Origins of The Patriarchy

The Patriarchy Europeans

By D. A.

Lately I have come across several people who believe that Europe has always held the ideals of a patriarchy, where women were subjected to the rule of men. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

Patriarchy defined is:

1. a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.

2. a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

3. a society or community organized on patriarchal lines.

Europa Prima Pars Terrae in Forma VirginisIs there evidence of the patriarchy in ancient Europe?

Indo-Europeans were known to have practiced multiple succession systems, and there is much better evidence of matrilineal customs among the Indo-European Celts and Germans than among any ancient Semitic peoples.

In medieval Europe, patriarchy was not the norm, as female Empresses, such as Theodora, and Matriarchs, such as Helena, the mother of Constantine, enjoyed privilege, political rule, and societal honor. These were not the only women, Boudicca, Telessilla, Cartimandua and Martia Proba were among others.

The first-century figure Boudicca indicates that Brittonnic society permitted explicit female autocracy or gender equality which contrasted strongly with the patriarchal structure of Semitic civilization. Boudica was a queen of the British Iceni tribe who led an uprising against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire. Born 30 AD died 61 AD.

Cartimandua reigned 43 to  69 AD was a 1st-century queen of the Brigantes, a Celtic people living in what is now northern England. She came to power around the time of the Roman conquest of Britain, and formed a large tribal agglomeration that became loyal to Rome.

Military Leader Telessilla, of Greece (Argos) A warrior poet, she rallied the women of the besieged city of Argos with war hymns and chants and led them in defending the city against the invading forces.

Queen Martia Proba of a Celtic Tribe (United Kingdom) Her seat of power was in London, and she was holding the reins of government so wisely as to receive the surname of Proba, the Just. She especially devoted herself to the enactment of just laws for her subjects, the first principles of the common law tracing back to her; the celebrated laws of Alfred, and of Edward the Confessor, being in great degree restorations and compilations from the laws of Martia, which were known as the “Martian Statutes” around 200 AD.

Women were also running Sparta while the men were often away fighting. Gorgo, Queen of Sparta, responded to a question from a woman in Attica along the lines of, “why Spartan women were the only women in the world who could rule men?” Gorgo replied, “because we are the only women who are mothers of men”. Gorgo is noted as one of the few female historical figures actually named by Herodotus, and was known for her political judgement and wisdom. She is notable for being the daughter of a King of Sparta, the wife of another king of Sparta, and the mother of a third king of Sparta. Her birth date is uncertain, but is most likely to have been between 518 and 508 BC, based on Herodotus dating (Histories 5.51).

Arising in the period ranging from the Iron Age to the Middle Ages, several early northwestern European mythologies from the Irish (e.g., Macha and Scáthach), the Brittonic (e.g., Rhiannon), and the Germanic (e.g., Grendel’s mother and Nerthus) contain episodes of female power. Other evidence includes burial grounds (such as the Celtic Chiefess in Reinheim) and the Oseberg ship, from 850 CE discovered in Norway.

And lets not forget Lady Godiva. She is mentioned in the Domesday survey as one of the few Anglo-Saxons and the only woman to remain a major landholder shortly after the Norman conquest. She died sometime between 1066 and 1086.

Jean Markale’s studies of Celtic societies show that the power of women was reflected not only in myth and legend but in legal codes pertaining to marriage, divorce, property ownership, and the right to rule.

BoudiccaSo where did the idea of the patriarchy come from?

Anthropological evidence suggests that most pre-historic hunter gatherer societies were relatively egalitarian. Some scholars believe the first signs of patriarchy were evident around six thousand years ago or about 4,000 BC. According to James DeMeo the geographical record shows that climate change around 4000 BC led to famines in the Sahara, Arabian peninsula and what are now the Central Asian deserts which then resulted in the adoption of warlike, patriarchal structures in order to secure food sources.

Domination by men of women is found in the Ancient Near East (Biblical Lands, including Iraq, South West Iran, South East Turkey, Syria, Kuwait) as early as 3100 BC. Evidence from the Amorites and pre-Islamic Arabs indicates that the primitive Semitic family was in fact patriarchal and patrilineal.

The works of Aristotle portray women as morally, intellectually, and physically inferior to men; saw women as the property of men; claimed that women’s role in society was to reproduce and serve men in the household; and saw male domination of women as natural and virtuous. Aristotle lived 384 – 322 BC in Classical Greece, a time when Greece was ruled by the Persian Empire.

Judaism Christianity Islam EuropeMajor religions that adhere to patriarchal practices.

In Islam: The hadith says a people which has a woman as leader will never prosper.

In Judaism: According to the Orthodoxy the position has been that for women to hold public office in Israel would threaten the state’s existence. Men’s superiority’ is a fundamental tenet in Judaism, according to Irit Umanit.

In Christianity: Since the first century, organized Christianity has interpreted the Bible as prescribing a gender-based hierarchy, claimed up to the present by Complementarians and traditionalists to be scripturally mandated. The hierarchical theology has placed woman under the man’s authority in the church, in marriage, and elsewhere. Historically, it has excluded women from leadership positions that give women any kind of authority over men.

1558, John Knox wrote The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. According to an 1878 edition, John Knox’s objection to any women reigning and having “empire” over men was theological and it was against nature for women to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city. Knox’s argument was partly grounded on a statement of the apostle Paul against women teaching or usurping authority over men. Knox argued that a woman being a national ruler was unnatural and that women were unfit and ineligible for the post.

The patriarchal political theory is said to closely be associated with Sir Robert Filmer. Filmer completed a work entitled Patriarcha around 1653. In it, he defended the divine right of kings as having title inherited from Adam the first man of the human species, according to Judeo-Christianity.

Only since the 1970s have more moderate views emerged.

In Buddhism: In certain Buddhist countries (not all) Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, and Thailand women are categorically denied admission to the Saṅgha, Buddhism’s most fundamental institution.

Nornir by LundWhat our Native European Religon, Odinism, teaches:

In healthy Germanic societies, men and women complemented each other. There is/was a natural balance between the two.

I’m going to quote the Odinic Rite because they explain this balance of male/female very well: Fundamental to Odinism is Natural Law, which works consistently to support positive evolution within a balanced context at all levels…

…The interaction of men and women is crucial for the creation of children and hence, the survival of a family and the community. However, in order for this to happen successfully, the underlying male and female energies need to be balanced and to complement one another, otherwise there will be a dominance of one energy over another- an imbalance which will ultimately weaken both polarities and hence, the ability of a group to survive….

…In Odinism, we see that both the Gods and Goddesses have crucial roles relative to life’s picture, and each God has a complementary Goddess. And whilst all roles are vital to the bigger picture, no single one is considered more important than another: all are required for the sustenance and evolution of society and tapestry of life….

…For whilst men and women are each powerful in their own right, balanced cooperation will actually enhance and deepen those inherent forces which create, sustain and evolve life.Thus, by proudly working to restore the true and ho ly nature of the male/female polarities in proper relationship to each other, so our folk will be restored to their rightful strength….

…This is Natural Law and as an expression of such, Odinism- and hence the Odinic Rite- hold this balance of polarity (i.e. both men and women) as equally sacred sustainers of the whole…. end quote

From the above we can see that the idea of the patriarchy can be traced to an historical event that happened around 4,000BC in the Biblical lands of the Middle East. It wasn’t until our people were forcibly introduced to a new way of thinking around the 1st Century that views began to change…. It was during this time that our people had been placed under the influence of the very foreign belief system of Judaeo-Christianity, a belief system that was completely opposite and anti-natural to our people a belief system that has its roots in the Middle East.

The effect this has had on our people is disastrous. Once again I will quote the Odinic Rite:

…male and female energies need to be balanced and to complement one another, otherwise there will be a dominance of one energy over another- an imbalance which will ultimately weaken both polarities and hence, the ability of a group to survive….

….We witness this crisis in wider society today where the insidious poison of monotheistic mindsets that denigrate the female energies has led to a materialistic society whose very fabric flouts natural law, creating pollution, apathy, lack of principle, family and community breakdown in it s wake. Thus, all life is weakened.One of the main contributory factors to this situation is the dogmatic assignment of ‘value’ to the terms ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine.’ Hence, the so-called ‘masculine’ values of dynamism, strength, rationality etc have been seen as of a more ‘positive’ value than the so-called ‘feminine’ values of receptivity, passivity, intuition etc. This is reflected by the importance wider society places on ‘successful careers’ and ‘roles’. Usually, those activities regarded as ‘successful’ call for the exhibition of the so-called ‘masculine’ qualities, whilst the crucial ‘feminine’ roles of housewife and mother are riddled with low expectation. Equally, many people unconsciously equate ‘role,’ ‘value’ and ‘gender’ with one another and hence, their sense of self-esteem and level of personal development may well be undermined by the limits of these ‘labels.’ This placing of comparative ‘value assignments’ on the two genders seriously threatens the integrity of the family and community and- as we see today- leads to divisive ness, chaos, weakening and the denigration of all…. end quote Can you say “Cultural Marxism”?

This patriarchal cultural system is what has given rise to extreme feminism and the male counterpart MGTOW (men going their own way). Talk about tearing a rift between us! Our race is nearing extinction and the last thing we need is our young men and women falling into one of these two unbalanced ideological traps caused by and based on the unnatural ideals of the patriarchy.

As we can plainly see the male dominance over the female, commonly known as the Patriarchy, originated in Semitic lands. It is not rooted in European society. No where in our Pre-Christian history is this mindset found. It is contrary to nature and the natural order and to our very survival as a race. No wonder it took almost 1500 years to “convert” Europe to Christianity and it is no wonder they had to use extreme measures (torture, death) to do so.

The Feminism MGTOW cure OdinismThe cure:

We must restore our natural, native belief system, Odinism, which includes a highly spiritual and naturally balanced view of all life. We must push aside those belief systems that no longer serve our folk, who’s only purpose is to sever our connections to our Gods, to each other, and to our natural world and which has enslaved us for almost 2,000 years. The time has come for our great awakening! Our Ancestors are calling us home!

Hail the Gods! Hail the Ancestors!


Sources: Wiki, European Queens, The Odinic Rite, Odinism Past Present and Future


The Story Of Slavery That Is Never Told

scene-from-a-jewish muslim-slave-market-of-white-women2-otto-pilny by Kenneth G. Poduska

Slavery ended throughout Europe well before 700 AD.  At that time the Moslems invaded Iberia and set up their occupation of a Christian country by force of the sword. The allies of the Moslems were the Jews; they both hated and preyed on Christians.  Jews had been allowed to live among us Christians so they were a primary source of information to the invading Moslems.  Jews translated the libraries the Moslems captured, and copied them from Latin and Greek into Arabic, taking considerable license in the translations. Jews also translated the spoken languages.  Jews ran the slave camps where young Christian Celt (Europeans) boys and girls were tortured, beaten, starved, and raped into submission and docility by Negro Moslems slave masters and the Jews themselves. These children broken into slaves were then used as workmen to build the Andalusian Culture and as Sex toys for the ruling elite, both Jew and Moslem. The Andalusian Culture with its intricate architecture, water gardens, and poetry was not a creation of Jews and Moslems.  It was already there when these brigands invaded the Celtic Christian Iberia.  Vandalusian Culture had been created by a combination of cultures from the Iberian Celts and the Vandals, a Slavic tribe of Goths, who were themselves Celts. Vandalusian became Andalusian.  When the Moors/Jews of Spain ran out of Christian Celts to enslave in Spain they started raiding the European sea shore villages, and into the interior of Europe by the river routes of France, Great Brittan, Ireland, Scotland, Freesia, Sweden, Denmark all the way to Iceland. The raids were carried out by Arab slave trader ships, ships financed and fitted out by the Jews who ran the slave trade, and it made them very wealthy.  It is a pretty safe bet that most Europeans have some ancestor who was a subject of this outrage.

This slave trading by the Moors/Jews of Spain lasted for almost 800 years and involved an estimated 4 million European boys and girls. In 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain pushed the last of the Moors/Jews out of Granada in Spain to North Africa, but the slave trading did not stop; the Barbary Coast Corsairs were financed by Jews who owned and outfitted the pirate/slave ships.  Jews also ran the slave pens in the Moroccan seaport of Sale’ whose evil purpose was the breaking of European peoples to slavery by the Negro Moslem Slave Masters the Jews employed.  The Jewish slave trading enterprise from Morocco that dealt in European slaves lasted from 1530 to 1830.  During this period of 300 years an estimated 1,250,000 European Christian boys and girls were taken into slavery including Americans taken from American ships who sailed the Mediterranean Sea.

This brings the estimated total of European Christian boys and girls taken by the Jewish/Moslems of Spain/Morocco to 5,250,000. White Slave Girl

However, Spain/Morocco was not the only base where Jews/Moslems preyed on European Christian boys and girls.  Beginning approximately 1100 AD the Moslems of Turkey preyed on the Eastern and Central European Christian boys and girls as well.  The same tribe of Sephardic Jews ran the Turkish slave pens and the slave markets where the European Christian boys and girls were broken into slaves and sold.

There are no known estimates of how many Central and Eastern European Christian boys and girls were taken but this involved land based warfare not just smash and grab coastal raids. The Turks despoiled everything in their line of March; this lasted from 1100 AD to 1923 AD when the modern state of Turkey was established. Before that the Turks marched into Anatolia, Greece, Crete, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Austria, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Georgia, Russia, Poland, and Germany; they took slaves from every village, town and city in their line of March. This had to be tens of thousands of settlements, it went on for over 800 years, the numbers had to at least equal the Spanish/Moroccan numbers but they could well be 10 times as large or 50,000,000. On the conservative side let’s say it is 5,250,000 to bring our estimated total to 10,500,000 European Christian Boys and girls taken by Jews/Moslems into abject slavery to die of all manner of abuse.

White European SlavesThis reply to a sexually perverted Jewish atheist, from the southern United States, is about his repeated charge “Christians invented Slavery”, in particular black slavery in the United States of America.

In 1517 Charles V of Germany became the new King of Spain; he was 17 years old. No sooner did he arrive in Spain when he was approached by a group of Sephardic Jews from Portugal with a proposition to solve his money problems by efficiently running the Spanish colonies in the New world, Central and South America, making them profitable by using African Slaves as a labor force.  The Jews pointed out the Christian Bible gave tacit approval to slavery and it would present the new Holy Roman Emperor, who was none other than Charles himself, the opportunity to teach the Africans to be Christians. The Jews of course would provide the African Slaves for sale.  There were 16 slave trading companies at the height of the Atlantic African slave trade, three of them were owned, on paper only, by European Christians.  There were two European Monarchs, England and France, and one European company, the Dutch West India Company for the Republic of Holland.  This collection was composed of two Protestant Christian countries, England and Holland, and one Catholic country, France. The remaining companies were Jewish owned; it was the Jews who had the contracts with the Black Moslem Kings who were selling their own people into slavery.  The slave hunters were Negro and Arab Muslims, a few were Jews, and a bare handful were renegade Europeans who had converted to Islam. There were 18 African slave trading ports, but most of the slave ships were owned by the Jewish slave companies or contracted to them.  It was the Jews who owned the slave pens throughout the Caribbean that broke the Africans to slavery, with torture, beatings, starvation and rape, the same as they did to the European Christian boys and girls. No independent European Christian Slave companies ever existed.

This does not mean Christian Europeans were without blame: The Holy Roman Emperor Charles the V agreed to buy African slaves from the Jews.  The Dominican friar, Bartolome de las Casas, chief Roman Catholic minister to the Spanish colonies, advocated for the use of African slaves to Charles V. The Apostolic Administrator of Spain Cardinal Bernardo Dovizi da Bibbiena approved the Spanish use of African slaves as did Pope Leo X in Rome.  The Portuguese Monarchy also bought slaves from the Jews, as did every European Nation in trade with the New World.

Eventually the Jews sold over 10,000,000 African slaves in the Americas, including North America, Central America, South America and the Caribbean, but only 80,000 slaves who were born in Africa were sold in the United States before importation of African Slaves was made illegal. However, because of prolific breeding, that 80,000, became 800,000 slaves by the time of the Civil War. Today the number is 37,000,000 descendants of African Slaves in the United States.

When comparing the Celt experience of the Jew/Muslim slave trade to the Negro experience there is a difference of 823 years for Celts to 246 years for Negroes. Celts spent 687 years longer than Negroes being preyed on by the Jew/Moslem slave traders. Negroes began with a population of 80,000 in the United States and have grown to 37,000,000.  All of the Celts who were forced into slavery by the Jew/Moslem slave trade who used Negro Moslems as slave masters, have no descendants they are for all purposes dead.

85% of the European Christians living in the United States of America arrived after the Civil War and had no opportunity to own any kind of slave. In fact about 2% of Europeans in the United States of America have an ancestor who ever owned an African Slave.  Perhaps all European Americans have some ancestor who was forced into slavery by the Moslem/Jew slave traders.

Fathers_of_the_Redemption**An interesting read about the Moroccan Jew/Moslem slave trade is the 2005 book edited and compiled by Giles Milton, entitled WHITE GOLD. The Extraordinary Story of Thomas Pellow and Islam’s One million White Slaves. It is the true story of Thomas Pellow a Cornish cabin boy who was forced into Moslem/Jew slavery in Morocco from 1713 to 1736; his memories were published in London in 1739.

In the back of the book you will find a bibliography of many more documentary and non-fiction books on the enslavement of European boys and girls, by the Moslem/Jew slave trade.

More Info: White Slaves, African Masters: An Anthology of American Barbary Captivity Narratives by Paul Baepler


“White Privilege” is a Totally Fabricated Conspiracy Theory to Encourage Hatred of White People


, , , , , , , , , , ,

White Privilege

New York Times income research shatters “white privilege” hoax

We originally reported this in 2012. However, it is important to bring it back up as the media is now pushing “white privilege” conspiracy theories on a national level.

NY Times White Privilege

According to the New York Times, the income gap between Reform Jews and Hindus vs. the rest of America is greater than the income gap between blacks and whites. According the radical leftists like Tim Wise, himself an extremely wealthy Reform Jew, “privileged” population groups should relinquish their wealth. Tim Wise continues to make more money by advocating his extreme race-based Marxism, but has yet to lead by example.

According to the New York Times, Reform Jews and Hindus are dramatically more likely to have household incomes over $75k than members of other religions. This gap is far greater than the income gap between any two racial groups. Conservative Jews and Anglicans are also very high.

Obviously there are reasons for this, some of which are pretty controversial. The Hindu gap is easy to nail down. Most Indians who have come to the United States are from the top performers of a nation of over one billion. The Federal government then gives them taxpayer backed business loans to buy motels, gas stations, etc. Regular US citizens do not have access to the special benefits and tax breaks given to immigrants. They pay no Federal taxes or social security for the first five years. Often the ownership of their businesses is transferred to a new relative before they have to start paying taxes.

When you have the best and the brightest of a nation of over one billion, and then give them dramatic special financial benefits not afforded to the native born, it is easy to see why Hindus are at the top. Buddhists are performing above the average for the same reason.

The data highlights just how bad native born Americans are being screwed by the massive giveaway to immigrants through taxpayer backed small business loans to immigrants.

Nailing down the reasons for the high incomes of Jews is more complicated. However, the fact that Ashkenazi (German) Jews have been a merchant class for at least 1,000 years is undoubtedly the leading factor. Ashkenazi Jews are also the top performers, on average, on IQ tests. Prior to WWII Ashkenazi Jews had achieved higher incomes than their non-Jewish countrymen in German, Hungary, and other places.

At the bottom of the list is Jehovah’s Witnesses, Pentecostals, and Baptists. All three of these denominations have a large percentage of black followers, as well as poorer rural whites.

The New York Times seems to suggest in their article that Jews and Hindus have become a privileged class with unfair advantages. Read Article from New York Times.

Stefan Molyneux breaks down the shocking historical facts behind ‘white privilege’ and discusses the recent debate between Jon Stewart of The Daily Show and Bill O’Reilly of the O’Reilly Factor. 

Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance, discusses the concept of “white privilege”–where it came from, what it means, and why it’s absurd.

Why Are The Jews The Hardest Pushers of White Privilege?

Let me begin by saying that there is nothing more that I find agitating than those who suffer from Judeocephalus, which we define as those who obsessively bash Jews or say that there is a Jew under every rock. While not denying their disproportionate control over major institutions of our society such as the media and academia, I also think it is foolish to assume that every Jewish person is a part of some elaborate conspiracy to “destroy the White race.”

But, you see, sometimes it is just so patently obvious that you cannot deny it, you cannot make any excuses, you just need to tell it how it is.

And this is the case with this myth or “White privilege.”

It has become painfully obvious that the major pushers of this pseudointellectual nonsense known as “White privilege” are absolutely Jewish. Now sure, their underlings, namely the impressionable White idiots on college campuses parrot the memes coming from behind the tenured professor’s podium but this starts and ends with the Jewish people.

Here are some key names and pushers of White privilege in America and as a disclaimer, I want you to know that I did not do any “deep digging” on Google to trace “White Privilege” back to Jewish folks. All I did was go to its Wikipedia page and look around for lectures on White privilege and came up with these names that were in plain sight.

Here are some of the people, the Jews, you need to know promoting this garbage that is putting the youth of our race in some kind of self-flagellating neurosis.

1. Tim Jacob Wise.

Okay so we all know this one already. Tim is a quick-talking steadfast Marxist activist who was pushing forced integration as far back as the South African apartheid days when he supported the anti-White terrorist ANC party. He has authored a number of poorly-written essay books about race citing statistics that are misinterpreted to try to manipulate Whites into thinking that Black-on-White interracial violence is a non-issue.

He went about thirty years of activism before being called out for his Jewishness. It wasn’t until recent times when he became a professional “anti racist” and attracted the attention of White advocates that he was called out for his Jewishness (he only admits to his paternal grandfather being Jewish). He, as you would imagine, dismisses this as a non-issue and “anti-semitic” if it is brought up. He sees Jewish people as ordinary Whites when perpetrating in what his opinion is racist behavior.

He has no psychological or sociological credentials. He owns a BA in Political Science.

2. George Lipsitz

Lipsitz is one of those names that you are probably not familiar with. He is a professor of “Black studies” at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Lipsitz promotes the idea that White people transfer their alleged wealth through a system of racism to hold down non-White people and that non-White people fail to achieve not because their do not have the same knowledge, skills and/or aptitudes as Whites but instead because White people hold them down. He also alleges that “Whiteness” is a form of property, not racial characteristics.

3. Noel Ignatiev

Noel Ignatiev is a Jewish Marxist former history professor with a long track record of involvement in communist movements throughout his entire life. We’ll let him show his own hatred of Whites: 

4. Thomas Shapiro

Shapiro is a Jewish, sociology professor at the historically Jewish Brandeis University. He, like Wise, has a track record of dismissing bad Black behavior as not an attribute of the Black race but rather as a consequence of White people being White. He says “The wealth gap is not just a story of merit and achievement, it’s also a story of the historical legacy of race in the United States.”

5. Stephanie Wildman

Wildman is a Jewish, professor of law at Santa Clara law school who wrote an entire academic paper on “White privilege” titled “The Persistence of White Privilege” in which the abstract reads:

“Most discussions of white privilege emphasize the individual benefit to the holder of privilege. Yet dynamics beyond the individual combine to reinforce and reinvent white privilege. Socio-cultural factors operate in conjunction with material forces, enabling whites to self-perpetuate as a dominant racialized identity. Material forces such as the distribution of societal goods and resources, the division of labor, and immigration policies, create a world that privileges whiteness. Socio-cultural factors, including discursive practices, patterns of behavior, and the thinking patterns that language creates, further strengthen white privilege, contributing to its endurance. ”

6. David Pakman

Pakman is a radio talk show host who has a strong YouTube presence and is an Ashkenazi Jew (according to Wikipedia) born in Argentina. Pakman has repeatedly referenced “White privilege” and is a staunch ideological Marxist.

Recently, Pakman interviewed Tim Wise (#1) and all-but-begged him for advice on how to indoctrinate Whites with the idea of “White privilege.” 

The list can go on and on but I would much prefer to break down the “White Privilege” promoters into four distinct classes.

1. The Frontmen

These are people like Tim Wise. Although there are anecdotes and mentions of “White privilege” on television shows it is mostly from militant anti-White Blacks like Michael Eric Dyson and Melissa Harris-Perry. By default this class is primarily Jewish because Tim is the leading promoter of White privilege.

2. The Academics

A nice portion of our list above are academic-type people. We have omitted at least 5 major names, most of which are Jewish, that are responsible for manipulating statistics and creating experiments to generate the results they want to see. Either that or they outright abstain from using common sense and dig deep to find reasons to blame White people for non-White behavior.

3. The Middlemen

These are people in the media, the student campus groups, and other people who control means of distribution to provide a platform for pushes of “White Privilege.”

4. The Idiots

These are the people who parrot the memes of their Marxist idols. They are the Whites that fall into this trap and the Whites that insist you “check your privilege.” They are the suicidal people who want to hand over their inheritance and their hard work to people who do not work anywhere as near as hard as they do.

So what is the reason for all of this? We know that Jewish people have been focal points in the Civil Rights movement, (we’ll take it from their sources so we can watch them brag themselves into a corner) and we all know how well that has turned out with record levels of poverty and interracial violence. So why are Jewish people pushing White privilege so hard?

I don’t think that it would be neither wise or unwise to propose that some of these people do have a desire to eliminate White people but lets offer a better solution.

I think that because Jewish people have a holocaust attached to their name (and no, lets not debate that right now) they feel the constant need of victimhood. They have been told their entire lives that they are victims and six million were gassed during the second world war and so on. Have a listen to this really interesting interview with Jewish media personality Jerry Springer who is best known for promoting trash television. He explains why he has always stood with “Civil rights” and explains its ties to his Jewishness.

Matthew Lyon: White Slave in the American Revolution


, , , , , , ,


During the American Revolution the Continental Congress, desperate for fighting manpower, permitted the recruitment of White slaves into the army, which was tantamount to granting them their freedom. This was not particularly radical however, in view of the fact that “four score and seven years” before Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Lord Dunmore, the Royal Governor of Virginia, freed the negroes in his jurisdiction in the hope they would join the “Ethiopian Regiment” he had formed and fight the patriots.

In 1765, a fourteen year old Irish lad, Matthew Lyon, was orphaned when hisWhite Slave Matthew Lyon father was executed along with other leaders of the “White Boys,” an Irish farmer’s association organized to resist British government confiscation of their farmlands. The boy was enslaved and transported to America where he was purchased by a wealthy Connecticut merchant. 9

Later he was made to endure the shame of being sold to another master in exchange for two deer “which was a source of no end of scoffs and jeers” at Lyon’s “irreparable disgrace of being sold for a pair of stags.”

The colonies of Rhode Island, New Jersey and Maryland declared White slaves eligible to enlist in the Continental Army without their master’s consent. Though such decrees had the effect of granting the freedom of those slaves who fought, the American Revolution did not result in a prohibition of the institution of White slavery itself. In rhetoric it was conceded that White slavery was “contrary to the idea of liberty” but the system remained profitable and many Southern and middle colony White slaves had not been allowed to join the Revolutionary Army and they remained in bondage.

In the spring of 1775 Matthew Lyon had taken advantage of the manpower shortage of the American Revolution and joined an obscure, ragtag band of guerrilla fighters. Lyon and his fellow rebels were destined to enter the annalsEthan Allen captures Fort Ticonderoga of historical fame when not long afterward they appeared out of nowhere at Ticonderoga in northern New York where their commander, Ethan Allen, demanded the surrender of the mighty British fort. Matthew Lyon had joined the Green Mountain Boys.

“Eighty five of us,” Lyon would later recall with pride, “took from one hundred and forty British veterans the Fort Ticonderoga.” The guns, cannon and ammunition obtained at Ticonderoga would supply the American army throughout the war.

The former slave boy Matthew Lyon rose to the rank of colonel in Ethan Allen’s militia and fought the British at the battles of Bennington and green mountian boys uniformsSaratoga. One of the founders of the state of Vermont, he was elected to its assembly and later to the U.S. Congress, where the eponymous firebrand wrestled a Federalist on the floor of the House of Representatives.

He was the first American to be indicted under President John Adams’ Sedition Act, for publishing material against central Federal government and Adams. While awaiting trial, Lyon commenced publication of Lyon’s Republican Magazine, subtitled “The Scourge of Aristocracy”. At trial, he was fined $1,000 and sentenced to four months in jail.10 Forced to run for Congress from a jail cell, Lyon was overwhelmingly re-elected and returned to a tumultuous hero’s welcome in Vermont.

Lyon moved to Kentucky in 1801 and settled in Livingston County, Kentucky (later Caldwell County and now Lyon County). He became a member of the Kentucky House of Representatives in 1802 and was elected to the Eighth and to the three succeeding Congresses (March 4, 1803 – March 3, 1811). He was an unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1810 to the Twelfth Congress. Lyon died in Spadra Bluff, Arkansas (near Clarksville) on August 1, 1822. He was initially interred in Spadra Bluff Cemetery, and in 1833 he was reinterred in Eddyville Cemetery in Eddyville, Kentucky. 11

Matthew Lyon Grave

The importation of White slaves was resumed after the American Revolution on much the same basis as it had existed before, with the exception of convict slave-labor. In 1788 the Continental Congress urged the states to ban the importation of convict slave labor.


“…the (Irish) peasant resorted to violence in self-protection, to resist the sometimes impossible demands of (the) landlord… to keep his miserable little plot of land— his only safeguard against starvation… The White-Boy Associations were in a sense, a ‘vast trades union for the protection of the Irish peasantry…’” (Shaw, pp. 172-174).  

10 & 11 Wikipedia

They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America by Michael Hoffman. Buy the book here or here.

White Slavery, what the Scots already know

White child slaves

by Kelly d. Whittaker

A famous history professor stated that history was not a science but a continuing investigation into the past; a person’s conclusion is based on their own bias.  This story will offer evidence that the Alba, Scots, Irish and Pics have been the longest race held in slavery.  The reader will be responsible for their own bias pertaining to White Slavery.

Alexander Stewart was herded off the Gildart in July of 1747, bound with chains.  Stewart was pushed onto the auction block in Wecomica, St Mary’s County, Maryland.  Doctor Stewart and his brother William were attending the auction, aware of Alexander being on that slave ship coming from Liverpool England.  Doctor Stewart and William were residents of Annapolis and brothers to David of Ballachalun in Montieth, Scotland.  The two brothers paid nine pound six shillings sterling to Mr. Benedict Callvert of Annapolis for the purchase of Alexander.  He was a slave.  Alexander tells of the other 88 Scots sold into slavery that day in “THE LYON IN MOURNING” pages 242-243.

Jeremiah Howell was a lifetime-indentured servant by his uncle in Lewis County, Virginia in the early 1700’s.  His son, Jeremiah, won his freedom by fighting in the Revolution.  There were hundreds of thousands of Scots sold into slavery during Colonial America.  White slavery to the American Colonies occurred as early as 1630 in Scotland.

According to the Egerton manuscript, British Museum, the enactment of 1652: it may be lawful for two or more  justices of the peace within any county, citty or towne, corporate belonging to the commonwealth to from tyme to tyme by warrant cause to be apprehended, seized on and detained all and every person or persons that shall be found begging and vagrant.. in any towne, parish or place to be conveyed into the Port of London, or unto any other port from where such person or persons may be shipped into a forraign collonie or plantation.

The judges of Edinburgh Scotland during the years 1662-1665 ordered the enslavement and shipment to the colonies a large number of rogues and others who made life unpleasant for the British upper class.  (Register for the Privy Council of Scotland, third series, vol. 1, p 181, vol. 2, p 101).

The above accounting sounds horrific but slavery was what the Scots have survived for a thousand years.  The early ancestors of the Scots, Alba and Pics were enslaved as early as the first century BC.  Varro, a Roman philosopher stated in his agricultural manuscripts that white slaves were only things with a voice or instrumenti vocali.  Julius Caesar enslaves as many as one million whites from Gaul.  (William D Phillips, Jr.  SLAVERY FROM ROMAN TIMES TO EARLY TRANSATLANTIC TRADE, p. 18).

Pope Gregory in the sixth century first witnessed blonde hair, blue eyed boys awaiting sale in a Roman slave market.  The Romans enslaved thousands of white inhabitants of Great Britain, who were also known as Angles.  Pope Gregory was very interested in the looks of these boys therefore asking their origin.  He was told they were Angles from Briton.  Gregory stated, “Non Angli, sed Angeli.”  (Not Angles but Angels).

The eighth to the eleventh centuries proved to be very profitable for Rouen France.  Rouen was the transfer point of Irish and Flemish slaves to the Arabian nations.  The early centuries AD the Scottish were known as Irish. William Phillips on page 63 states that the major component of slave trade in the eleventh century were the Vikings.  They spirited many ‘Irish’ to Spain, Scandinavia and Russia.  Legends have it; some ‘Irish’ may have been taken as far as Constantinople.

Ruth Mazo Karras wrote in her book, “SLAVERY AND SOCIETY IN MEDEIVEL SCANDINAVIA” pg. 49; Norwegian Vikings made slave raids not only against the Irish and Scots (who were often called Irish in Norse sources) but also against Norse settlers in Ireland or Scottish Isles or even in Norway itself…slave trading was a major commercial activity of the Viking Age.  The children of the White slaves in Iceland were routinely murdered en masse. (Karras pg 52)

According to these resources as well as many more, the Scots-Irish have been enslaved longer than any other race in the world’s history.  Most governments do not teach White Slavery in their World History classes. Children of modern times are only taught about the African slave trade.  The Scots do not need to be taught because they are very aware of the atrocities upon an enslaved race.  Most importantly, we have survived to become one to the largest races on Earth!!!

White Slavery in America

The topic of this story is a sensitive one yet one of great importance.  White slavery in America was real. There are many documents that verify the bondage, kidnapping and transporting of Brits to the Colonies as slaves.  The importance of this story will help those who cannot find a ship passenger list on their ancestor.  This story may not pertain to all who came to America that are not listed on ship passenger lists.

The Journal of Negro History #52 pp.251-273 states, “The sources of racial thought in Colonial America pertaining to slave trade worked both directions with white merchandise as well as black.”

Thomas Burton recorded in his Parliament Diary 1656-1659 vol. 4 pp. 253-274 a debate in the English Parliament focusing on the selling of British whites into slavery in the New World.  The debate refers to whites as slaves ‘whose enslavement threatened the liberties of all Englishmen.’

The British government had realized as early as the 1640’s how beneficial white slave labor was to the profiting colonial plantations.  Slavery was instituted as early as 1627 in the British West Indies.  The Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series of 1701 records 25000 slaves in Barbados in which 21700 were white slaves.

George Downing wrote a letter to the honorable John Winthrop Colonial Governor of Massachusetts in 1645, “planters who want to make a fortune in the West Indies must procure white slave labor out of England if they wanted to succeed.”  Lewis Cecil Gray’s History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860 vol.1 pp 316, 318 records Sir George Sandys’ 1618 plan for Virginia, referring to bound whites assigned to the treasurer’s office. “To belong to said office forever.  The service of whites bound to Berkeley Hundred was deemed perpetual.”

The Quoke Walker case in Massachusetts 1773 ruled that; slavery contrary to the state Constitution was applied equally to Blacks and Whites in Massachusetts.

Statutes at Large of Virginia, vol. 1 pp. 174, 198, 200, 243 & 306 did not discriminate Negroes in bondage from Whites in Bondage.

Marcellus Rivers and Oxenbridge Foyle, England’s Slaves 1659 consists of a statement smuggled out of the New World and published in London referring to whites in bondage who did not think of themselves as indentured servants but as “England’s Slaves” and “England’s merchandise.”

Colonial Office, Public Records Office, London 1667, no. 170 records that “even Blacks referred to the White forced laborers in the colonies as “white slaves.”  Pages 343 through 346 of Historical Sketch of the Persecutions Suffered by the Catholics of Ireland by; Patrick F. Moran refers to the transportation of the Irish to the colonies as the “slave-trade.”

Ulrich B. Phillips, Life and Labor in the Old South explain that white enslavement was crucial to the development of the Negro slave system.  The system set up for the white slaves governed, organized and controlled the system for the black slaves.  Black slaves were “late comers fitted into a system already developed.”  Pp 25-26.  John Pory declared in 1619, “white slaves are our principle wealth.”

The above quotations from various authors are just the tip of the iceberg on the white slave trade of the Americas.  People from the British Isles were kidnapped, put in chains and crammed into ships that transported hundreds of them at a time.  Their destination was Virginia Boston, New York, Barbados and the West Indies.  The white slaves were treated the same or worse than the black slave.  The white slave did not fetch a good price at the auction blocks.  Bridenbaugh wrote in his accounting on page 118, having paid a bigger price for the Negro, the planters treated the black better than they did their “Christian” white servant.  Even the Negroes recognized this and did not hesitate to show their contempt for those white men who, they could see, were worse off than themselves.

Governments have allowed this part of American and British history to be swallowed up.  The contemptible black slavery has taken a grip on people associated with American History.  Yet, no one will tell of these accountings that are well established on to the middle 1800’s. 

Slavery is not something to be proud of but it is a fact that happened to every country, kingdom and empire that has been on this earth.  Each of us needs to search our hearts and find the answer to stop racial hatred.  One place to begin; realize that the black race was not the only race in the last 400 years that was in bondage.

White Slave



by Jared Taylor

Today, the United States officially takes the position that all races are equal. Our country is also committed―legally and morally―to the view that race is not a fit criterion for decision-making of any kind, except for promoting “diversity” or for the purpose of redressing past wrongs done by Whites to non-Whites.

Many Americans cite the “all men are created equal” phrase from the Declaration of Independence to support the claim that this view of race was not only inevitable but was anticipated by the Founders. Interestingly, prominent conservatives and Tea Party favorites like Michele Bachman and Glenn Beck have taken this notion a step further and asserted that today’s racial egalitarianism was the nation’s goal from its very first days.

They are badly mistaken.

Since early colonial times, and until just a few decades ago, virtually all Whites believed race was a fundamental aspect of individual and group identity. They believed people of different races had different temperaments and abilities, and built markedly different societies. They believed that only people of European stock could maintain a society in which they would wish to live, and they strongly opposed miscegenation. For more than 300 years, therefore, American policy reflected a consensus on race that was the very opposite of what prevails today.

Those who would impute egalitarianism to the Founders should recall that in 1776, the year of the Declaration, race slavery was already more than 150 years old in North America and was practiced throughout the New World, from Canada to Chile. In 1770, 40 percent of White households in Manhattan owned slaves. It was true that many of the Founders considered slavery a terrible injustice and hoped to abolish it, but they meant to expel the freed slaves from the United States, not to live with them in equality.

Thomas Jefferson’s views were typical of his generation. Despite what he wrote in the Declaration, he did not think Blacks were equal to Whites, noting that “in general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection.” He hoped slavery would be abolished some day, but “when freed, he [the Negro] is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.” Jefferson also expected whites eventually to displace all of the Indians of the New World. The United States, he wrote, was to be “the nest from which all America, North and South, is to be peopled,” and the hemisphere was to be entirely European: “… nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface.”

Jefferson opposed miscegenation for a number of reasons, but one was his preference for the physical traits of Whites. He wrote of their “flowing hair” and their “more elegant symmetry of form,” but emphasized the importance of color itself: “Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one [whites], preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of black, which covers all the emotions of the other race?”…

James Madison agreed with Jefferson that the only solution to the race problem was to free the slaves and expel them: “To be consistent with existing and probably unalterable prejudices in the U.S. freed blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by or allotted to a White population.” He proposed that the federal government buy up the entire slave population and transport it overseas. After two terms in office, he served as chief executive of the American Colonization Society, which was established to repatriate Blacks.

Benjamin Franklin wrote little about race, but had a sense of racial loyalty that was typical of his time: “[T]he Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably [sic] very small… . I could wish their Numbers were increased…. But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.”

Franklin therefore opposed bringing more Blacks to the United States: “[W]hy increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America?”

John Dickinson was a Delaware delegate to the constitutional convention and wrote so effectively in favor of independence that he is known as the “Penman of the Revolution.” As was common in his time, he believed that homogeneity, not diversity, was the new republic’s greatest strength: “Where was there ever a confederacy of republics united as these states are…or, in which the people were so drawn together by religion, blood, language, manners, and customs?”

Dickinson’s views were echoed in the second of The Federalist Papers, in which John Jay gave thanks that “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people,” a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.”

After the Constitution was ratified in 1788, Americans had to decide who they would allow to become part of their new country. The very first citizenship law, passed in 1790, specified that only “free white persons” could be naturalized, and immigration laws designed to keep the country overwhelmingly white were repealed only in 1965.

Alexander Hamilton was suspicious even of European immigrants, writing that “the influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.” John Quincy Adams explained to a German nobleman that if Europeans were to immigrate, “they must cast off the European skin, never to resume it.” Neither man would have countenanced immigration of non-Whites.

Blacks, even if free, could not be citizens of the United States until ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. The question of their citizenship arose during the Missouri crisis of 1820 to 1821. The Missouri constitution barred the immigration of Blacks, and some northern critics said that to prevent Blacks who were citizens of other states from moving to Missouri deprived them of protection under the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution. The author of that clause, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, was still alive, and denied that he, or any other Framer, intended the clause to apply to Blacks: “I perfectly knew that there did not then exist such a thing in the Union as a black or colored citizen, nor could I then have conceived it possible such a thing could have ever existed in it.”


Today, it is common to think of the antebellum North as united in the desire to free the slaves and to establish them as the social and political equals of Whites. Again, this is a distorted view. First of all, slavery persisted in the North well into the post-Revolutionary period. It was not abolished in New York State until 1827, and it continued in Connecticut until 1848.

Nor was abolitionist sentiment anything close to universal. Many Northerners opposed abolition because they feared it would lead to race mixing. The easiest way to stir up opposition to Northern abolitionists was to claim that what they were really promoting was intermarriage. Many abolitionists expressed strong disapproval of miscegenation, but the fact that speakers at abolitionist meetings addressed racially mixed audiences was sufficiently shocking to make any charge believable. There were no fewer than 165 anti-abolition riots in the North during the 1820s alone, almost all of them prompted by the fear that abolition would lead to intermarriage.

The 1830s saw further violence. On July 4, 1834, the American Anti-Slavery Society read its Declaration of Sentiments to a mixed-race audience in New York City. Rioters then broke up the meeting and went on a rampage that lasted 11 days. The National Guard managed to bring peace only after the society issued a “Disclaimer,” the first point of which was: “We entirely disclaim any desire to promote or encourage intermarriages between white and colored persons.”

Philadelphia suffered a serious riot in 1838 after abolitionists, who had had trouble renting space to hold their meetings, built their own building. On May 17, the last day of a three-day dedication ceremony, several thousand people—many of high social standing—gathered at the hall and burned it down while the fire department stood by and did nothing.

Sentiment against Blacks was so strong that many Northern Whites supported abolition only if it was linked, as Jefferson and Madison had proposed, to plans to deport or “colonize” Blacks. Most abolitionist activism therefore reflected a deep conviction that slavery was wrong, but not a desire to establish Blacks as social and political equals. William Lloyd Garrison and Angelina and Sarah Grimké favored equal treatment for Blacks in all respects, but theirs was very much a minority view. Henry Ward Beecher, brother of Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin, expressed the majority view: “Do your duty first to the colored people here; educate them, Christianize them, and then colonize them.”

The American Colonization Society was only the best known of many organizations founded for the purpose of removing Blacks from North America. At its inaugural meeting in 1816, Henry Clay described its purpose: to “rid our country of a useless and pernicious, if not dangerous portion of the population.”  The following prominent Americans were not just members but served as officers of the society: James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen Douglas, William Seward, Francis Scott Key, Winfield Scott, John Marshall, and Roger Taney. James Monroe, another President who owned slaves, worked so tirelessly in the cause of “colonization” that the capital of Liberia is named Monrovia in recognition of his efforts.

Early Americans wrote their opposition to miscegenation into law. Between 1661 and 1725, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and all the southern colonies passed laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage and, in some cases, fornication.  Of the 50 states, no fewer than 44 had laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage at some point in their past.  Many Northern Whites were horrified to discover that some Southern slave owners had Black concubines. When Bostonian Josiah Quincy wrote an account of his 1773 tour of South Carolina, he professed himself shocked to learn that a “gentleman” could have relations with a “negro or mulatto woman.”

Massachusetts prohibited miscegenation from 1705 to 1843, but repealed the ban only because most people thought it was unnecessary.  The new law noted that inter-racial relations were “evidence of vicious feeling, bad taste, and personal degradation,” so were unlikely to be so common as to become a problem.

The history of the franchise reflects a clear conception of the United States as a nation ruled by and for Whites. Every state that entered the Union between 1819 and the Civil War denied Blacks the vote. In 1855, Blacks could vote only in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island, which together accounted for only four percent of the nation’s Black population. The federal government prohibited free Blacks from voting in the territories it controlled.

Several states that were established before the Civil War hoped to avoid race problems by remaining all White. The people of the Oregon Territory, for example, voted not to permit slavery, but voted in even greater numbers not to permit Blacks in the state at all. In language that survived until 2002, Oregon’s 1857 constitution provided that “[n]o free negro, or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall come, reside, or be within this State, or hold any real estate.”

Despite Charles Pinckney’s confirmation in 1821 that no Black could be an American citizen, the question was taken up in the famous Dred Scottdecision of 1857. The seven-to-two decision held that although they could be citizens of states, Blacks were not citizens of the United States and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. Roger Taney, the chief justice who wrote the majority decision, noted that slavery arose out of an ancient American conviction about Negroes:

“They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.   Abraham Lincoln’s time was well beyond the era of the Founders, but many Americans believe it was “the Great Emancipator” who finally brought the egalitarian vision of Jefferson’s generation to fruition.”

Again, they are mistaken.

Lincoln considered Blacks to be—in his words—“a troublesome presence” in the United States.

Abraham Lincoln Was Almost Beaten To Death By Black Thugs Before Becoming President 

During the Lincoln-Douglas debates Lincoln stated: “I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

His opponent Stephen Douglas was even more outspoken (in what follows, audience responses are recorded by the Chicago Daily Times, a Democratic paper): “For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any form. [Cheers—Times] I believe that this government was made on the white basis. [‘Good,’—Times] I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining the citizenship to white men—men of European birth and European descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes and Indians, and other inferior races. [‘Good for you. Douglas forever,’—Times]

Douglas, who was the more firmly anti-Black of the two candidates, won the election….

[The Forgotten Cause Of The Civil War : Protectionism, Free Trade, and the Civil War : White Slavery in America]

On August 14th, 1862, Lincoln invited a group of free Black leaders to the White House to tell them, “there is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us.” He urged them to lead others of their race to a colonization site in Central America.  Lincoln was the first president to invite a delegation of Blacks to the White House—and he did so to ask them to leave the country. Later that year, in a message to Congress, he argued not just for voluntary colonization but for the forcible removal of free Blacks.


The record from colonial times through the end of the Civil War is therefore one of starkly inegalitarian views. The idea of colonizing Blacks was eventually abandoned as too costly, but until the second half of the 20th century, it would be very hard to find a prominent American who spoke about race in today’s terms.

Blacks were at the center of early American thinking about race because of the vexed question of slavery and because Blacks lived among Whites. Indians, of course, had always been present, but were of less concern. They fought rearguard actions, but generally withdrew as Whites settled the continent. When they did not withdraw, they were forced onto reservations. After the slaves were freed, Indians were legally more disadvantaged than Blacks, since they were not considered part of the United States at all. In 1884, the Supreme Court officially determined that the 14th Amendment did not confer citizenship on Indians associated with tribes. They did not receive citizenship until an act of Congress in 1924.  The traditional American view—Mark Twain called the Indian “a good, fair, desirable subject for extermination if ever there was one” —cannot be retroactively transformed into incipient egalitarianism and celebration of diversity.

There was similar disdain for Asians. State and federal laws excluded them from citizenship, and as late as 1914 the Supreme Court ruled that the states could deny naturalization to Asians. Nor was the urge to exclude Asians limited to conservatives. At the 1910 Socialist Party Congress, the Committee on Immigration called for the “unconditional exclusion” of Chinese and Japanese on the grounds that America already had problems enough with Negroes. 

Samuel Gompers, the most famous labor leader in American history, fought to improve the lives of working people, but Whites were his first priority:

It must be clear to every thinking man and woman that while there is hardly a single reason for the admission of Asiatics, there are hundreds of good and strong reasons for their absolute exclusion.”

The ban on Chinese immigration and naturalization continued until 1943, when Congress established a Chinese immigration quota—of 105 people a year.

Even if we restrict the field to American Presidents—a group notoriously disinclined to say anything controversial—we find that Jefferson’s and Lincoln’s thinking of race continued well into the modern era.

James Garfield wrote,

[I have] a strong feeling of repugnance when I think of the negro being made our political equal and I would be glad if they could be colonized, sent to heaven, or got rid of in any decent way.

Theodore Roosevelt wrote in 1901 that he had “not been able to think out any solution to the terrible problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent.”  As for Indians, he once said, “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t inquire too closely into the health of the tenth.”

William Howard Taft once told a group of Black college students, “Your race is adapted to be a race of farmers, first, last, and for all times.”

Woodrow Wilson was a confirmed segregationist, and as President of Princeton he refused to admit Blacks. He enforced segregation in government offices and favored exclusion of Asians: “We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race… . Oriental coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson.”

Warren Harding wanted the races separate: “Men of both races [Black and White] may well stand uncompromisingly against every suggestion of social equality. This is not a question of social equality, but a question of recognizing a fundamental, eternal, inescapable difference. Racial amalgamation there cannot be.”

In 1921, Vice President-elect Calvin Coolidge wrote in Good Housekeepingabout the basis for sound immigration policy:

There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend…. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.

Harry Truman wrote: “I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.” He also referred to the Blacks on the White House staff as “an army of coons.”

As recent a President as Dwight Eisenhower argued that although it might be necessary to grant Blacks certain political rights, this did not mean social equality “or that a Negro should court my daughter.” It is only with John Kennedy that we finally find a president whose conception of race begins to be acceptable by today’s standards.

Today’s egalitarians are therefore radical dissenters from traditional American thinking. A conception of America as a nation of people with common values, culture, and heritage is far more faithful to vision of the founders.


The Final Solution: The 1941 Plan To Exterminate The Germans To Today’s White Genocide


, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Germany White Genocide

In 1941 a plan was designed to exterminate the Germans, was that plan extended to all Whites today? If trends continue, in fifty years there will be no White majority countries left on earth for Whites to persevere their race and heritage.

The Final Solution Exterminate the Germans – Ernst Zundel

‘Theodore N. Kaufman, the author of Germany Must Perish, was a Manhattan-born jewish businessman who was also chairman of a group that called itself the “American Federation for Peace.” The first edition of this slim volume was published in 1940 or early 1941. A second, 96-page edition, which sold for 25 cents, was published in 1941 by Argyle Press of Newark, New Jersey. Both editions were issued when the United States was still officially neutral, that is, before the Pearl Harbor attack of December 7, 1941, that brought the U.S. openly into World War II. Kaufman’s fervent proposal for the systematic sterilization of the entire German population was given respectful attention in the American press, including reviews in a number of newspapers. A review in the weekly Time magazine, March 24, 1941, called Kaufman’s plan a “sensational idea.”’ Read More

“If what we are doing (to the Germans) is ‘Liberty, then give me death.’ I can’t see how Americans can sink so low.” – General Patton (Hellstorm)

‘In 1945 some particularly clever American Jews published the occupation guidebook WHAT TO DO WITH GERMANY 1945. DISTRIBUTED BY SPECIAL SERVICE DIVISION, ARMY SERVICE FORCES, U.S. ARMY. The directive was based on a book of the same title by Louis Nizer, which was published in 1944 and is posted on the Internet. Nizer, a wealthy Jewish lawyer from New York with close ties to the White House,  was a colleague of Theodore Kaufmann, author of GERMANY MUST PERISH, and of Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury and the author of the Morgenthau Plan. In a version of “Hard Cop – Soft Cop” Nizer argued that instead of de-industrializing Germany and reducing its population through starvation and sterilization, the USA should benevolently lobotomize the Germans culturally, educationally and psychologically. Read More

White Genocide: The Evidence Explained

Today White people, globally, are facing three of the eight stages that lead to genocide.

Stage 1 is “Classification”; All cultures have categories to distinguish people White Genocide1into “us and them” by ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality… In Western culture if you oppose White genocide anti-Whites scream “racist!” and position themselves as “anti-racist”. They also call themselves “progressive”, and “pro-humanity”, and they call opposition to White genocide “backwards”, “bigoted”, and “not pro-humanity”. No matter where you go; in courts, in government, in media, in schools – this is the standard that everyone must accept – or they are “them” – a “racist-bigot-nazi”, which in many circumstances can get you beaten up, fired, sued, fined, or harmed in some way. This is a clear example of an “us and them” mentality that anti-Whites have donned.

Stage 2 is “Symbolization”; we give names or symbols to the groups of people if we can distinguish them from another group; and apply the symbols to members of groups. Classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily result in genocide unless they lead to the next stage, dehumanization. White people are distinguished A/ by the way we look, and B/ by the fact that our ancestors came from Europe (same DNA).

Stage 3 is “Dehumanization”, where one group denies the humanity of Genocideanother group, often comparing them to animals, vermin, demons, diseases, etc. At this stage media outlets might be producing propaganda to abuse and vilify the target group. Author, Susan Sontag said “the White race is the cancer of history”, and Tim Wise said “[White people] you’re on the endangered list. And unlike, say, the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving.”, in fact there are many, many more quotes like this. Racial epithets like “White devil”, along with all the others, attempts to strip White people of our humanity. You can read all the countless media reports that talk about “White privilege” – and all of them refuse to dwell in simple logic about why there is this “privilege”.

[White Privilege Conference: My diversity trainer openly advocated genocide against White people. The Hardest Pushers of White Privilege]

When you say “there are no racial differences”, well firstly, you are saying that GENOCIDE is impossible, Genos = race, people. Cide = to kill. . . and secondly, you are holding everyone to the same standard. Now if you are holding everyone to the same standard, and each group does better at certain things either these groups must have some kind of a “privilege” in the fields they do best at . . . or . . . your logic is just plain wrong.

Stage 4, “Organization of genocide”, is slowly coming into effect, where majority White areas are deemed “too White”; referencing Marin County California, and “must become more diverse”. Uncle Barack to Punish White Neighborhoods For Lack of Minority Families

Anti-Whites have not yet explicitly said that White areas are not diverse, but we know they think this because “diversity” is only every forced onto White areas, and “lack of diversity” is only ever spoken about in White areas. When anti-Whites start to organize White areas as “problems” that need to be “solved”, then it will be a stage 4 genocide. The 8 stages of genocide.

Demographics is destiny.  At this juncture people of European extraction are facing an existential crisis for their very survival. They comprise only 8% of the world population and due to insufficient reproduction they are shrinking in number and are the only race of people on the globe in such peril.  Due to traitors in their midst the floodgates to the third world were opened shortly after the conclusion of WWII, which was less a world war and more a fratricidal civil war fought among the most fit of many European nations.  No less than fifty million Europeans, whether solider or civilian, died in that sordid conflict.

Regarding the fate of the white European race author Arthur Kemp pulls no punches:  ”… anyone serious about saving the European people has to understand and psychologically accept that the vast majority of Europeans alive today are not going to be “saved” and that most will die off as result of childlessness, miscegenation, ignorance, or physical extermination by nonwhite races’ more violent criminal element.  Only a minority — and it will be a significant minority, but a minority nonetheless — have the ability to understand the forces of history at work upon them.  It is to these people that an appeal for the creation of a European homeland is directed, and not at anyone else.”’ Read More

Waking Up from the American Dream: A White Nationalist Memo to White Male Republicans

Update: 1) The Coudenhove-Kalergi plan – The genocide of the Peoples of Europe. 2) Europeans to become negroid mongrels

3) Genocidal Kaufman and Hooton Plans for Germany, became the Reality for all of Western Europe

Whites Shouldn’t Be Forced To Live Among Non-Whites

By H. Millard:

Black & WhiteI’m an individual human being. I am also a White human being.  I was born the same way as all other human beings.  No other human beings have any more rights than I have.  As long as I don’t harm others, no other human beings have the right to tell me how to live, who to associate with, what to think, what to believe, what I can and cannot read or do, what I can say or not say. They are not superior in rights to me.  This is what it means to be a free human being.  Anything less than this is not freedom, it is oppression, tyranny and slavery.

It is obscene that we White people have to put up with non-White crime and social problems. And, even more, it is absurd that all humans are lumped together as though we are all the same.  We are not all the same. We look different externally, and we have different DNA codes internally.  We are different peoples.  The human races are groups within the human species that have started to branch off and to become separate species if certain conditions are met.  And, this is as it should be.  This is the way of existence. We should not be forced to blend together, but should be allowed to evolve as we determine is best for each of us individually and as groups of like individuals.  Blending all human races together will not improve the species, it will force it down to the lowest common denominator.

Racial integration is a failure. Racial diversity is a failure.  Multiculturalism is a failure. These only bring non-White crime, social problems and miscegenation to once safe and, yes, pure White communities.  And, Whites are not only victimized physically by these failed social experiments, but we are also victimized by being made to pay for services and benefits for people unlike us. To be racially sensitive and not “racist” we Whites are expected to just accept being made into second class citizens and give up college seats and job opportunities and promotions to less qualified non-Whites.  We are expected to bend over backwards to understand and be sensitive to the needs of people unlike us.  This is stupid.  We Whites shouldn’t waste one second of our time or burn one calorie in such efforts.  There is no profit in this for us. Non-Whites are not our kind.  They are not our people.  We owe them nothing, other than leaving them alone to their own separate destinies.

As it is now, we Whites must pay for the welfare and medical care and housing and much more for non-Whites and we must hire more police and pay for them to keep non-Whites from attacking and murdering us since we have been forced to accept them into our communities.  The ant and the grasshopper fable comes to mind, but tenfold, as we, the industrious White ants have been forced to accept the non-White grasshoppers into our ant communities as equals.  The result is harmful to us. Even if some groups of non-Whites aren’t a direct problem, they are still not our kind and don’t belong in our communities.

Notting Hill 2Whites  should only have to put up with the crime and social problems of our own people.  We, as White individuals, have a natural right, just by having been born, to be as we are born to be, and to pursue happiness as we define it, and to choose to mix or not mix with any other humans as we alone decide is in our best interest, and to be the free human beings that nature has made us to be. And, this right that we have as White individuals extends to those who are most like us–other Whites.  Yes, we Whites are different from other kinds of humans as they are different from us. There is not a one size fits all human being.

The laws that we Whites have written over the years  are based on the innate outward manifestations and expressions of the White genetic code that makes us the people that we are.  They pretty much work for us, as a separate people living among our own kind, but they fail to work in racially blended societies.  We Whites, for example, can expect certain levels of violent crime from our own people and our laws are written to protect us from these crimes of our own kind.  However, the crime levels of some other types of humans–Blacks and Browns, in particular– are naturally far higher  from our own levels, and our laws do not protect us fully from these higher levels of violent crime brought into our White communities by non-Whites.  The laws that most of us Whites naturally obey, but which the non-Whites don’t, often work to actually put us in more danger.

Our laws, our constitution, our mores and ways were designed for us, by us and they’re about us–and they do not always fit with other peoples.  Why? Because, they are different from the ground on up, and trying to force them to be like us oppresses both them and us  and it stunts our own development and robs us of our human sovereignty and right to be as we want to be and of the right to pursue happiness as we choose and the right to be around those we want to be around and not be around those we don’t want to be around

Now, even many of the weakest seed Whites in society acknowledge that we humans come in different flavors.  After all, even they have eyes to see, so they’re pretty much forced to admit differences.  So far, so good.  Then, common sense falls apart, because many of them then try to deny that there are internal differences also.  And, as they do that, some among them also try to deny the significance of the external differences and they foolishly try to deny that violent crime levels and social dysfunction levels are color coded. Some of these weak seed Whites suffer from cognitive dissonance and jump through hoops trying to reconcile the high Black violent crime rate with their false belief that Blacks are the same as Whites except for different paint jobs.  One can almost imagine some of the weak seed Whites having smoke coming from their ears as they say “Will not compute, will not compute,” as they try to reconcile the facts of the real world with their ingrained false views, as though they’re robots in a cheap science fiction movie.

Let’s be very clear about this. Non-Whites are not Whites.  They look different because they are different.  They have different internal codes than Whites just as they have different external appearances.  This is true no matter what some dimwitted  weak seed politicians and elites try to tell us and force on us.

White Family - LargeWe Whites are a White people inside and outside and we have a God (or nature, if you prefer) given right  to our freedom as the sovereign individuals that we are.  We are no one’s slaves.  No human or group of humans have the right to keep us from being ourselves and living our lives as we want among our own kind. We are living, breathing human beings with every right to be as we were born to be and with every right to associate with or not associate with others as we alone choose.  No one has a right to herd us together with other types of humans if we don’t want to be so herded or so lumped.  They are not our kind, and intelligent, conscious Whites are aware of this fact.  We have the right to be free from non-White violent crime, non-White social problems and free from non-Whites altogether.  Let them have their ways, and we’ll have ours.  Don’t try to lump us together under some artificial national label.  The most authentic label that we have is the one we were born with:  White people.  We are our genes and our genes are us.

No one has the right to have us sacrifice our safety, our pursuit of happiness and our very existence in order to please people unlike us.  We do not have to please them at all.  We also do not have to support them, or take a back seat so they can have the front seat, or give up our dreams of college and better jobs because they are admitted or promoted based on their dark skin color.  We do not need to sacrifice ourselves, our children, our jobs our future, at all.  We have a right to be and to be more and we need to assert these rights in every way big and small or we’re going to continue to be victimized and picked off one by one.

Non-Whites are not our responsibility. We owe them absolutely nothing. Again, they are not our kind.  They are a burden to us.  We do not have to carry such a burden.  We have enough burdens of our own to carry.

We Whites have a right to self-identification, self-determination, self-destiny and a whole lot of other  positive “self” combinations.

We can’t continue trying to fit non-Whites into a White society.  They don’t fit into ours and we don’t fit into theirs.  We know who we are and many of us want to stay with  our own kind.


We have a right to  be White, to think White, to stay White, to evolve White.  And, we don’t need anyone’s permission to be as we were born to be.

By H. Millard © 2013 Original

An Open Letter to Supporters of Our Leftist Overlords


, , ,


This is an open letter to those who support our leftist overlords. Note I don’t say “liberals” as there are plenty of “conservatives” who are just as guilty, and self-described liberals who refuse to be pawns.

Not sure if you’re a member of the intended target audience? Well, here are some simple questions, a positive answer to which signals your inclusion:

  • Do you believe “diversity” and “multiculturalism” are the raison d’être of the United States of America, as opposed to individual liberty?
  • Do you believe a poem by some obscure poet (“Give me your tired, your poor…”) should dictate America’s immigration policy, and not, say, the US Constitution (“…for ourselves and our posterity”)?
  • Do you believe the phrase “that all men are created equal” means that everyone is of equal ability, rather than that we are all equal under the law?
  • Do you believe that race is only a “social construct”, meaning that it has no biological basis?
  • Do you believe all races are, on the whole, perfectly equal in all abilities—physically, emotionally, intellectually?

If you answered “yes” to any of the above questions, congratulations: You’re not only a f***ing idiot, but you’re also a traitor. By your compliance, you have assisted in replacing the founding stock of this nation with third-world hordes, thereby corrupting our institutions and destroying our culture. You have taken part in turning what was once the envy of the world into the laughing stock of the world. You have rendered this greatest of nations in the history of nations, this greatest of civilizations in the history of civilizations, into but one more third-world hell-hole.

Know that you were handed the greatest gift any generation in the history of humanity has ever received, and rather than capitalizing on that gift and passing on something even greater, you destroyed it in a fit of greed and indulgence and stupid, credulous naiveté. Know that because of your existence, the United States of America—and, by extension, the rest of the world—is now a far worse place to live. Know that you have saddled your children and your children’s children with debt and despair and third-world pathologies like random, savage criminality, poverty, and endless, hopeless chaos. Know that we who are awake to the truth now face a choice between two miserable alternatives: Either we submit to the destruction of this once-great nation, or we take up arms against an entrenched and ruthless enemy—an enemy you helped cement into power.

So go home from us in shame. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.