as that of our Saxon and Norman progenitors. In some departments-- in history for example-- I am certain that it is much less so.
[34] In one point I fully agree with the gentlemen to whose general views I am opposed. I feel with them that it is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, -- a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.
End Excerpt
And this was the largesse of the benevolent sort awarded by the Anglo-Saxon race to the 'untermensch' people of the Sub-continent – its jewel in the crown – not the one of genocide handed the entire indigenous peoples of the American continent, wiping them out completely. As I had written in the Press Release on the Gaza atrocities last year, drawing on the parallels which the moral white Anglo-Saxon Christian folks today lambasting the Zionists rather pretend don't exist:
'President George W. Bush for once had truthfully blurted out while on the 60th birthday-bash visit to Zionistan “Our two nations both faced great challenges when they were founded. And our two nations have both relied on the same principles to help us succeed.” The core-principle being, the outright elimination of indigenous peoples, wherein, “the very same army that had recently conquered and occupied the Southern states – led by Generals Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan – mass murdered Indian men, women, and children during the winters, when families would be together, with massive Gatling gun and artillery fire. In a letter to his son a year before he died (1889), Sherman expressed his regret that his armies did not murder every last Indian in North America.” The Pious Jews don't intend to make the 'Sherman mistake' in Palestine! They have noted it time and again that “We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel ... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.” But the Jews' narrative of Holocaust is what remains the most profound and sacred obsession of the 'civilized' West – a perennial “mystery whose parallel may only be the one of Sinai when something was revealed.”'
Is that "civilized West" composed of anyone other than the white Anglo Saxon Christian folks in the majority? Is the white Anglo Saxon nicknamed the "old Hickory” – the one who "killed the bank", the one so lauded for standing up to the banksters as President of the United States – spare any of the innocent indigenous peoples of the land his forefathers so barbarically conquered?
So much for the glorious achievements of the white Anglo Saxon race in which the colonization and harvesting of the brown, the black, the red, and the yellow man, and enslavement of entire nations for their indigenous riches, is seldom rehearsed. Why the racial pride? Sounds very much like the Nazi formulation, the Zionist formulation.
And can one really tell the difference between the Jewish white Anglo-Saxon and the Christian white Anglo-Saxon race? While the religious rituals may be different, the imperial practices aren't when the reference begins and ends with 'race'! Any conflict between them is often only the 'white man's burden' negotiation between two 'ubermensch' fighting over primacy!
See for instance my response to the late Baruch Kimmerling (while he was still living among the dead), who tortuously betrayed exactly the same sort of mentality and in the same politically correct syntactically sugared veneer as your "Christian saying": "I admit that I am closer to the victims from my own people, for personal reasons and because of my familiarity and personal experience with many of them or members of their families. What can I do? A person is closer to his own friends, tribe, and people."
Professor Kimmerling of course never replied to any of my deconstruction of such twisted logic either, but neither did he issue any invectives, and my pertinent writings were always emailed to him. Kimmerling was a greatly lauded sociologist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and claimed that he was "a Jew, an atheist and a Zionist," all in the same breadth. He judiciously avoided explicitly claiming special rights as a Jew in order to stay politically correct in the Hegelian Dialectic of the liberal 'left' vs. the fundamentalist 'right', but his acts and his writings betrayed exactly that shared Jewish axiom which is common among all Zionists regardless of their clothing. Why else, for instance, would he locate himself from NY to Israel using the Jewish "Birthright" special 'race privilege' accorded to the Jews in Israel at the expense of its indigenous inhabitants? He and his liberal 'left' brethren have demonstrated the many clever ways of spinning things to their advantage in no less measure than their Hegelian twin, the Jewish far 'right', as I have systematically but only partially unraveled here:
And the white supremacist are qualitatively doing the same sort of syntactic sugaring today as the so called 'liberal' Zionists! When they claim 'their white America' for their glorious Anglo-Saxon race, and their lamentably becoming a minority due to the multi-culturalism and open immigration policy largely driven by the Jews to mitigate their own persecution by the Christians, these virtuous sons and proud daughters of the white Anglo-Saxon race never mention the systematic eradication of the native indigenous populations by their own criminal Anglo-Saxon forefathers claiming the exact same privilege as the Jews are now claiming in re-settling Palestine. See this admission:
Anyway, people are of course entitled to harbor any belief, no matter how tortuous, or how virtuous, or no belief at all, and to take pride in whatever they wish. One's personal beliefs are really of no particular concern of another. But when beliefs among innocent peoples are implanted and/or harnessed to thinly camouflage a white supremacist agenda (often unbeknownst to the good people), that is sufficient cause to unmask the ideologue pigs who otherwise deceive through obfuscation in no less a measure than the Zionist ideologues deceive their own Jewish people. You might have seen this passage before, where a moral Jew, the late Tanya Reinhart, admits to this Zionist indoctrination openly:
'The state of Israel founded in 1948 following a war which the Israelis call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba - the catastrophe. A haunted, persecuted people sought to find a shelter and a state for itself, and did so at a horrible price to another people. During the war of 1948, more than half of the Palestinian population at the time - 1,380,000 people - were driven off their homeland by the Israeli army. Though Israel officially claimed that a majority of refugees fled and were not expelled, it still refused to allow them to return, as a UN resolution demanded shortly after 1948 war. Thus, the Israeli land was obtained through ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. This is not a process unfamiliar in history. Israel's actions remain incomparable to the massive ethnic cleansing of Native Americans by the settlers and government of the United states. Had Israel stopped there, in 1948, I could probably live with it. As an Israeli, I grew up believing that this primal sin our state was founded on may be forgiven one day, because the founder's generation was driven by the faith that this was the only way to save the Jewish people from the danger of another holocaust.'
But I have yet to see the contemporary moral Christian white Anglo Saxon spokesperson do this kind of truth-telling about their own accumulated cracks and lacunae.
It is okay to be a pig, or to have been one and transformed into something else by hard choice. But it is not okay to disguise oneself as a sheep if one is really still a pig. Call a pig a pig, a sheep a sheep, and a hectoring hegemon in any clothing a hectoring hegemon. I am sure you won't disagree there. Right?
So, since you did call your belief "Christian", I mainly inquire in this letter if there is indeed a Biblical scriptural source for such racial segregation - just as there is for manufacturing a compliant police state with Romans 13. And you will surely note from my chitchat-commentary above that even with a primary scriptural source backing a tortuous belief, a truth seeker can't let go of one's own commonsense, or one easily becomes a convenient patsy in the hands of the devils among one's own kith and kin. As true for you, as for me. And therefore, first a reminder to myself, and then to others. To achieve the transformation which I have analyzed in my little essay: "Islamofascism - Zionofascism - Judeofascism - Christofascism - Neofascism etc. An equitable distribution of Collateral Language!" is a very very difficult task. For the moral Jews like Israel Shahak to have written a book like Jewish Fundamentalism, or Gilad Atzmon daily bearing witness against the misanthropic dogmas among the Jews themselves, is an example to others. But these courageous folks do it by leaving Judaism, by losing faith in the Divine, by becoming atheists or agnostic (I think). Whereas Martin Luther did his Reformation by not losing his faith. That is an example for all of us today to follow in our own reformation! Here is the link to my essay mentioned above:
Thank you.
Zahir Ebrahim

Links fixed, navigation links added, October 05, 2018

The Obsession With Purity Of The White Race For The White Anglo Saxons – What's to Be Proud Of In The Race Construct for Civilization? Its Record Is Only Dismal! By Zahir Ebrahim 12/12