Archive for May 5th, 2006


Kanefronsf, you missed one of the best Scifi books of all time, the Pournelle-Niven “Inferno.”

The Vestibule of Hell is for those who made no decisions IN LIFE, not for those who saw a moral crisis and decided to remain neutral.

I read all three of dante’s book. I believe those who preserve neutrality are stuck at the gates of hell but not inside hell. They are in limbo.

Satan is at the bottom and it’s freezing cold.

Comment by kane



Neutrality and Treason

“Anti” follow-up:

I just wrote that today’s white “anti-racist” could be in the hottest part of Dant’e Inferno, which is for those who preserve their neutrality in a time of moral crissis, or in the worst and COLDEST part of Hell, if they are outright traitors.

One of my favorite quotes is from a loyal leftist. She was replying to a book by one of the members of an endangered speciest, a liberal with a conscience.

This writer was furious. He had seen the results of the opening of the KGB in the post-Cold War period, and he went ballistic when he found that all thsoe liberals whom McCarthy had accused of being Communists, and alot of others, had been active agents Stalin.

Most liberals put this inconvenient fact down the Memory Hole instantly and continued to denounce McCarthism. This guy wouldn’t.

In fact, he said that all those liberals who said none of Alger Hisses were Communist spies had BETRAYED not only America, but him personally.

A professor at Yeshiva defended the actions of those who had worked for Stalin.

She used one of my favorite quotes to do it.

She said the Stalinist who swore loyalty in government emplyment were not traitors. She announced taht they were “patriots of a diffferent kind.”

Which, of course, is what the antis say. They are not anti-white, they are just pro-whites of a different kind.

They insist they have no loyalty to the white race at all. Their loyalty is not to genes, but to Wordism. Their loyalty is to words. Which is exactly what is meany by “patriotism of a different kind.”

The Constitution of the United States cites only ONE UNIQUE source of authority: “We the people of the United States of America.”

The Constitution declares that it exists for one purpose and one purpose only, “to secure the blessings of liberty to OURSELVES and OUR Posterity.”

John Quincy Adams stated this principle as Secretary of State when he wrote, “Americans are the friend of Liberty everywhere, but the guardians only of our own.”

But the Stalinists were exercising “loyalty of a different kind” because they were loyal to Marxism, not to a particular people.

To me, “loyalty of a different kind,” forsaking your own people in favor of a set of words, is treason.

That’s what the Constitution says.

I don’t know whether “I don’t care about race” belongs inthe hottest part of hell or the coldest.

But the one thing that statement is NOT is innocent.



Dante and the Antis

I put this inthe antis thread on Stormfront:

“The hottest part of Hell,” said Dante, “Is reserved for those who, in a time of moral crisis, preserve their neutrality.”

But of course the HOTTEST part of Dante;s Inferno was not the WORST part of Hell.

The Tenth Circle, the WORST part of Hell, was for TRAITORS.

So since our society is dedicated to the eradication of the “race problem,” meaning the white problem, the white person who says, “I never think about race” is either being neutral or taking the side of the traitors.

Is he refusing to take a stand, and therefore belongs to the hottest part of Hell, or is he an outright traitor?

Does he deserve the hottest or the coldest?


1 Comment

Conservative? ME?

— Conservative? ME?

When the Soviet Union was falling the hard-line Communists were given a new name: conservatives.

Just two years before the media had recoiled in horror when Reagan called these same people “The Evil Empire.” They had praised Comrade Stalin and all the Peace-Loving Peoples’ Republics ever since.

Then, as the old liners were losing power under Gorbaczev, the Peace-Loving Progressives were suddenly “reactionaries and “rightists.” They were the bad guys, so they were “right-wing.”

In our age anyone who opposes Political Correctness is called some kind of “rightist.” No matter how radical a person is, if his radicalism is not of the sort prescribed by our established religion, he is a “conservative.”

Too many people who strive to overthrow our established religion, with its program of genocide against white people, are not aware that they have subconsciously subscribed to this doctrine. The seek a restoration of a time before Political Correctness took over in the name of liberalism and leftism. They seek to restore what was.

So when I speak of the future as it will be, my comrades are often as horrified as my enemies. There is a great parting of the ways between their world view and mine.

They ask me why I am so optimistic, and I hesitate to tell them, because the reasons I am optimistic about the things that matter, the survival of my race and our journey to the stars, is based on my acceptance of things that would horrify them. They see a restoration of their old world, where Traditional Values were accepted by all but the outlaws of society.

I see a world divided forever, where some will have a place to be in world of their traditional values and others will have their children by choosing their genes, and those who are traditional will be more and more like the Amish coach-drivers of Pennsylvania who reject all modern conveniences and are wholly unaware that those conveniences are right there in the buggies they drive.

The Amish claim only to use Biblical technology, but they would be horrified if they had to drive the banging, springless conveyances used in Biblical times.

Several of the congressmen who fight all uses of embryos for medical purposes have products of those embryos keeping them alive.

The Indians who sob over how their wonderful Way of Life was destroyed would not survive a year in one of that Way of life, and it would be an awful year. The clouds of gnats in their children’s eyes, which you never see on television depictures of the Noble Red Man, would have horrified them.

I lived in that world of outhouses and back-breaking work, and I remember nothing charming about it. And the way I lived was beyond the dreams of early Americans or Africans today or yesterday.

Which may be why I am such a radical. I have met many a suburban young person, entranced by Mommy Professor’s description of the glories of Native Cultures, drink his beer and denounce all technology. But I have never seen a coal miner do that.

Real workers do not miss the days of digging with their shovels with candles in their hats, and they are close enough to the past to realize what the real Good Old Days were like.

Every professor will tell you how happy Africans were before the Evil White man came, but no African wants to return to those ways. A lot of them are now having to return to those ways, and they are dying and miserable.

I was watching a Canadian documentary with old pictures of Inuit (Eskimo) life. But below the pictures a caption was repeated and repeated, (No one lives like this now”). No Canadian of any race would be allowed to live in that misery.

But that same Canadian Broadcasting System will declare what a shame it is that the Evil White Man’s technology destroyed all those wonderful Traditional Ways of Life.

No one in Canada who points out this contradiction will get a job with CBC. He will be lucky if he isn’t arrested.

But this unmitigated crap is not only the property of the Politically Correct. It is swallowed whole by those who oppose PC.

Which means that they cannot look straight into the future, the real future, and see the opportunities there.

So the chasm between my thought and theirs is often unbridgeable.

They see biological advances as a plot against Traditional Values. They have a Frankenstein Complex.

I see the future as a sneak attack on our enemies.

They see it exactly the same way.

Social science professors are horrified that their theories are being tossed into the trash basket by discoveries about genes. Study of real evolution Carbon dating has thrown the traditional view of history, on which Marxism is firmly based, right into the toilet.

Everybody insists he wants children to have every advantage of NURTURE, of a good upbringing. Social scientists are fanatically opposed to all “monkeying” with genes,” but they endorse any social program they come up with, especially if it is expensive.

The big difference between future technology “monkeying” with genes and today’s “education” is taht technology will probably be able to demonkey” it if it is wrong.

But can we ever undo the damage done by PC “education” or the “good upbringing” taught a child that what is new is against God?

I doubt it. Lok at the “atnis” on Stormfront, with tehir airconditioners going and using the Intgernet to whine about the White Man’s Evil Mommy Professor taught them to recite.

Fifty years from now they will be using the Evil Techn0logy that overcame stone age culture to keep them healthy, and they will be singing The Guilt Songof the Evil White.

And beside them in a counterpoint song, will be conservatives denouncing all post-Biblical technology.

Gene changes are more curable.

Imposing re-education or what some preacher chooses to call Tradtiional Values is fine for the kiddies. But when it comes to giving the next generation the best possible GENES, conservatives and social scientists stand shoulder to shoulder. Everything should be done to give them Traditional Values or a Good Education, but God and those who claim to speak for God and the priests of Political Correctness declare from their respective pulpits that not one gene must be touched.

So as liberals sink deeper into he trash bags of history, so do conservatives.

For the word “conservative,” no matter how the media use it, has the same real meaning it always had. Liberals seek the old path of liberalism; conservatives seek a restoration, too.

I am the most radical person you are ever likely to meet.

There will be no restoration and I will never have to sit in an outhouse and fear the horseflies romantically threatening to sting me. I will never again move one brick at a time in a hot kiln where the rule is that if you passed our TWICE, you lost your job.

Only if the white race disappears from the earth will there be a Restoration, and I will fight it to my last breath.



Tough Guys

“Bob, you really think a lot of yourself, don’t you.”

This strikes me as an odd question.

If you are going to spend your life in the nastiest kind of battles with Communists and anti-whites, just how long would you lsast if you DIDN’T have a high opinion of yourself? How would you DARE take on ruthless powers if you really thought you were just your average Joe?

Your main weapon, your fundamental resource, when push comes to shove, is YOU.

If youa re going to check out your gun before you go into battle, it makes even more sense for you to check out YOURSELF before you commit yourself to a battle.

This srikes me, not as a matter of pride or humility, but as the most practical matter in the world.

I tend to team up with insightful, brilliant people. And their insights really get to me.

I listen.

One ally of mine for years, with whom I had shared a lot of beer and talked a lot of trash, suddenly hit me with, “Well, Bob, you areht most conceited person I know.”

I was stunned.

How could anybody consider me to be conceited?

He clarified: “A lot of people say they don’t care what people think of htem, but you really DON’tT.

He thought about it a bit and said, “No, I don’t mean you don’t CARE. But it never occurs to you to let anybody’s opinion of you make you do what you wouldn’t have done.”

Once I worked that out in my mind, I understood that could be taken as conceit. Or it could be called strubbornness.

I think of it as principle.

I make fun of Tough Guys all the time. Tough Guys say they don’t care what anybody thinks.

I am NOT a Tough Guy.

I get hurt a LOT, all the time.

But I also do as Dennis just said, I go right on without letting the fact that someone hurt me make me lose the trail of my argument.

I am proud of my own bravery in this.

The funny thing is that the Tough Guy doesn’t know that he is saying that he is NOT brave.

Being brave means you have the moral fiber to risk pain and take pain and keep on going. The Tough Guy is saying he has no feelings to hurt.

Take it from me, there is nothing that takes less courage than walking into the jaws of death when you really, sincerely would rather be dead.

A True Tough Guy has no courage. He simply has no feelings.