Shrugging Off The Burden of the 20th Century

In The Burden of the 20th Century, I identified the building blocks of our present dystopia, which came together and have been institutionalized in the post-World War II era. Many of these key ideas like neoliberalism, antiracism, cosmopolitanism and modernism had been gestating in the decades before 1945, but it wasn’t until after World War II that they became hegemonic. Clearly, anti-fascism or anti-totalitarianism which led to totalitarian liberalism did not exist before the war.

It is easier to explain what we are against than to articulate what we are for although the two are really inseparable. In condemning all of these things which millions of people believe and saying that they should be discarded, I am approaching them from a perspective and making value judgments. What is this perspective? Why do I think about these things this way? What is the way life should be?

This will be a more introspective article.

First, I do not believe that many of these ideas are true, which is why I don’t find them compelling. This is the most important reason. I do not agree with liberals and leftists on the subject of equality.

While I agree that all people are created in the image of God and therefore are entitled to a certain level of dignity and respect, I do not believe in equality in any other sense. Once we move past the equality of souls in God’s eyes in the purely spiritual sense, we see nothing but differences. We see vast ineradicable differences in intelligence, personality, strength, accomplishment and so forth. The fact is, we don’t observe human equality. Quite the opposite. We only observe human differences, not only between the races and sexes, but within them as well and even within the same families. When two ordinary siblings raised in the same household differ in countless ways, what can be said for the doctrine of human equality?

The liberal or leftist will try to explain these differences in terms of prejudice, culture, oppression or lack of education. They assume that human nature is infinitely plastic and is completely detached from biology. The most compelling argument though against antiracism is that all of its herculean efforts over the course of 80 years have come to naught. Something like over 20 trillion dollars has been squandered since the 1960s in the United States alone on trying to eradicate poverty and racial inequality. It is the greatest and most expensive monumental project in human history and it has been a total failure.

So, to begin with I believe that human nature – whether we are talking about race, sex or gender – is ultimately grounded in and limited by human biology. I believe there are shades of difference in a wide range of traits which naturally produces inequality between human beings. I also believe we are born with instincts and innate ideas like other species. I believe that liberals and leftists reject the limits of nature. Reality is an affront to liberals and leftists because it stubbornly refuses to conform to their beliefs. Basically, I believe that many of their core beliefs and values are just a load of bollocks.

Second, I do not believe that many of these ideas are any good, which is why I also do not find them compelling. I do not believe that the laundry list of -isms and -phobias which have been popularized since World War II have any moral content whatsoever. There is ultimately nothing behind these ideas except for the force which they have been injected by liberal elites into our cultural bloodstream. The -isms and -phobias are just critiques and therapies which ultimately trace back through history to the Frankfurt School and which at the earliest did not begin to gain traction in Western culture until the 1920s and 1930s. For some reason, Western civilization was blissfully ignorant of these compelling moral concepts until the post-World War II era and had gotten by for thousands of years without them.

My moral views have been shaped by the classics, Protestantism, Western philosophy and my Southern cultural inheritance all of which were ignorant of the -isms and -phobias until the post-World War II era. I think of morality in terms of virtue, vice, sin and duty. A brave man is better than a coward. An honest man is better than a liar. A temperate man is better than an intemperate man. The chaste woman is better than the lustful woman. Integrity, fortitude and loyalty are moral qualities which should be cultivated while “anti-racism” is not. Morality is separate from political ideology. The good man is the one who cheerfully shoulders and fulfills his obligations whether it is to his family or to his community or to his nation or to God. The bad man is the one who rejects his obligations to others. Ultimately, it is also up to God to judge us for our sins. The idea of “journalists” sitting in judgment of us and damning us for “sins” that were simply made up less than a century ago is preposterous.

In my view, there is nothing about the behavior of Woke people which leads me to believe that they are morally superior to anyone else. Just the opposite is true. They have been raised to believe that the critiques and therapies are morality which is why they are behaving in ways that are shockingly immoral. They have been detached from their roots and immersed in all of this garbage. The whole thrust of the post-World War II era from Critical Theory to antiracism to modernism to cosmopolitanism to postmodernism to anti-fascism/anti-totalitarianism has been to detach, deracinate and alienate future generations and to poison the roots of Western civilization. Nothing good has come from this. We are not morally better than our ancestors. There has been a retrogression in morality and culture.

Third, I believe that there is a perspective and a will to power behind many of these ideas which are explicitly anti-White and anti-Western. The Critical Theory tradition, for example, which led to all the -isms and -phobias was created for the explicit purpose of undermining Western culture which was perceived to be an obstacle to a Marxist revolution. Many of these ideas were motivated by resentment and were always meant to be an attack on Western culture. They are an attack on our identity, beliefs, values and traditions. The whole point of the attack was to weaken and delegitimize our civilization. In perceiving the attack and striking back against our enemies, we are reasserting our own identity, perspective and will to power. We are being attacked for being White, Western and male. We’re not going to be passive. We are taking our own side in this conflict which has always been taboo in the post-World War II era.

Fourth, I believe that cultures are ultimately the deposit of history, which have flowed down to us from many sources across time. The cultural sediment that has been building up in the West in the post-World War II era has grown particularly toxic. The soil of Western civilization has been severely eroded by it. At virtually every level of society, the deck has been explicitly stacked against the White, Western male. It is a shocking affront to elite liberal sensibilities to broach the idea that White, Western men have any interests at all. Only BIPOC people have legitimate interests and our place in the new order of things is to sit content on the stool of eternal racial repentance while our entire civilization is flushed down the drain. Everything from politics to law to economics to culture must be reconstructed to serve them.

Well, why?

What about our children and grandchildren who were born in the 21st century? We’re being told that the only way to atone and correct the racial injustices of the past to BIPOC people is to sign up for inflicting future injustices – which will be legitimized by the Orwellian Trinity “diversity, equity and inclusion” – on our own White, Western children and grandchildren and our own people.

What are you ultimately loyal to? Are you loyal to toxic ideas and foolish abstractions? Are you loyal to Social Justice discourse? Are you loyal to those things to the point where it supersedes your loyalty to other people? What are you attached to in life? I would rather be loyal to my own children and grandchildren and my own people. No other earthly loyalty comes anywhere close to entering my mind. In sum, I believe these ideas are false, bad, malicious and ultimately only the nonsense of one era.

Having said all of this, it should be clear that I reject liberalism in its entirety down to its bedrock assumptions and see it as an error that has been progressively working itself out across time and screwing up the world in the process. At the most basic level, it is based on the Sovereignty of the Individual and the metaphor of thinking about human societies as if they were like machines which can be picked apart into their components like a clock and explained in terms of universal abstract principles. Human societies can be distilled into an abstract schematic that is universally true in all times and places.

Man is a flesh and blood being that is part of the natural world and is embedded in history. Humans are a social and gregarious, not a solitary and individualistic species. We are tribal and territorial beings who live in complex societies. Government, authority and order are not created by rational individuals who exit a “State of Nature” and come together to create a social contract for mutually beneficial ends, but naturally and spontaneously arises everywhere from human inequality. Humans are born into societies and imbued with culture by their parents and peers which is transmitted across generations. Society is as natural to man as a herd is to deer or a school is to fish or a hive is to bees. The two are inseparable.

Human beings are organisms with a natural life cycle. Human societies also exhibit organic, not inorganic, properties: birth, growth, reproduction, decline and death. This point needs to be emphasized because it has been lost on liberals. Human societies are more like herds of deer or forests than machines. We have organic needs. Man isn’t reducible to any particular quality whether it be reason, emotion or will. Treating man as a bloodless abstraction like this and building up abstract systems upon distortions like the rational and selfish individual only obscures the whole. Individuals are not autonomous but are related by organic bonds both biological and cultural to other individuals. The very idea of the “individual” is a peculiar and novel creation of Western thought at a particular point in its historical development.

Just as all men are not equal except in the spiritual sense of their souls being equal before God, all cultures are not equal either nor can they be equal. Every culture on earth is the unique accretion and deposit of its own historical development. Chinese history and English history have produced different cultures on opposite sides of the planet. These different cultures have created different social orders. The English oak of constitutional liberty simply does not translate into Chinese bamboo which is adapted to its own environment. It is nothing but arrogance to believe that we are uniquely special on earth and that all other cultures should evolve to be like our own and conform to our own standards.

There is nothing universal about the claims of liberalism. It just goes about smashing up other nations and cultures and forcing its abstract, misbegotten and malfunctioning model upon them. Ultimately, this impulse can be traced back to a sense of chosenness and a missionary attitude which is derived from Christianity. It only says something peculiar about the impulses of our own culture.

At the end of the day, it is our culture. We have allowed it to degenerate into this state by not taking the time to prune bad ideas. All of these bad ideas have flowed down through time to us. They are currently hegemonic due to the neglect of the last two generations but that hasn’t always been the case. The current system was only born during World War II. Liberalism has allowed the garden that is our culture to be overrun by weeds which are choking the life out of our people. We don’t owe these weeds anything and least of all our loyalty. We owe our loyalties to our own natural descendants and kin and it is our duty to clear the rubbish out from our culture so that they will have the room to grow and flourish.

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. Would be good if the backcountry Oregonians marched into Portland and kicked the shit out of the Anarchists. A couple of thousand guys would end this.

    • And what happens next ? 1905 Russian Czar kicked the shit out of communists and the only thing we got was much better prepared and financed 1917.

      When commies remain, they run in all 4 direction and spreading their poison , recruiting and brainwashing people, rebuilding their things, preparing and when time is right, strike again.

      In such cases, time horizon must be very long. When streets a safe again, then the problem may be not gone but becoming worse and after 10 or 20 years, things may go much uglier. False security also put our people back to sleep, people forgetting things, our organizations disbanding and when the enemy strikes again, we are completely helpless.

      Communism problem needs permanent solution, not temporary fake peace.

  2. I think you have a perhaps imprudently generous charitable nature and this leads you to somewhat misconstrue modern liberalism. You are right that the fundamental difference is a love for the truth. However, liberals do not disagree with you on any of your supposed points of disagreement.

    Larry Auster was right: liberalism is an unprincipled exception. (He may have missed the fact that most so-called conservatives are still liberals).

    These people agree completely with you that humans are not equal and so on. They simply want you to behave as if you believe in the liberal worldview in order to gain advantage for themselves. They do not disagree, they are simply dishonest. You care about truth, but they care only for power.

    Their dishonesty is fundamental. They are in many cases capable of convincing themselves that what they say is true; their actions betray their true nature. This monomaniacal focus on power propels their every action. This is why they are so shockingly destructive: they want power even if it destroys the world. They would rather reign in hell than serve in Heaven.

    We are engaged in a spiritual struggle. Our opponents do not disagree with us over facts or theory. To them, our beliefs are bad simply because our beliefs make us strong. They want to take everything they can, and they hate our love for the truth because truth is not something that they can possess, it can only be shared.

    To defeat our enemy we cannot convince our opponents they are wrong. They do not care because they do not care about truth. Instead we must bring them to repentance. They must voluntarily renounce power and accept truth. Every time this happens they join us, and every case of this is another small defeat for the enemy, the font of falsehood which is the true source of liberalism.

    • “Instead we must bring them to repentance. They must voluntarily renounce power and accept truth. Every time this happens they join us, and every case of this is another small defeat for the enemy, the font of falsehood which is the true source of liberalism.”

      This seems to contradict the rest of your post. By what method is this supposed to be achieved?

  3. It is nothing but arrogance to believe that we are uniquely special on earth and that all other cultures should evolve to be like our own and conform to our own standards.

    Arrogance and stupidity. Woodrow Wilson got us into World War I to “make the world safe for
    democracy”. Today, (((democracy))) has become unsafe for us.

  4. There’s only a little step from Christian gobbledygook of “equality of souls” to an overarching equality of all speaking bipeds. There’s no escaping Christianity’s role.

    It would be useful to explain why liberalism is so popular today among the people (although less and less) and particularly the elites. Tucker Carlson passes over this question much too quickly in his Ship of Fools.

  5. I believe in objectivity and common sense. I believe in freedom of speech and open debate. I totally reject absolutism. Unfortunately among Northern European autistes, absolutism and tyrannical puritanism seem to be reoccurring themes…

  6. Mr Wallace I have two questions to ask regarding your quite excellent essay.

    Being in opposition to Liberalism do you not believe that Protestantism is, if not the direct cause at least a serious cause of the very Liberalism you detest. Would you not agree that Catholicism is the underpinning of the Historical West as an embodied culture and that it was the attack against Catholicism which began this mess.

    Second what are your thoughts about democracy. I wonder what governmental system you would install that would protect against Liberalism. To go completely against Liberalism it seems to me with some limited thought that there is only one solution and that being monarchy working in concert with the Church, tradition and Nature.

    • Senhorbotero,

      I agree with you but few on this website will. Southern/white nationalists are overwhelmingly protestant or pagan. I believe most southern nationalists believe in a conservative republic. As a general rule Catholicism is viewed with contempt by most white nationalists including those on this website. I know. I have been here for over a year.

      So good luck promoting your ideas here. If you really are Catholic then you will find few allies among white nationalists. Their enemies are my enemies but their solutions are not Catholic solutions.

      Your comment just opened up our religion for ridicule and attack. The stricter censorship on this website compared to last year will cushion any attack to a certain extent—–maybe.

      • Again, you need to read some Dr. Boyd Cathey, as he is one very notable exception to your Catholic persecution complex.

      • @Cristina Romana Alva. H….

        “Being in opposition to Liberalism do you not believe that Protestantism is, if not the direct cause at least a serious cause of the very Liberalism you detest. Would you not agree that Catholicism is the underpinning of the Historical West as an embodied culture and that it was the attack against Catholicism which began this mess.”

        Speaking as an Orthodox Catholick, whose wife is Roman Catholick, I think I would say no to this premise.


        Because The Devil seems to have no problem penetrating any camp, no matter where you set up tent.


        “I agree with you but few on this website will. Southern/white nationalists are overwhelmingly protestant or pagan.”

        Yes and no, Dear Christina.

        There are Pagans here, but, a lot of Southern Nationalists, here, are Orthodox converts, whilst others who are not, do respect Orthodoxy. (Eastern Catholicism)

        Personally, I see great value in The Roman Catholick Church, on a spiritual level, and have expressed that many times here.

        That said, The Vatican, is, and, indeed, has long been, in cahoots with The One World Rothschild/Rockefeller Ilk and that has never gone down well with Southern patriots.

        Pope Francis, and his College of Gay Cardinals are a case in point – only Archbishop Vigano and Bishop Richard Williamson commanding any respect here, amongst the high men of your church.

        The only legal Christian denomination in North Carolina was Anglican Episcopalianism for 250 years until, in the mid 19th century, the franchise was widened to allow for Roman Catholicism, and other Protestant sects, as well, such as The SBC, Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, and Methodism.

        My wife and I do attend the first Roman Catholick church ever built in this state in the 1870s, it a little wooden gothick church in Halifax NC.

        Be well!

      • Christina,

        I do not think your appraisal of Want is fair or accurate both on this site and in general.

        For better or worse, outside of afew virulent anti-Catholics on OD, it seems to me that most commentators are in different to Catholicism or any other denomination of Christianity.

        Nick Fuentes’ America First “groypers” are overwhelmingly Catholic just not to the degree that you and your family observe.

        In my experience, the brand of Christianity practiced by WNs is unfortunately quite similar to Fr. John’s theological ideology. Really cringe and backward beliefs. They just are fine as long as you are Christian and White, and if you’re Christian, White, and want or have large families that’s viewed very positively.

        My own complaints about the RCC are their hierarchy comprised of universalist egalitarians, and of course, that dogs and cats don’t go to heaven is a big deal breaker for me.

        In closing, overall, I believe your presence on OD has been well received. Considering that you are a young female with loyalty to Mexico and fellow Catholics first and foremost, you really have not suffered to many slings and arrows imho.

    • Re: “there is only one solution and that being monarchy working in concert with the Church”:

      We are sick of nearly twenty centuries of that “concert” of our enslavement, by the so-called “royalty” (or “nobility”) and so-called “Church” with its blasphemous (“Vicarius filii Dei”) head and their ever-present Financiers (the “Usurers” or “tax collectors”). White people, and the world, have had enough.

      New Model Army song:

      • You are ignoring a great deal of written thought that allows for a broader understanding of the situation.
        To categorically dismiss the entirety of Catholic thinking to my mind displays a highly unaware intellect most likely informed by historical propaganda. I do not know you nor you me but would it not be better to engage in dialog and probe toward the root of things. We have all been victims of distortions and misunderstandings just maybe there is another story to tell. I myself am not fully certain about monarchy either but only stated that if one is truly against liberalism that it appears as the only answer. Democracy as a theory is an outgrowth of liberal thinking being founded upon the idea that answers lie in the people not in an outside authoritative source. Of its nature it constantly seeks a change and that change as we see today is is often based solely upon whim. A Republic it seems turns out is also likely to devolve toward oligarchy as we see now and by pulling from the main body of people competing for a position of power it will lead to corruption with time. Furthermore I see democracy as always pulling down to the mob rather then elevating the mob upwards. I am not really seeking a huge debate here but just wanted to ask Hunter Wallace the questions I posed to see what he might offer to my own thought.

        • Thank you for the reasonable reply, Senhorbotero. I do not categorically dismiss all thinking of Roman Catholics. It is always good to ask questions and to be challenged.

          Over 1,000 years (counting from the Schism), Roman Catholicism (including the current Pope with his connection to right-wing thugs of Argentina who threw victims out of planes into the ocean) has not given us any real national democracy or “res publica,” that is truly of, by and for the people. Instead RC has supported or condoned various oligarchies, or plutocracies (monarchies, fascisms, etc. – all amounting to the same thing: violent power based on wealth) that are of, by and for te benefit of a tiny elite and small upper class that rob and enslave the vast majority.

          Plutocracies are generally not “pure” however but “mixed” with traces or semblances of democracy, religious cult involvement (think: RC), and beliefs in natural inequality (“nobility” versus “common” birth, “Divine right,” etc.) and as Aristotle noted, “mixing” is related to increased stability and endurance of an oligarchy/plutocracy. But increasing the stability or endurance of evil is not good. Carnal human nature leads to plutocracy by default. “The love of money is the root of all this evil.” Socialism or a Christian society of peace, equality and fraternity of, by and for all, is achieved by great moral effort, against the violent opposition of the powers that be.

    • Monarchy is treason against a nation. It always holds the people in contempt:

      The King is not England, and England is not the king:

    • Senhorbotero,

      Did I not tell you what the response would be? I even knew anonymous would kick in with his anti-royalist/anti-Catholic view. These people are very predictable. You cannot do anything with these people. Just read the articles for information but realize these people are not going to resolve anything.

      Pray the rosary and associate with Catholics. That is your best solution. My father is about to yank me off this site for good. He has never understood my somewhat sympathy for the WASP. Neither has my friends/family. So I will now look at Catholic sites like Most Holy Family Monastery and others.

      Anyway, the future might look dim for the WASP but it looks very rosary (pun intended) for Latin Catholics.

      • Christina, I usually do exactly as you say and mostly just must read here. I have occasionally posted here and there to either bend the perspective or seek some further thought but very, very rarely. I agree with the predicable nature of most on here and thus my questions were posed to Hunter Wallace to probe a little to see if he could provide a counter to my claims and as well maybe get him over a last barrier to completion to his thinking. I have been watching him working his way thru lots of ideas for a few years now and he is a fascinating person who tends to contextual thinking sometimes and does seem open to broader thought. It was only by way of assistance to he and myself that my questions were posed.
        On the other hand lets admit that those who replied did at least reply. This is a positive attribute that is mot easily found on most sites. So there resides here some intellectual curiosity in some places that maybe is worth engaging. By the way I do enjoy reading your posts as I find them of interest and in possession of solid thinking as well. Thanks for your response.

          • I just want to let you know that I had made a reply to your reply to me and it did not post for some reason. So rather then have you thinking that I may have ignored you I want you to know I did not. I cannot however easily rebuild the reply and I suspect this article is at the end of its life anyway so let me just apologize and say thanks as well to you on your respectful response to me. Let me say that I am not a propagandist I am a person who considers himself Catholic and have trained myself as best as I could in Catholic thought. I truly believe that it is thru the Church that things can and maybe will finally be resolved. I also doubt Christina to be anything other then the same.

    • Senhorbotero,

      1.) No, I have spent years studying the Early Modern Era and I don’t attribute the rise of liberalism to Protestantism in the 16th century. The most radical Protestant sects of that era like the Anabaptists are today the most socially conservative group in the United States with the highest birthrate. The roots of liberalism can be traced back to the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century which followed the Wars of Religion.

      2.) After much reflection, I have become more critical of liberalism and capitalism and less critical of democracy, which might be our only way out of this mess. I don’t consider it an ideal form of government, but liberalism has played by far the greater role in our decline.

      • Thank you for your reply. Do you not think that the breakdown and dismissal of authority started with the attack against the Church. Do you disagree that the essential underpinning of the modern world is relativism and with that went everything except materialism. Do you think, at last reading, that the 28000 different versions of Protestantism is not a breakdown of authoritative teaching. How about Sola Scriptura. Please do not consider these hostile questions they are attempts to understand your thought. You seem very correct in most of your thinking but to me you are not making the final leap. I ask only to learn your reasoning or to push your thinking one step further.

        • I’ve studied the Early Modern Era to trace the roots of liberalism and didn’t come away with that conclusion. The Reformation and Counter-Reformation were not a time of relativism. Religious faith was waxing, not waning in the 16th century and early 17th century. There was no such thing as religious tolerance during this period. The Protestants also persecuted and banished dissenters. There was nothing resembling liberalism at the time. There wasn’t 28,000 versions of Protestantism particularly in the Holy Roman Empire where Calvinists and Anabaptists were controversial in Lutheran Northern Europe. This era was the highwater mark of religious intolerance and dogma all over Europe.

          • Thanks again. My thinking is probably derived by looking at the philosophical or perhaps better the metaphysical assumptions that lead to where we are now. I do not pretend to fully understand it completely but there are some aspects of Protestantism that open the door to relativism which may have taken years to have surfaced. Let me just say that my strongest interest is in the relationship between Religion and government and the impact that has on culture. We could postulate that Christianity is the basis for this tighter bond desired to build a stronger culture but with all the current variants and the disunity amongst even Christians it strikes me that one unified Church becomes a necessity. Even in its present state, as dismal as that is the Roman Catholic Church possess the greatest hope for a reunification of Christendom.

            Nor do I actually have a resistance to any form of government provided that it functions under the metaphysics of the Christian faith and that there is some recognized unification between country and faith. Though I think Democracy has present day deficiencies which need to be repaired. In its present state it accentuates the wrong idea of equality and allows a great majority of unequals to overpower the voices of the truly informed and thoughtful. This however could be fixed. My concern then remains the role of religion and proper interplay between government and religion.

            I think what intrigued me was that your above essay could have been a lift from Pope Leo the 13th or even Aquinas and that makes me think you might just slightly shift your focus and come upon supportive writings that would provide you a social philosophy that could suffice to make a better culture for us all. I have long thought the writing and system exists before our eyes but for some reason we choose to ignore it.

          • As far as liberalism goes, the most important development in the 16th century was the emergence of proto-science: Copernicus discrediting geocentrism, the spread of the Hermetic Corpus, the Age of Discovery expanding European knowledge about the rest of the world, the ongoing recovery of classical texts from Epicurus, Pyrrho, Democritus and so forth that inspired the revival of skepticism and materialism. None of this came out of the Reformation and was taking place in the background of it. It became of increasing importance by the early 17th century which was the dawn of the Scientific Revolution which in turn inspired modern philosophy.

          • Mr. Wallace, Just want to say that your last reply to me is a very interesting one, one which I need to consider since I had not previously engaged that perspective. I will give it some thought. If I had been asked prior to your input I would have blamed DeCartes and would have considered him the father of modernism. He may still be but there were as you say many simultaneous things happening contributing to the erosion.

      • HW,

        The Third Reich was able to successfully combine an anti-liberal government ideology, while simultaneously being pehaper the most scientifically advanced nation on Earth and Christian. That is quite unpresidented.

        For the monarchists, Der Führer was a de facto king just not of the inbreed variety.

  7. Epic larpy alt-media posting readers here will enjoy … its author thinking to be negative on Trump but it is being taken as pro-Trump as well:

    “Trump & Barr cancelling election” – Veterans Today

    “Donald Trump has issued a [secret] presidential order cancelling the USA election based on a national emergency, COVID 19 and Chinese interference tied to “treason” by Joe Biden and key American political figures whose names are already on arrest warrants

    Attorney General Barr had, some weeks ago, presented Trump an opinion allowing him to overrule an election using emergency powers, while Barr would start investigating allegations of Chinese interference on behalf of Biden

    Trump had, months ago, told congressional Republicans that he would not accept the results of an election. Trump planned to declare the election rigged and would order Biden’s arrest as a “Chinese spy”

    Arrest warrants for more than a dozen state governors and a similar number of mayors of major cities have also been issued

    We can’t prove that Coronavirus was unleashed in the US in order to facilitate a takeover of the United States – However, we accept it as a possibility and even a likelihood

    GOP operatives across the US are meeting secretly with police officials telling them to no longer take orders from civil authority and that they are now, by presidential order, members of a secret militia answerable only to Donald Trump”

    -Gordon Duff

    [Comment by 4chan poster adding to the above:]

    For many Ameriburgers, cancellation of the November election will be well-justified:

    – Democrats are rigging votes, enabling non-citizen migrants to vote etc to inflate the Dem electorate, not to mention ballot stuffing, mis-counting etc

    – Democrats are engaged in racketeering conspiracy to deprive heritage Americans of their civil liberties

    – Democrats are sponsoring a violent insurgency by minorities, leninist-style, who are being manipulated as shock troops for a wing of the oligarchy seeking by intimidation to assume absolute power

    Godspeed Ameriburgers with what you have to face

  8. Most modern American problems in political ideology have a very subtle source, one that our ancestors understood, that man cannot work his way into heaven. Man cannot, because of his works, earn Salvation. Only faith in Jesus Christ can lead to Salvation. No works, no prayers, no sacraments, only faith in Jesus Christ. Not faith, in George Floyd, John Lewis, the Pope, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, the Holy Mary, nor any other “Saint” or religious leader provide you with a path to Salvation.

    • @Krafty…

      A dead on bullseye, Dear Krafty – because, at the core of every layer of every single problem we have is ungodliness!

      While no person or society can perfectly follow Chryst, a society comprised of people at least making the attempt is light years ahead of one which does not even acknowledge the merit in the path!!

      The more one denieth Chryst, the more noxious is the seed that shalt give rise to the bitterest fruit!!!

      When Europe became Chyistendom, it went from just another backward backwater to the civilization pointing the way in every endeavour – from architecture, musick, and art, to technology and science, to politicks and law.

      And now that we have spent a half century sliding away from Chrystendom, so very clear are we becoming just another corrupt and chaos ridden backwater, of no worthy distinction.

      It’s a very subtle thing, however, and for the scientifick & faithless ones, they’ll scream about our ‘suspicious’ & ‘ irrational’ Southern mentality, all the while regaling us for our apparent inabilities to comprehend the genius of how Saint Adolf was merely trying to restore Chrystendom back to it’s glorious pre-Christian days!!!

      To be or not to be, it was once stated, and Chryst will be the arbitre of all that!

  9. “Human societies can be distilled into an abstract schematic that is universally true in all times and places.”

    I believe you mean: “Human societies cannot . . .”.

  10. @Powell,

    Indeed. If anarcho-commies and marxist joggers do not care about truth and only acquisition of power, then how in the heck are they going to “voluntarily renounce” their reasons for living and brought to o “repentance?”

    Personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass how our adversaries are vanquished. Our objective should be to see that they are neutralized by hook or by crook. The end.

    We must not ‘play’ by rules that our collection of enemies who want us dead don’t adhere to, and thus inhibit our ability to come out of this existential crisis victorious. This isn’t a conflict with an honorable opponents, so we must be equally ruthless.

    Because in this battle for survival our people and their lost cultural and civilizational inheritances are on the line, defeat and surrender are not options.

  11. Oh isn’t that rich? Ashkenazi “Ivan” and hereditary cutthroat WASP Krazy Wanker are reverting to the default Anglo-jew pernicious union of the intertwined snakes.

    Ancient Greece and Rome were not corrupt or chaotic backwaters, before the semitic virus spread to Europe. For your God’s sake, Christianity is simply a hodgepodge of judaiism, Greek, and Indo-European mythologies.

    St. Adolf’s was ideology was rooted in reality, and not Mr. Roger’s “Land of Make Believe.”

Comments are closed.