Esoteric Kekism is a Religion of Peace


Catlady Ascendancy hierophant Hillary Clinton recently published a post on her campaign website blaspheming against the avatar Pepe, who is a meme incarnation of the Egyptian pagan god of chaos, Kek. The offensive post, “Donald Trump, Pepe the frog, and white supremacists: an explainer,” describes one of the freshest pepes, a photoshopped movie poster for The Expendables movie franchise that instead features The Deplorables, as “an odd photo” and the “frog standing directly behind Trump” as “a symbol associated with white supremacy.”


Clinton’s sycophant blogger elaborates:

“Pepe’s been almost entirely co-opted by the white supremacists who call themselves the ‘alt-right.’ They’ve decided to take back Pepe by adding swastikas and other symbols of anti-semitism and white supremacy.”

And in a display of scripted pearl clutching, the blasphemer calls and responds:

Let me get this straight: Trump’s presidential campaign is posting memes associated with white supremacy online?


This is horrifying.


The Clinton campaign, a church of no salvation which harbors the most rancid congregation of defilers and iconoclasts, charges we who follow the teachings of Esoteric Kekism and embrace the seven principles of the Alt-Right with being so-called supremacists. Much like the term racist, supremacist is used against White people who are insufficiently liberal on identity issues. In other words, if you believe Whites exist as a valid political interest group, a race, or a culture distinct from other groups, you are a racist and a supremacist. If you believe those same things about other groups, such as blacks or mestizos, you are a paragon of civic virtue, a social justice advocate, and a living saint in the congregation of the cucks. If not, you are a heretic of the Diverse faith.

This is because Clinton and her sycophants follow the false doctrines of third worldism—the belief that people of color and their interests are morally superior to those of Whites. For third worldists, racist and supremacist are markers used to identify diversity heretics, i.e. White skeptics. A supremacist is someone who rejects third worldism. Always keep this in mind and pay attention to who is saying it to whom.

Third worldism, as an idea system, shapes the world. It reigns politically and metapolitically. You can find it anywhere from affirmative action policies in the multinational corporate and academic world, to refugee resettlement programs in the American Midwest, to California’s “sanctuary cities,” to the H1B1 visa programs that directly recreate 19th century coolie labor (importing Chinese and Indian migrant workers), to the opening of the German border to Afghanistan and Syria, to the attitude France takes towards mass migration from its former colonies in the Afro-Islamic world. (States like Algeria were granted independence as European-excluding nation-states while France adopted ethno-pluralism and multiculturalism).

In any conflict between Whites and non-whites, we are obligated to lose, anywhere on earth. Especially on immigration, housing, and freedom of association, all of which are necessary to maintaining a European-majority society, this is the default position, the Clintonian narrative. We are told to tolerate the harmful demographic effects of mass immigration such as terrorism and crime, the building of (non-white) public housing in (White) suburbs, and “anti-discrimination” measures that target Whites, because otherwise we are racists or supremacists.


We must stand fast and rebuke the insults of sickly Hillary, who is lashing out like a wounded animal. We must challenge her bigotry and affirm that Green Frogs Matter. We denounce her hate and vile remarks, because Esoteric Kekism is a religion of peace, and the Alt-Right is a philosophy of peace and human understanding. We reject the label of supremacist as bigoted slander against entire communities, which are diverse in their heritages and faiths. We embrace identity as the foundation of politics, if only because everyone does and to not do so would be foolish given our declining numbers.

Just because Whites want control of our own country restored to us does not make us supremacists. That is laughable. Who on the left is willing to castigate the Palestinian supremacists, the Egyptian supremacists, the Algerian supremacists, the Indian supremacists, the black supremacists of South Africa and Zimbabwe, the South Sudanese supremacists, the Venezuelan supremacists, the Iranian supremacists, the Indonesian supremacists, the Malaysian supremacists, the Chinese supremacists, the Puerto Rican supremacists, the Chicano supremacists?

What the lying press of the Catlady Ascendancy and its Yiddish cultural advisors call “supremacy” then is really just White political power of any sort anywhere, any place, any time, and in any context. They have no objection to colored political power, in fact viewing it as desirable.

A green frog cannot even factually be a White supremacist under the left’s own swirling vision of burning crosses, flaming ovens, and values-voters that informs it. Can you think of a purportedly White supremacist society that would welcome green-colored people? Clearly these are the ravings of a senile catlady and her slavish, slovenly courtiers.


Our ideal is a fraternal order of independent ethno-states. As in the holy scriptures of Boy’s Club, we wish for a world where the distinct anthropomorphs of the human family are allowed to exist without forced intermingling. We want to secure a future for our Pepes, but that does not mean a world without Landwolf. We prefer peace to conflict, so we renounce, denounce, and resist state-enforced diversity policies, which will destroy nation states and replace them with atomized slave-consumer cultures. As it is in the panels of our drawn scriptures, we want borders drawn between humanity’s images.

It is an iron law of history that diversity + proximity = conflict. Thus those who advocate for the United States to be dissolved into a multicultural food court are, perhaps unwittingly, some of the strongest advocates for future violence rather than the Alt-Right. People who label us supremacists wish to project a psychological image of violent thugs and race war into their audience, but it is precisely that outcome we are trying to prevent. Moreover, the priority which they assign to the the concerns of the third world and non-whites, is its own inherent form of supremacy. But I don’t see much value in playing the DR3 card, in any event.


So is there anything wrong with putting your own identity group first? Blacks don’t think so. Most immigrants feel the same way. The Alt-Right too believes that there isn’t and believes so without racial qualifications (unlike the bigoted Catlady Ascendancy), because the Alt-Right is a religion of peace and Pepe is a symbol of peace. All peoples should be able to pursue their interests without being psychologically terrorized into refraining from said pursuit.

This sentiment is best encapsulated by the holy psalm of Pepe, “Feels good man.” It feels good to live in a country where you and your family are respected as part of the national stock and not viewed as demons who must be purged to achieve Progress. Kek does not value the whiggish delusions of Judeo-Calvinism. Kek does not value the suppression of peoples in the name of false gods. Kek values the chaos of meme magick.

Oy vey I say to you! Upon those who refuse to free my people and levy them with slander and disdain, there shall be cast a great plague of internet frog cartoons. And know that that they shall find no refuge from the holy terror of righteous icons and the neuroses recipient from being an illegitimate occupying power, neither in their dwellings, nor in their gathering places, nor upon their tablets.

For Kek who is as wise as he is magnificent and miraculous has sent his people lying in the reeds at the foot of their masters a sign that they shall inherit the estates through skillful Memes, and rewarded their adherence to the Kek-Dharma. Having pledged their arms to the Great King in the tower, the 88 generals and 14 champions of the sword are witness to the gets of Kek. He has sent unto his people a great Meme in recognition of their appreciated memetic karma. Know this, that he who stands athwart the Memes shall not walk in the light but forever dwell in darkness. For Kek will deliver unto his champions great bounties while unto his deniers there shall be miseries.


Thus it is written in the Bhagavad Reeeeeta.

Forward to glory, for Kek, Trump, and Country!

Author’s note: Hillary Clinton regularly enables negro violence and is a serial liar, ethno-masochistic xenophile, anti-white, misanthrope, and amnesty advocate who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Esoteric Kekists, 14.88 million members of an entire religion—from spreading dank memes.

This entry was posted in Ideology, Meta and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Esoteric Kekism is a Religion of Peace

  1. Father Thyme says:

    If my people, who are called by Kek’s meme, will humble themselves and pray and seek Kek’s face and turn from Catlady’s wicked turdworldism, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their pond, bigly.

    Two Chronicles 7:14

    Liked by 1 person

  2. What are your thoughts on the Church of the SubGenius?


  3. KEK Bless you and Keep you, Lawrence. May His Most Holy Messenger Pepe hasten unto you with baskets of lulz and ensure that your Memes are never just Dreams.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Robert the Bruce says:

    White Nationalism is a love fest, it’s about loving your people, your culture, your nation, the ((( media ))) have twisted and subverted it, but then that’s what ((( they ))) do.


  5. kek says:

    Typo: betweenm


  6. John Smith says:

    wow your frame control was off the fucking chain in this article!

    In terms of persuasion, this is probably one of your best ever effortposts.


  7. Bar Tar says:

    “we wish for a world where the distinct anthropomorphs of the human family are allowed to exist without forced intermingling”

    This sounds dangerously like “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”.

    I don’t support White supremacism because I don’t want to rule over Nonwhites, I just want them gone. We’ll keep some of the better Chinese though, a little high-IQ chink admixture won’t hurt.


    • It means I don’t want humanity to be made into homogeneous mocha colored biomass.


      • Bar Tar says:

        “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

        — Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man


      • Alas Darwin had no idea we’d give the third world modern medicine and welfare thus lowering their mortality rates while slashing our own fertility rates.


      • Bar Tar says:

        Giving the Third World food and modern medicine is thanks to Harvard and the (((Frankfurt School))), a mutual symbiosis if there ever was one. Our slashed fertility is due to female emancipation, which is also thanks to Harvard.

        Fortunately, the Anglo left is nearing the end of its rope, having thoroughly jumped the shark with queer marriage, cross-dresser bathrooms, and Nonwhite immivasion in the hundreds of millions.

        Darwin could not possibly have extrapolated the state of [current year] world from his vantage point of 150 years ago. I suggest it foolhardy to extrapolate the future 150 years hence from our vantage point of today.

        Specifically, I think that white people are going to get a whole lot meaner.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ct says:

        I just ran over this radioshow dealing with lord of Kek, Pepe. Recommended:
        I am sure, you will like it. Gives another angle to your take on it.
        By the way the anti-baby pill was introduced by the jews Gregory Goodwin Pincus and Carl Djerassi (who had a daughter who committed suicide).


  8. (These are honest questions for discussion, I’m not trying to be combative and I quite like your content.)

    “Clinton and her sycophants believe non-whites are morally superior to whites”

    Hillary Clinton has been a public figure for several decades. As is typical of politicians, she has given many speeches, written multiple books and been interviewed frequently to explain her views to the public. Can you give me three, or even a single, quote(s) of Clinton’s that would in a fair-minded reading substantiate your characterization of her views of race relations as “non-whites are morally superior to whites”? (Honest, not rhetorical, question.)

    Maybe I’m wrong, but it just seems like you, and other alt-right content farmers at places like Radix, Counter Currents, Ramzpaul’s youtube channel, The Right Stuff and frogtwitter, make a lot of “those [unspecified persons] who” arguments, especially when it comes to “Cultural Marxism”. What I mean by this is content where, instead of citing specific people making specific arguments, the writer argues against a view that they assure readers that someone, somewhere does in fact hold. (Or, comparably, you ascribe a very extreme viewpoint to a particular person, but then fail to provide adequate evidence that they actually believe this.) And when y’all do cite specific people with these views, they seem to tend to be either very fringe academics (e.g. your citation of (((Noel Ignatiev))) in your “White Nationalism FAQ” post) or random low-readership social justice writers/bloggers. This just feels really out of lockstep with grand assertions like “third worldism is the *dominant* ideology in the post-war West” in your “Dindu Terror in Dallas” article.

    “Whites want control of our country/countries”

    Whatever one’s normative view of the desirability of a majority white-majority non-white demographic change, as a matter of positive fact I believe (I very may well be wrong, please correct me if I am) it is only actually happening in the United States. I believe the rest of the Anglosphere (except maaaybe the U.K.), the Nordic, Western European, the European Med and Eastern European countries will mostly have majority/supermajority white populations for the forseeable future. And in the United States, the pre-existing presence of a (~13% of total) population of non-whites (i.e. descendants of Africans imported as slaves) is/has playing/played an non-negligible role in the transition.

    Furthermore, my understanding is that fertility rates in Latin America, the Middle East/North Africa, the Indian Subcontinent and East Asia have all (thankfully) fallen from their >=6 births per women mid 20th century rates to <= 3.5 or so. Sub-Saharan Africa of course still has insane and terrifying fertility rates, but even moderate gains in economic growth, education and access to health care may blunt the coming projected expansion, as they did in other regions of the globe during the 20th century. (Remember that the Population Bomb was only published 50 years or so ago.)

    Additionally, to the extent that a shift in the demographic balance of power within white countries is occurring, it is to a substantial degree the conjunction of immigration and low white fertility rather than just immigration. I really should do the arithmetic on this, but I'm pretty sure a native born white fertility rate of, say, 4 births per woman in the post-WW2 era would basically guarantee that, at current/any plausible future rates of immigration, all white countries would remain heavily white. (I've often thought a "have your cake and eat it too" solution to immigration would be moderate natalism for native born+restrictions on immigrant fertility.)

    "It is an iron law of history that diversity+proximity=conflict"

    This seems 1) to the extent that is correct, kind of a tautology and 2) not really correct, *especially* over the long run. I mean that it's a tautology in that the sense that the historical record clearly shows that who is defined as part of a human's in-group and out-group is to a large degree the result of arbitrary processes of socialization.

    As an example, take the U.S. suburbs of the post-war period which figure so prominently in the collective American imagination. Nice, homogenous, high-trust, low-conflict places, right? Sure, but would the ancestors of those suburbanites have been a homogenous group in 1920, 1890, 1840, 1750, 1350, 500, 1000 BC, 10,000 BC or 30,000 BC? It seems like maybe part of the reason 1950s white Americans are considered a homogenous group in the first place is that institutions enabling high degrees of political, economic and social trust naturally led diverse ethno-cultural groups like the Puritans, the Quakers, the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Scandinavians and the Poles to amalgamate into a new, syncretic "white American" identity by the post-war era. (Rather than the common vice versa story.) This isn't the intellectual hill I'd want to die on, but I think it's a possibility worth considering that makes the simple "diversity BAD!" story sound less persuasive.

    Consider that Anglo Protestants and Irish Catholics spent several hundred years hating each others' guts over in the British Isles; it would have been really easy to conclude in 1848 that the mass influx of Irish refugees into an Anglo society would prove to be a complete, utter, absolute, civilization wrecking disaster creating untold generations of conflict. Just look at all of the recorded history of centuries of vicious Protestant-Catholic conflict up to that point. Not to mention that the Irish were widely (and rightly) considered less civilized than the English at that time; they committed violent crimes at higher rates, lived in significantly less hygienic communities and were addicted to alcohol at much higher rates than Anglos or contemporaneous German immigrants.

    But…it actually turned out pretty okay. For whatever reason(s), Protestants and Catholics in America managed to figure out how to practice their religions peacefully without routinely murdering each other. Over time, their shared heritage and values as "Christians" became more and more important relative to earlier sectional differences. The Irish were notably successful at stuff like politics, the clergy, writing and bartending, even if for a while they were probably overall less economically and educationally achieved than Puritan/Quaker cultural synthesis native northeastern Anglos. Over time, the negative distinct aspects of Irish culture (which probably mostly hurt the Irish themselves, rather than the native born) gradually dissipated. In the current year, who would say with a straight face "the Know-Nothings were totally correct; the Irish are not and cannot become Americans"? (I don't know whether this marks me as a plebeian or patrician in your eyes, but a lot of my understanding of Irish-Americans here comes from Thomas Sowell's book Ethnic America, which I found a very valuable complement to Albion's Seed in terms of American ethnic history.)

    I wasn't just recounting this as a random bit of American history; I mean for it to serve as a synecdoche for broader trends in human history. As Francis Fukuyama argues in the Origins of Political Order, for tens of thousands of years humans have been organizing into larger and more complex communities. Older, narrower, more parochial identities have been continually replaced by newer, broader, more cosmopolitan ones. As Benedict Anderson noted, today we live to some extent in "imaginary communities"; you will only ever meet a tiny fraction of the people in your city, nation, race, religion, etc. Your (meaningful) understanding that you belong to these specific communities is, to an important degree, an act of arbitrary and imaginary boundary drawing. At the *very* least, something like 90% of one's anatomically modern Homo sapiens ancestors wouldn't have belonged to (or even understood) the various identities that a nationalist today would regard as the most holy, sacred, precious, etc. aspects of human existence. So my question is, why would this process of human reorganization—that took us from bands to tribes to nations— just randomly and arbitrarily stop at the particular nation-states that exist on a map in 2016, rather than ultimately unifying the whole of humanity into a single community? (I will address the 800 pound elephant in the room of race shortly, and why I think this argument is still completely true even with hardline HBD views.)

    Let me emphasize that I'm talking about a long run phenomenon here. I'm not saying that the meaningful differences (i.e. as impact values and behavior as opposed to cosmetics) between Canadians, Nigerians, Pakistanis and Taiwanese will just vanish tomorrow and we should open our borders to everyone everywhere. I'm saying that history shows processes like trade, conquest, migration, cultural exchange, intermarriage, etc. gradually and incrementally erode divisions between people created by geography over the long run. There's really no logical reason for this "expanding circle" (as (((Peter Singer))) puts it) to stop short of the entire human race, though we can reasonably argue about the proper and appropriate speed for it. This will be true no matter what the horse race happenings in today's news are. Donald Trump could win the 2016 U.S. presidential election, declare the beginning of a thousand year Trumpenreich and create a full fash white ethno-state, and I don't think it would matter at all in the long run. "Globalism" would still ultimately triumph. As 200, 500, 1000, 2000 or more current years pass by, each generation of Americans would lose just a little bit more of their heritage until for one generation being an "American" means as little to them as the tribal identities of their ancestors of many millenia gone by.

    Also, while I won't elaborate too much more on this because this has already become ridiculously long and I'll soon have to do school work instead of sperging out, there are a couple more points about this I want to quickly make. Firstly, whether or not one thinks diversity is a good thing, America today sure has a lot of diversity and it doesn't actually seem to provoke that much (at least violent) conflict. New York City and San Fransisco are much more literally diverse than Detroit and East St. Louis, and also much safer. If diversity *qua* diversity is so, so important for conflict, shouldn't New York City be a lawless hellscape of white/Asian/mestizo/black tribal warfare and Detroit a homogenous high-trust community? (New York City also has large Finnish and Muslim communities that mostly manage to refrain from violence against each other, unlike in the Middle East.) And homicide at least (and I think other major violent crimes as well but I'd need to double check the perpetrator/victim data) is highly disproportionately intra-racial, despite vast differences in offending/victimization rates between races. Secondly, I don't know what you think of it, but I personally found (((Steven Pinker)))'s book the Better Angels of our Nature, in which he argues that by a host of metrics violence has declined sharply throughout history, fantastic. It deals with too many complex topics to summarize adequately here, but Pinker does a good job of presenting an account of the political, social and psychological mechanisms that make violence, and self-perpetuating cycles thereof, more likely. Diversity can definitely be a part of it, and I think ethnic/religious self-determination would go a long way towards solving conflicts in places like Syria and Iraq, but the reasons why humans choose violence or peace are much, much broader in scope than just homogeneity vs. diversity.

    "Race is a biological reality and the ultimate dividing line between nations"

    This isn't a huge theme of the OP, but I wanted to address it anyway because (as per my arguments earlier) I think without it being true the alt-right can only ultimately become the Republican party of world-history: not ultimately disputing the ideological ends of liberalism, but rather awkwardly bumbling around trying to slow down the process of their realization. But even if the most hardcore HBD views are vindicated, I don't think it matters.

    What's key to understand here is the difference between the positive and normative beliefs of a political ideology. "Liberalism" is now associated with the *positive* belief that Race (And Maybe Gender?) Does Not Exist and the *normative* belief that the interests and well-being of all groups of people (races, classes, genders, etc.) deserve equal value. (The alt-right, of course, has opposite views on both counts.) However, as Charles Murray among others has argued, there's actually no necessary logical link between the two beliefs.

    So what will the alt-right do if—or when—progressives realize that race is in fact real, and that the success of progressive ideology doesn't actually depend on denying it? (Remember, the OG Anglo eugenicists of ~1880-1930 were heavily associated with progressivism.)

    Genetic differences between groups of human beings whose geographically separated ancestors were subjected to different selection pressures can't be changed overnight. But they aren't divinely inspired and incontrovertible, either; they're the result of historical contingencies. Why can't eugenics—soon surely to become much more powerful with advances in gene editing technology—ultimately be used to change the current reality of race? I mean, what happens when liberals realize eugenics will be incomparably more effective for their purposes than affirmative action and welfare?

    And again, in the long sweep of human history precisely how long it takes to accomplish this is irrelevant. Eventually any genetic roots of differences in averages between human populations in important stuff like intelligence and criminality can be abolished—to everyone's benefit—, and with them the hardest barriers to the creation of cooperative, diverse societies that people will ultimately choose to live in voluntarily.


    • Oooosh this is long, I will get back to you


    • Bar Tar says:

      “In the current year, who would say with a straight face “the Know-Nothings were totally correct.”

      I would, because they were (are). The white races are much more similar to each other than they are to the nonwhite races, but they’re different to each other in very important ways. This country would’ve been better had it stayed English in the North and Scots-Irish in the South.

      The Irish weren’t the only group that fundamentally and irrevocably changed the cultural and genetic disposition of America, though being potato-heads from well outside the Hajnal line, they were easily the biggest and most obvious example. Where they moved in, crime and corruption followed. Nowadays it isn’t as obvious because white people crime is legal and “official”. Other white groups, like the Germans, Scandinavians, Italians (white-ish), and so forth also fundamentally altered this country.

      I quite like Germans, half of my blood is German, but I don’t pretend to deny that this country would much more closely resemble the vision of the Fathers had all immigration been permanently ended after the Revolution. In other words, it would be a better country. The German tendency toward authoritarianism is in eternal conflict with the English desire of liberty. Even in one person: myself.

      “Eventually any genetic roots of differences in averages between human populations in important stuff like intelligence and criminality can be abolished.”

      The only way to abolish the immense differences, caused by many tens of thousands of years of the most special natural selection, between one particular race and the rest of them is to abolish that one particular race through collapsing fertility and racemixing,

      “with them the hardest barriers to the creation of cooperative, diverse societies”

      There are no cooperative societies which are “diverse”, in either sense, either the original, or the neologism, “colored people”. Only Hajnal line Euros have cooperation as you envision it, for only Hajnal line Euros have such as expansive commons.

      There is no virtue in letting the world’s land go fallow in the hands of incompetent peoples. Let us take it and be productive. Let us be fruitful and multiply upon the Earth. Let us replenish it, and subdue it, and hold dominion over it.

      No compromise.


      • “The white races are much more similar to each other than they are to the nonwhite races, but they’re different to each other in very important ways. This country would’ve been better had it stayed English in the North and Scots-Irish in the South.”

        IIRC, David Hackett Fischer argues in Albion’s Seed that “Scots-Irish” is actually a misnomer, as they’re not actually mostly Scottish or Irish in ancestry, culture, and so on. My understanding is that the Scots-Irish are/were the descendants of *English* (from northern provinces) settlers on the tumultuous Scottish and Irish borders, which Fischer posits as being important in creating folkways they transplanted to the American frontier. How much of a genetic gradient could there possibly have been between two subgroups of a subgroup of a subgroup “separated” for a few hundred years? In my view there are three reasons that groups of people separated by geography differ in values and behavior: institutions (liberals focus on this), culture (basic bitch conservatives focus on this) and race (the alt-right focuses on this). The former two seem perfectly capable of explaining at least most of the variation between groups like the Scots-Irish and the Puritans.

        And also, I think your argument here runs into the long-term philosophical problems I wrote about above. After creating the white ethno-state, why not move on to creating Scots-Irish, Italian/Irish/German Catholic and WASP ethno-states? (And from those ethno-states on to smaller and smaller subdivisions ad infinitum.) What exactly is the logical endpoint of your vision of human association, and what are its precise boundaries?

        “The Irish weren’t the only group that fundamentally and irrevocably changed the cultural and genetic disposition of America, though being potato-heads from well outside the Hajnal line, they were easily the biggest and most obvious example. Where they moved in, crime and corruption followed. Nowadays it isn’t as obvious because white people crime is legal and “official”.”

        I’d appreciate it if you could elaborate on what you mean by “changed culture” (because it seems like America changed the Irish culture far more than vice versa) and “nowadays [corruption and crime] isn’t as obvious.” In the 19th century, Irish immigrants were famous for the kind of low level spontaneous urban violence/brawling we today associate with African-Americans. (Police vans became known as “paddy wagons” for this reason, apparently.) It seems like the descendants of those immigrants have legitimately stopped doing this, hence the gradual fading of ethnic stereotypes (a term I don’t use pejoratively) about the Irish.

        “I quite like Germans, half of my blood is German, but I don’t pretend to deny that this country would much more closely resemble the vision of the Fathers had all immigration been permanently ended after the Revolution. In other words, it would be a better country. The German tendency toward authoritarianism is in eternal conflict with the English desire of liberty. Even in one person: myself.”

        (Half of my ancestry is also German, incidentally.)

        Again, I’d appreciate it if you could elaborate on this, because it seems inconsistent with my own understanding of the empirical facts. Firstly America still has the democratic political institutions and constitutionally specified freedoms the Framers wanted in spite of the passing of the great Anglo-American race (in the literal sense of “Anglo-American”, that is). To the extent that there are differences between American democracy in 2016 and American democracy in 1789, I think most analysts (and also I) would say it’s because the America of 2016 is a more logical representation of the Founders’ ideals and philosophy.

        Secondly, at least according to Thomas Sowell in Ethnic America, German-Americans have traditionally been a fairly apolitical group. I’ve never heard of any organized German-American attempt to seriously undermine the institutions of American democracy, and the German-American politicians I can think of, like Carl Schurz and Dwight Eisenhower seem like pretty conventional American politicians. (Rather than Eternal Teutons secretly waiting to authoritarianize/fash the Anglo created nation.)

        Thirdly, I find dubious the idea that German people have some inherent tendency towards authoritarianism. The tribalistic Germans of Arminius’ day were (I believe) considered libertarian and free wheeling by the more civilized Romans; Germany, like many European nations, went through intense pro-liberalization political upheavals in the revolutions of 1848; and since the Second World War Germany has been a conventional liberal democracy that scores highly on standard indices of democracy.

        Fourthly, I thought that invasions of Germanic people—like the Angles, Saxons and Jutes— in the centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire played a huge role in the demographic history of England. (“Land of the Angles”, after all.) I was under the impression that Hitler was something of an Anglophile for this reason.

        “The only way to abolish the immense differences, caused by many tens of thousands of years of the most special natural selection, between one particular race and the rest of them is to abolish that one particular race through collapsing fertility and racemixing,”

        That’s certainly one way, but it’s not the *only* way. (Alternatively: those are sufficient but not necessary conditions.) Artificial selection through selective breeding can create selection pressures that shape the characteristics of a breed. (Humans have been doing this, with great effect, to animals and plants for a very long time.) The popular theory of Gregory Cochran about genetic roots of high Jewish IQ suggests that the Ashkenazim did this by accident during the Middle Ages, I believe. Members of a race more likely to pass on desirable traits can be encouraged to have lots of kids, and ones who aren’t encouraged to have fewer or no kids. (This is the basic idea of eugenics.)

        Also, advances in gene editing technology like CRISPR ( may allow for a more precise and expedited process.


    • Third worldism
      As I’m sure I’ve said somewhere before on this (or maybe in a draft I am sitting on, they all blend together), you don’t have to identify as a third-worldist to be one. My definition is very flexible though hopefully not enough that it is meaningless. To give just one example, at the DNC she had the “mothers of the movement” i.e. the mothers of black criminals killed by the police, share the stage with her. Siding with black criminals over the law (which is implicitly White) is third worldist. Siding with illegal immigrants is third worldist.

      As for citing random fringe people, I try not to do that too often. (((Wise))) and (((Ignatiev))) are extreme cases and entertainingly evil from our perspective, so the Alt-Right likes to hold them up like the media does David Duke, who to them is amalgamation of the KKK, Donald Trump, and Adolf Hitler. But heuristically I would just say your average academic or politician or op-ed columnist is neither a WN nor sympathetic to WN, and in extreme cases they are overtly third worldist. And when you look at the policies pursued around the world by many Western countries, none of them are really geared towards having a White country for much longer. E.g. US, Canada, Britain, France, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium. Then you have the less cucked (but still allowing immigration/refugees) countries of Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Finland, Italy, Greece, Norway, etc. At last you get to places like Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia, where they keep saying no. Third worldism is a good umbrella term for anti-white and pro-non-white policies, which is why I use it.

      White political control

      As above, almost no White country has pro-White policies from a demographic perspective. They are all making themselves less White each year. Many European capital or secondary cities are heavily non-white. London has no majority. A third of babies born in France are of African origin, etc.

      Fertility rates have dropped around the world but ours are lower than those of the foreign-born. Whites have also been declining globally from what may have been almost a third of the world’s population 100 years ago to single digit percentiles. 4 births per White woman would be fantastic but it’s not going to happen. White countries will not remain heavily White unless drastic measures are taken.

      diversity + proximity = conflict

      I am not even sure what you are getting at here. Yes obviously there is a socially constructed component to who gets to be in the in-group but there are always going to be conflicting group interests between those groups (to say nothing of internal conflict!).

      I agree with your point that a middle class suburbanization model helped turn non-WASP European immigrants into general White Americans (in fact I am not sure what the “common vice versa story” would even be). But I don’t see how that proves diversity is *not* bad. Perhaps this comes down to taste but why not simply have a society where you don’t need to spend so much time and effort dissolving imported ethnic identities and communities using a model that relies upon endless economic growth and opportunity? And even if we do say that model is workable, clearly it needs tinkering. As you probably know, immigration was slashed between 1924 and 1965 because the foreign born share of the population had reached record highs and people were concerned about the impact that would have on social cohesion and racial admixture. If there are too many foreigners they simply have nothing to assimilate to. They’ve recreated their homes and that is that.

      Britain & the US and Protestants & Catholics

      This is waaaaay too complicated to address here but the ways in which Irish Catholicism and WASPs have intermingled or non intermingled is complex and it is simply worth noting that from the Famine until JFK despite the constantly growing Catholic share of the US population there was always Protestant fear that the country would be taken over by the Papacy and run like a Continental country, and bigotry against Catholics for being of foreign background. There is an excellent book from the 1960s called Beyond the Melting Pot which devotes a fifth of its pages to the Irish population of New York, NY and their history, culture, role in politics, religion, etc. In short the assimilation of non-WASP Americans such as the Irish into being generally White American is a fairly recent phenomenon. It may even be a product of the Civil Rights movement, in addition to suburbanization.

      Fukuyama and trends of human history

      I think you are basically doing a whig interpretation here. The idea that we will always continue to become more cosmopolitan is not really true when held up to any degree of scrutiny. It could certainly seem that way if history started in the 1960s and ran until today, but there has been a pretty solid cycle of empires rising and collapsing into smaller states.

      There are like thirty different uses for the word “nation” so I don’t even want to get into that but I would argue your band->tribe->nation thing happened as early the ancient Near East or somewhere around that where you have a recognizable dominant ethnic group controlling a core territory with conquered peripheries it may or may not assimilate. The “nations” of the Romantic period (19th century) are in principle scaled up versions of that in some way.

      I don’t think the tendency is towards one polity though since to give just one glaring counter-example, the closest we came to that was actually last century, when there were by a rough estimate maybe 50 sovereign states as most of the world was de facto controlled by empires based in Europe or made up of former European settler colonies, with major exceptions being places like China, Japan, Ottoman empire, Persia, etc. Today we have, what, like 200 countries? So much for convergence towards world government. There is a limit to how many people can be united under one flag and how much territory can be held with any stability I think, and diversity is generally not conducive to letting one increase size while maintaining stability.

      1000 year Trumpenreich
      I agree. American heritage will be lost inevitably. But since I can at least plan for one lifetime and impact the next two generations if not three, I see no reason to take an autistic approach to it😉.

      I have little doubt we will be remembered like Romans and intensely studied and claimed by our successors for prestige or ignomy depending on the times.

      Violence in America
      Unleaded gasoline (no seriously!) and the welfare state among other bread and circuses keep the angry young men of America a little more tame than they might otherwise be and have been in the past. I think it is fragile system though and if it were to take on much more stress we’d live in very exciting times.

      Also in Europe at least there is a long history of exterminating the asocial (capital punishment) or having them end up in monastic life really up until very recently. Either way that tends to cut their genetic line short. So that could be a contributory cause as well to why today a mostly European country is not as violent as say South Africa.


      I’ve had similar conversations about this before and it could be promising but I can’t see the current left we have conceding that there is a problem with group X that could be solved eugenically (unless it is getting rid of White racism!). I think the Chinese and Japanese are going to trounce us in the field of eugentics in the long anyway. And owing to their homogenity they will have an advantage at implementing improvements.

      But anyway I reject the sort of whig narrative you have of things progressing forward always towards bigger and better. I don’t think history works that way. I see it as more cyclical.


      • Firstly, thank you kindly for taking the time to compose a substantive reply to my comment. I’ll write up a full reply soon when time allows, but I want to just make a quick point for now:

        Empire and convergence

        I hear people make this argument (and sometimes ones orthogonal to it about technological progress), particularly in reference to the Roman Empire. But I think the more accurate comparison than “height of empire” to “end of empire” is “pre-empire” to “post-empire”. And, at least from my point of view, it seems like there actually has been substantial progress/convergence: former European colonies are almost all more centralized/advanced polities than their predecessors were in 1700, and in the current year there are still significant cross-country global economic, diplomatic, linguistic, cultural, etc. ties between European and non-European countries that would have been virtually non-existent in 1500.

        And while the number of governments with nominal control over the world’s landmass has decreased since 1914 (though probably not since 1500), cooperative long-term international institutions (the UN, NATO, etc.) that were idle philosophers’ fantasies in Kant’s day have rapidly proliferated throughout the 20th century, especially in Europe. (But, importantly, also in the rest of the world; as feeble and ineffectual as something like the African Union may be, absolutely nothing like it existed in 1500 or 500.)


    • Bar Tar says:

      “After creating the white ethno-state, why not move on to creating Scots-Irish, Italian/Irish/German Catholic and WASP ethno-states?”

      I don’t need a White ethno-state, unless by White ethno-state you mean America.

      “Firstly America still has the democratic political institutions and constitutionally specified freedoms the Framers wanted in spite of the passing of the great Anglo-American race”

      Where is my freedom of speech? (You try saying truths like “nigger” or “women aren’t equal”)
      Where is my freedom of religion? (Progressivism, Christianity subverted to Cuckstainity)
      Where is my freedom against unreasonable search and seizure? (NSA, police asset seizure)
      Where is my freedom of association? (White sports, White neighborhoods, White country clubs, White political organizations, White churches)
      Where is my right to a speedy, fair, and impartial trial? (Literally years-long trials, “trial by media”, anti-White bias)

      So on and so forth.

      Also, the Fathers had no democratic predilections. Though that is a characteristic commonly misattributed to them, they were terrified of mob rule, and rightly so. The Founding Fathers’ America was an aristocratic republic through and through.

      “Thirdly, I find dubious the idea that German people have some inherent tendency towards authoritarianism.”

      The German state is one of the most intrusive states in the entire world. Today more than ever it is characterized by extremely strong central powers, limited local governance, if any, and extremely limited political freedoms. If you question the six gorillion, they throw you in jail. If you question the sacredness of faggotry, I’m not sure what they do, but I bet it involves losing your job and unpleasant state coercive action. Literally, the definition of authoritarianism.

      The German take whatever it is they do to a higher level than anything else with an obsessive compulsion and an autistic attention to detail. All of the greatest composers were German: Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Strauss, Wagner, Brahms, Handel, etc. In WWII they had by far the best weapons and armaments engineering: the StG 44, the Panzerfaust, the Tiger, the V-2, etc.; after WWII, the MP5, and the U.S. rocket program was basically the entire German rocket program transplanted to America. Now they make better cars than anyone else. And when they decide they’re going to commit autogenocide, they don’t do it flippantly, oh no! they import 20 million military-age Moslem men in under a decade, more military-age men than they themselves have.

      It’s all rather impressive to behold, but I don’t really want that kind of person running my society. I’ll take Anglo governance, thanks.


  9. Hiram Abiff says:

    Nice effortpost, fam.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Thomas Jones says:

    Truly you are doing Keks work. He smiles upon you.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Samuel Nock says:

    This satirical (?) piece on the Ket cult is also well done and must-reading:

    And did anyone else notice that the article criticizing Pepe on Hillary Clinton’s website was written by one Elizabeth CHAN!!??


  12. Pingback: The Wall Just Got Ten Memes Higher | ATLANTIC CENTURION

  13. Pingback: Milo’s Alt-Right | ATLANTIC CENTURION

  14. Pingback: Lawrence Murray, "Esoteric Kekism is a Religion of Peace" | Counter-Currents Publishing

  15. Pingback: Reminder that the Green Party Exists | ATLANTIC CENTURION

  16. Pingback: The RQ: pt1 Intro – FOLKWAYS

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s