No, E. Michael, They’re Jews ‘All the way down’
Posted by alex in Catholicism, Catholics fighting jews at 10:42 pm | 
Permanent Link
Found this in the course of researching for analysts of any race, religion or species through history advising, pondering or even merely getting near the conclusion that jews ought to be exterminated, en masse (ie, all of them underground and inspiring the skunk cabbages).
This proves that, contrary to the claims of the Catholic church’s dogma and its foremost American intellectual proponent, E. Michael Jones, jews are not merely unconverted Christians. They did not become jews when they rejected Jesus. Rather they were an identifiable and despicable group from their first foul footstep onto the stage of world history. After you read this snippet and hoist a frosty to its simple wisdom, I’ll explain the psychological roots of Jones’s curious inability to think outside the ‘boo box.
“Hatred for the Jews,” Abram Leon writes, “does not date solely from the birth of Christianity. Seneca treated the Jews as a criminal race. Juvenal believed that the Jews only existed to cause evil for other peoples. Quintilian said that Jews were a curse for other people” (Leon, 71).
In 59 BC the Roman statesman Cicero criticized Jewish “clannishness” and “influence in the assemblies.” In the second century AD Celsus, one of Rome’s great medical writers, wrote that Jews “pride themselves in possessing superior wisdom and disdain for the company of other men.” Philostratus, an ancient Greek author, believed that Jews “have long since risen against humanity itself. They are men who have devised a misanthropic life, who share neither food nor drink with others.” (Cf. Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, I, iii.) The great Roman historian Tacitus (A.D. 56-120) declared that “the Jews are extremely loyal toward one another, and are always ready to show compassion [for their fellow Jews], but toward other people they feel only hate and enmity” (Morais, 46).
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/jtr_01.htm
Now we’ll Jones Jones, after the method of Jones. Jones’s problem is simple. He needs an ideology to justify his preference for licit sex. Tortured by thoughts of the beauties he has passed up, and only partly compensated by his intelligent and sightly loin fruit, he clings with desperate loyalty to an institutional authority he has always lived by. His ‘boo box says jews are but unreclaimed wetlands, who is he to disagree? So ignoring the history he knows, he walks, as best he can, the Official Line. But we who think outside the ‘boo box and fuck outside the wifebox are free to observe and salivate over the curiously attractive and Jones-annihilating fact that
brilliant men long before the Church ever existed characterized jews as exactly the same perverse, obnoxious and lethal parasites that Jones says they became only after they rejected Jesus.
Indeed, Jones insists in his tomes there is an identity between rejecting Jesus and rejecting logos, or logic-slash-rational thought.
Um, Herr Jones, for whom I have respect, I don’t know how to put this unbluntly so…I want you to turn down that Bach. Now imagine that sound video games make when your quarter’s fun is gone. And with that I just say…
We win.
You are wrong about jews. How does the Catholic church say your character will deform as you pridefully, willfully resist the proof of evidence and the promptings of right reason? But wait. If the church rejects them too…how is the church deformed itself?
It is clear to all but the Catholics themselves that their inability to pay attention to the facts about a certain one of god’s created creatures has undermined their institution, subverted it, and set it on the path to destruction. The church has fallen victim to its own false ideology – easy to see for those of us on the outside. The fact was, is, and will remain that jews are not unconverted Christians, they are jews. Their attitude toward your fictional hero Jesus doesn’t have a goddam thing to do with it.
17 December, 2009 at 2:31 am
I have to say that my own preference is for licit sex too, although I add that in my worldview the successful man (successful=more likely to be above average in genetic fitness) is is entitled to a wife and additionally a mistress, whom he should feel free to impregnate provided he can support such issue fully (i.e. keep both mistress and children off welfare and allow mistress to raise children comfortably.)
That said, a little on the side sex is no disgrace provided it’s strictly with one’s own race’s adult consenting members of the opposite sex.
I recently had lunch with a female friend whose oldest daughter has graduated high school. She was a virgin on her graduation night, and her parents told her if she got good grades, avoided dope, any interracial fraternizing and stayed a virgin they would buy her a new car and send her to Europe for two weeks. Daughter duly complied and they lived up to their end (they are very, very wealthy, so this was a modest bequeathment for them.) Her daughter did confess that she had stayed a virgin only with effort.
Her mother then told her that now that she was a legal adult and was heading of to college, and inasmuch as they were not believers in any religion, she knew the girl would start having sex sooner or later. She told her that she knew a couple of pleasant, well groomed men at the office who were not particularly promiscuous, both had been divorced once each and had families, and both had had a vasectomy. She said she would rather the daughter have her first experiences with either of these guys than some boozy frat boy, and she would set up a meeting with one or the other. She liked the first one and Mom paid for them to go to the local vacation spot (the Lake of the Ozarks area, which Alex will recognize-where people from Kansas City and St. Louis go to party) and have a nice pleasant weekend together.
She explained to me she didn’t want the girl coming back pregnant from Europe. And you know, I think her plan made perfect sense. She said she wasn’t opposed to abortion in the moral sense-she was an atheist, and life was a legal term starting at birth to her-but she didn’t want her daughter’s uterus torn up by abortions nor by venereal diseases. She’d given the guy five hundred bucks spending money on condition he get a blood test, which he did.
These people have a lot of money, I don’t. And I think most of the posters here don’t either. But I do understand that wealth necessarily does have its privileges and I think this woman has acted prudently under the circumstances. She wants her daughter to go to a good college, marry a quality man and have two or three quality children. And I think that there could be a hell of a lot worse outcomes-especially as this family is quietly but firmly opposed to their kids having any relations with nonwhites.
17 December, 2009 at 2:50 am
I have to say that my own preference is for licit sex too,
Understand I’m gibing him, gently, not blatting a broadside for screw-license. Jones came to fame for attributing the need to justify loose fucking as the reason so many jew-lefty radicals advocated crazy social policies. I’m flipping him as I do with spiritual-reductivist to counter his and the Catholics’ biological-reductivist smear of us.
17 December, 2009 at 2:52 am
(the Lake of the Ozarks area, which Alex will recognize-where people from Kansas City and St. Louis go to party) and have a nice pleasant weekend together.
I know it from driving through. Obvious a big party spot but never done that myself.
17 December, 2009 at 2:58 am
But I do understand that wealth necessarily does have its privileges and I think this woman has acted prudently under the circumstances. She wants her daughter to go to a good college, marry a quality man and have two or three quality children. And I think that there could be a hell of a lot worse outcomes-especially as this family is quietly but firmly opposed to their kids having any relations with nonwhites.
One thing you learn as you move through the world is there are a lot of things in it you could never even have predicted, even if you’re widely read. Not everybody takes the world with same approach. The base of the pyramid is mass-stupid-Baptists, and this is ok, as much as I poke at these morons, but the higher up you get, the weirder and more thought out oddness there is. I don’t like moral relativism, cheap liberal stupidity, but on the other hand, people are no more equal morally than they’re equal in any other way. One size does not fit all. I think it’s great for some to stay virgins; I can’t argue it’s not a better policy than another for the mass of average people, but I don’t think people who do have sex are wrong to do so, either. I just don’t see sex in the light the religious types do. Or anything else, really.
Thanks for the story, anyway, it’s interesting.
17 December, 2009 at 3:06 am
Umm..yeah, I should have thought of that especially as I have read a modest amount of his ( EMJ’s) writing.
I’m a huge fan of Dr. Oliver’s writing, he and Pierce seem to have a divide on the issue of whether the Reformation was a good or bad thing. Although I am in general a bigger admirer of Oliver-he’s more thoroughgoing than Pierce, who is at the core of his training a technologist-I tend to agree with Pierce that the Reformation was a necessary, a healthy thing.
Whitaker points out that gunpowder and movable type first appear in the Orient, with both Korea (whose writing is actually character based as ours is, more or less unlike China) and China having movable type but over there there was no effect on the society from it to speak of. Those things completely upended the social order in Europe in two generations. Gunpowder eliminated the feudal state (which survived in Japan until Perry) and movable type enabled the masses to be equipped with Bibles in the vernacular (i.e., not Latin) and a huge number of screeds, pamphlets, missives, broadsides and signage. Without these, the Reformation would have been unthinkable.
Both Whitaker and Oliver (see The Yellow Peril ) point to biology as the differentiator here, albeit via slightly different mechanisms.
17 December, 2009 at 3:18 am
I tend to agree with Pierce that the Reformation was a necessary, a healthy thing.
I tended to think that way more before reading Jones. He shows that Prots in many ways were abandoned kooks. But I still think, whether good or bad, some form of Protestantism was inevitable. It is the other pole in the Aryan soul. We follow authority, but we also strike out on our own. Perhaps the breakers away were corrupt, but so was the church. You just can’t keep white men from using their heads. If it hadn’t been Luther, it would have been somebody else. But Jones is invaluable in showing the connection between protestant and jewy revolutionaries, in Amsterdam, England, Czech area and in England.
17 December, 2009 at 3:41 am
I think both the RCC and most Protestant movements to one extent or another were jewy. Indeed, there is an obvious and inevitable jewiness to ANY brand of Christianity. The Reformation begat the Counter-Reformation in the RCC which dejewed it somewhat and also provided the impetus for all progress via the printing press, which was the start of the Industrial Revolution.
Pierce talks (see the Griffin bio,< The Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds wistfully about preindustrial, Guildish Europe, but we forget the reality-for even master craftsmen it was a squalid life by modern standards. Shoemaker’s children went barefoot. Metallurgy and machining were up to producing mediocre cutlery at great cost and crude matchlocks and no better. Without a fair degree of division of labor, no society could build even a steam locomotive-going into space would not have even been the consideration of fantasy. Powered flight would have been inconceivable. Ships would have been wood and under sail, crude sail at that.
For the reformers, the printing press meant the difference between heaven and hell for millions of people, and that motivation made the beginnings of machine tool technology possible as well as the ability to train any sizable number of skilled workers. We may scoff at such things today, but it was an essential link in development. And indeed, it was the most backward areas of Europe where the Reformation made no impact. That can be no coincidence.
As an aside, what is the least jewy, that is to say the most Aryan form of Christianity? I don’t know that, but it’s a good question.
17 December, 2009 at 4:13 am
White Nationalists pride themselves on discarding ideologies and fantasies and staring facts in the face, which is why I tend to align myself with them. But was is this ‘Aryan soul’ nonsense? On what is it based. Have they found the Aryan soul gene?
17 December, 2009 at 4:57 am
It’s just a conventional use of the term. Call it a tendency, if it makes you happy. My point is that Aryans both follow authority and respect tradition, but they also believe they can use their will and brain to observe, reflect, conclude and act – without need a Padre Pio to guide them. I think that Catholicism produces a higher average Aryan than Protestantism does, but I think high end Protestants are better than their Catholic equivalents.
17 December, 2009 at 5:00 am
As for soul and gene, I could has easily say “what gene is hope or love based in?” No one denies these things exist, even if we don’t know how to measure them. By contrast, only some people claim God exists. Many people have no flipping idea what that concept is supposed to refer to. As for soul, it’s a good nice poetic term, and short, which is not to be underrated. I mean, there is a general “feel” difference, shall we say, between a Chihuahua and a Doberman Pinscher. Soul’s a good term for that. In that limited, non-scientific sense, I think it doesn’t fail to say Whites have a different feel to them, or soul, than jews do. Exceptions don’t disprove that. Both type and variation within it exist.
17 December, 2009 at 5:38 am
“If it hadn’t been Luther, it would have been somebody else.”
Luther was the catalyst of a popular revolution, not more.
Apparently there is no historian who noticed two distinct periods im the spread of Reformation, the first about from ca. 1505-1520, the other from 1531 to about1545. The designation “Protestant”, meant to be derogatory, was coined in 1530.
The second one was much more forceful than the first. Not only many states, cities, principalities seceded from Pope and Catholic Church, large parts of the Catholic population in France, Italy, Hungary etc. also embraced the ideas of Reformation. However, it seems there was much more to it than is realized today. People did not just exchange their catholic faith for the new protestant faith and Church, they apparently deserted faith altogether! Contemporary writers indicate this with embarrassment. My best witness is Martin Luther himself. Here a few examples from the famous “Table Talks”:
“The Chancellor of the county Georg Vogeler said: In Bavaria there are now fourhundertfifty parishes vacant and deserted, because there is no Church vicar to be found, but eight men have applied to become executioner.”
“In the y.1538 the 10th Sept. it was told at Lochau, that in the episcopate of Wurzburg there are now four hundred rich parishes desolate and empty. Thereupon Dr. Martin Luther spoke: That will entail nothing good, it will happen here too, coming from this utter CONTEMPT OF THE WORD OF GOD and his servants.”
“On the 21st of July 1539 there was a talk by Dr. Martin Luther about the despicable ingratitude of the people. who refused to pay the tithe they owed to the clergy and do not want to see encumbered their property…A priest near Zerbst had to leave recently his church and vocation because of poverty.”
“Dr. Martin Luther said: It is not only a great shame, but also a great sin, that look, at this time, that through the peoples’ stinginess many parishes are deserted or miserably neglected…Look at our time, where nobilty, citizens and peasants TRAMPLE THE RELIGION UNDER THEIR FEET, chase away devout, faithful parsons.. they will not build the house of the Lord, thus their house will collapse.”
Enough said?
17 December, 2009 at 7:08 am
“It is clear to all but the Catholics themselves that their inability to pay attention to the facts about a certain one of god’s created creatures has undermined their institution, subverted it, and set it on the path to destruction. The church has fallen victim to its own false ideology – easy to see for those of us on the outside. The fact was, is, and will remain that jews are not unconverted Christians, they are jews. Their attitude toward your fictional hero Jesus doesn’t have a goddam thing to do with it.”
To further reinerate my previous post. The Spaniards recognized the threat jews imposed with the jews’ belief in Judaism, another term for their belief in the Talmud. Along with the jews burned at the stake after being recognized as “heretics” not only against the church itself, but also against non-jews in general the burning of the Talmud was accomplished before the rest were expulsed in 1492. Two hundred years of fighting against the jews and the jews still didn’t learn, but kept their belief in the Talmud. And, the Catholic Church to this day gives leniency toward the jews knowing the hostility and the damage the jews are capable of and are currently practicing.
17 December, 2009 at 9:16 am
will we see a debate between EM-J & AL any time soon?
sounds like “a good one” for Mr Jim Giles, eh?!?
*i wouldn’t be too hard on MacDonald for refusing such an encounter….he’s getting on in years, his health may not quite be what it was &, with his academic career and his editorial duties at TOO/TOQ, he has got quite a lot on his plate….EM_J, OTOH, is at least a decade younger than K MacD*
17 December, 2009 at 12:26 pm
diamond Jim wrote, “*i wouldn’t be too hard on MacDonald for refusing such an encounter….he’s getting on in years, his health may not quite be what it was &, with his academic career and his editorial duties at TOO/TOQ, he has got quite a lot on his plate….EM_J, OTOH, is at least a decade younger than K MacD*”
Yes. Giles was pushing too hard for a KMac-on-Linder gig. I thought Kevin handled Giles pushiness well by acting “political” and not coming to an instant decision. What’s to be gained by pitting two heavies against each other in public? Nothing. MacDonald does, as you say, have his plate full, and is doing yeoman’s work in “his department”, as is Alex. Especially now that Alex is “back” (Thank g-d!)
There’s no upside to accenting differences and sticking points in a public interview when what the non-movement needs is MORE solidarity among the different flavors of thrusts to skewer our enemies.
Alex: Thanks so much for “being here” again, and also thanks for your presence on Giles. Hope to see more of it. Also, thanks for doing what it takes to clean up this space and make it tard-free.
17 December, 2009 at 9:22 pm
@Bret Ludwig:
Are you putting us on? This girl’s mother, was she a stepmother? I have never known any mother who would give her daughter to a man to be used sexually like some bitch in heat. The rich, despite their characterization as dissolute, immoral, and unscrupulous are in fact very disciplined in their personal lives and expect alot from their children. I can not see any of them acting as if their children are without a frontal cortex and are helpless victims of their base urges. It just doesn’t square with what I have observed and experienced.
18 December, 2009 at 12:16 am
It’s been argued that Xianity would have died off a long time ago if it weren’t for the Reformation. Thanks, Reformation.
18 December, 2009 at 12:41 am
The Catholic Church was fully captured after 1945 as was Germany and US.
All the churches serve enemy aliens first.
18 December, 2009 at 6:24 am
“But I do understand that wealth necessarily does have its privileges and I think this woman has acted prudently under the circumstances.”
I find this story quite viscerally repulsive. Not so much because it offends judeo-christian morals, which I don’t really have; more because the idea of a parent messing with the sex life of an adult child and acting more-or-less as a pimp for her daughter grosses me out. Maybe it’s different for a woman, but you do that sort of thing with a man and you’ve spiritually castrated him for the rest of his life.
Of course, I’m not surprised to hear of this kind of degeneracy in the upper-middle classes. Lots of wealthy control freak hen mothers around with free access to hubby’s wallet while he’s at work and too much time on their hands.
My paternal grandmother, an upper-middle class atheist/agnostic “socialist” (who nevertheless wouldn’t have spent two seconds in the same room with the “poor people” whose rights she claimed to champion) pulled quite a mindfuck on my dad when he was growing up; enough to make him permanently leave Switzerland for North America. The man, although brilliant, is psychology scarred and will be for the rest of his life. He’s not capable of having normal relationships.
18 December, 2009 at 6:51 am
“The rich, despite their characterization as dissolute, immoral, and unscrupulous are in fact very disciplined in their personal lives and expect alot from their children.”
That might be true of the uppper classes in the Bible Belt, but you’d be surprised at how common this sort of thing is among the euroliberal types.
18 December, 2009 at 12:08 pm
“The rich, despite their characterization as dissolute, immoral, and unscrupulous are in fact very disciplined in their personal lives and expect alot from their children.”
That might be true of the uppper classes in the Bible Belt, but you’d be surprised at how common this sort of thing is among the euroliberal types.
……………………..
Then they won’t stay very rich for very long. They money came, and it will go. Yes, there are some dissolute playboy types (who get all the publicity). But those who intend to keep their wealth are disciplined.
That ferocious, even ruthless, discipline has ALWAYS been a characteristic of the nobility and the very rich down through the centuries. It was what enabled them to retain their position at the top. Grow lax and someone else will seize your position from you. The rich and powerful have much to lose.
A friend of mine married a young woman (European) who had been imported to be governess to a large, very wealthy family in Boston. They had about half a dozen children, and every minute of their day was strictly accounted for. She was expected to run that family with the precision and discipline of a general running a military camp. If they were one minute late for breakfast, for example, she was held accountable. (Queen Elizabeth of England was raised the same way. Isn’t it said that “punctuality is the mark of royalty”?… something like that.) Just read how Frederick the Great was raised. He and his siblings were awakened every morning at 5AM by a cannon! Read about Queen Christina of Sweden who did her lessons and excercises at 5AM with all the windows open in her unheated palace — in fridgid STOCKHOLM, in mid-winter! (It’s what killed her instructor, Descartes, who caught pneumonia.) These people were DISCIPLINED!
18 December, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Not only were the monarchies of old disciplined, they had to answer to their royal subjects. If the people of a given kingdom had become fed up with the Jews in their midst, the rulers would have no choice but to get rid of the pests, even if they were personally benefitting from having the Jews around.
The offspring of royalty were also very well-bred, like race horses. Ever see those old portraits of Czar Nicholas II’s daughters? The Romanovs must have represented everything the Jews despised, ie, dignity, pure Aryan blood, racial awareness, love of country, tradition and family. No wonder the Jews butchered them all so mercilessly. Only powerless, ceremonial monarchies like those of England, Sweeden and Belgium are acceptable to the Jews.
18 December, 2009 at 4:21 pm
But old Royal families aside, most wealthy White people are only loyal to their money and their class, not their race. They let their daughters sleep around with jet-setting Jew and Arab playboys, but would become very upset if their daughters should ever have anything to do with some decent, working-class White guy. The rich have absolutely no compassion for their fellow Whites who were not to the manor born, so come the Revolution I will not show them any compassion, either.
18 December, 2009 at 10:18 pm
“But old Royal families aside, most wealthy White people are only loyal to their money and their class, not their race. They let their daughters sleep around with jet-setting Jew and Arab playboys”
Sadly true. One characteristic is that they are flexible; that’s what permits them to survive changes in regimes and go onward. They go with the winners. They are practical and they are opportunistic. Many of them (in a former generation) would have been horrified at the prospect of hobnobbing with such types; but the present generation seems to have made their accommodation with the new power elite and are fitting into it. They are becoming a hybrid Anglo-Jewish aristocracy…. but maybe I should switch those words around in order of real importance. The Old Money capitulating and adjusting to the New.
As for the Jews, it’s always been their strategy (at least for court Jews and such) either to destroy and replace the old aristocracy (when resistant, as the Romanovs were) with themselves; or (much easier way) to infiltrate it, intermarry, and gradually turn it Jewish (as with the Rothschilds and many other so-called “aristocrats” in Britain). Either way, they become — gradually, or all at once in a violent takeover — the new aristocracy ruling over a dumb, mindless herd of confused gentiles.
Just like those invading ants mentioned above that kill the old queen and replace her with one of their own, making the whole ant colony their slaves. A very apt analogy, I think!
19 December, 2009 at 4:53 am
Why do some of you inisist on associating being “rich” with being noble or aristocratic?
Most of the “rich” people in the United States (whom I would be more inclined to call upper-middle class than “rich” anyways, but since some of you seem to think that earning a 3 figure salary or having a nest egg of a few million dollars makes you “rich”…) don’t have a drop of noble blood in them. The denizens of country clubs are not aristocrats by any sense of the word. Why do you people insist that’s the case?
Funny, but I’ve known people who were quite wealthy (millionaires) and none of them struck me as being particularly moral people; quite the contrary, in fact. Were they tight (“disciplined”) with their money? You bet. But so what? How does being tight with one’s money translate into being noble? A true aristocrat puts moral concerns ahead of his personal gain. That’s why the word “noble” is synonymous with being “good.” You did something selfless out of moral concerns? “How noble of you.”
I spend a lot of time defending Americans from eurosnobs, but this thread illustrates well what I think is one of the worst traits of Americans, this sort of shallow, nouveau riche mentality that the worth of a man is how many cars he has in the driveway. Becoming “rich” isn’t hard if you have more than a two-digit IQ and good work ethic, but I don’t think the pursuit of material wealth in itself is anything that’s worthy of admiration.
I was told recently about a young French doctor who’s one of the few specialists in the world on a certain disease. He was earning a five-figure salary working for the government health care services. I thought that was shocking, because he obviously could be making many, many times that. But the doctor said he loved his job, that he wanted to do what was best for the community, and that as long as he was making enough to live comfortably, he didn’t care how much he was earning. Now that’s noble and it’s something I respect. And it’s something few Americans could grasp. To the average ‘kwan, only a loser would waste his time at a job he loves or derives a feeling of spiritual gratification from when he could be elsewhere making more money.
I wonder if America would ever be capable of having a true aristocratic class.
19 December, 2009 at 4:55 am
* insist
19 December, 2009 at 5:01 am
“Then they won’t stay very rich for very long.”
If you ask me, the Clintons are going to stay wealthy for a long time to come.
19 December, 2009 at 5:29 am
“Why do some of you inisist on associating being “rich” with being noble or aristocratic?”
I understand what you mean and, believe me, I don’t disagree with you.
Nowhere have I implied endorsement of “this sort of shallow, nouveau riche mentality that the worth of a man is how many cars he has in the driveway”, as you put it. Those people aren’t AT ALL who I am talking about.
And, as with the case of the French doctor you mentioned, doing something “noble” doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with money at all. But it would surely have something to do with discipline.
I was using especially European examples because they go back for centuries and centuries for a thousand years and more, to the Normans or to Charlemagne and Clovis. They’ve stayed on top all those generations (those who did) by being ruthlessly disciplined and keeping ahead of the competition. These are not your American nouveaux riches who go from rags to riches and back in 3 generations! But many American Old Money families also adapted the European standards for raising their children. They learned from those who have been through it. Agreed, there are lots of flighty rich people who are vapid and purely trashy. A great many! Nothing “noble” about them there. And by rich, the really, REALLY, rich, I don’t mean those with a few millions either. That’s just peanuts. In fact no American millionaires, especially today, wield the enormous kind of social power that the European aristocracy had. I’m not adulating them, mind you; I’m just stating the case as it was.
A comparable situation, an analogy, would be a military school. A wealthy and powerful NATION that wants to preserve and retain its power, will send its sons off for training in a military school where they will also learn the values of rigorous self-discipline. You don’t even have to be a rich person to do that.
19 December, 2009 at 5:34 am
“They let their daughters sleep around with jet-setting Jew and Arab playboys, but would become very upset if their daughters should ever have anything to do with some decent, working-class White guy.”
Spot on.
19 December, 2009 at 5:45 am
Ein: I get your point, and self-discipline is definitely a trait that I respect. I very much respect people who worked hard to get to where they are, far more so than imbeciles who sit on their asses all their lives watching TV hoping to win the lotto.
I think at one time being rich probably did correlate with having noble character traits (discipline, ethics), but these days, the connection is more nebulous. I’ve met as many (if not more) people of character in the lower echelons of society as in the high (well, by “high” I mean the upper-middle classes because the truly rich wouldn’t get near a guy like me with a hundred-foot pole).
19 December, 2009 at 5:55 am
typo: my comment further up was supposed to read “psychologically scarred”
19 December, 2009 at 8:38 am
While we’re on the subject of class and nobility and so on…
I’ve been reading the Grimm’s fairy tales lately. The story I’m reading right now is called Die zwoelf Brueder. The twelve brothers referred to in the title are the sons of a king.
Because communist/far-left ideas have become so pervasive in the West, we’re accustomed to regarding royalty cynically; for example, as being ruthless, pampered exploiters of the working class.
In this story, it’s striking how the royal family described is nothing like that. They washed their own clothes. They hunted, grew, and cooked their own food. They were good, kind, loving people. Not much different, really, from any other family.
Whites should read the Grimm’s fairy tales. These stories represent a pure, innocent world which has been all but destroyed by modernity and the jews.
19 December, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Whites should read the Grimm’s fairy tales. These stories represent a pure, innocent world which has been all but destroyed by modernity and the jews.
I agree with this. I think these offer all the value of religious instruction, but without the obnoxiousness and ugliness of the jewy bible, and without the boringness of the Greek and Nordic gods. Fairy tales are fiction, but the psychology in them is true. And they show that life entails risks. And that some options have no back-out policy. Some things you do are forever. That needs to be learned. Fairy tales show the true Aryan spirit in action.
20 December, 2009 at 5:14 am
Are you putting us on? This girl’s mother, was she a stepmother? I have never known any mother who would give her daughter to a man to be used sexually like some bitch in heat.
Really, it was the man who was being used, although he didn’t seem to mind.
Sadly the reverse is more common, though not amongst those we would describe as “well bred”. Many white trash mothers whore their daughters out, although usually not in the explicit terms of actual prostitution. The Spearses of Louisiana come to mind, of course.
28 December, 2009 at 2:43 pm
“Many white trash mothers whore their daughters out, although usually not in explicit terms….. The Spearses of Louisiana come to mind…”
That is an excellent example!
And yes, it was the man (in that case you quoted) who was being “used”. He was being bought to serve her convenience, not she to serve his — although it worked out nicely for both of them.
I think that was a rather common, enlightened, attitude among the European aristocracy of the ancien regime — especially French. Women were allowed to have their lovers on the side, and that was tolerated provided it was discrete, caused no public scandal, and they were properly married to someone even if the marriage was only one of convenience. Being married was considered important. Having the status of a married woman made her respectable; and a married woman was assumed to be worldly. Even the mistresses of the French king had to married off to someone or proper status in order to give them a title, respectability, and social position. This freedom would not have been extended to a virgin or an unmarried woman, according to the Latin mentality — unless she was already a demi-mondaine (in which case she wasn’t respectable).
And also, sex was considered a sport, a diversion, reserved for royalty and aristocrats — and this was so all over Europe — it was quite another standard than what applied to common folks who were expected to go to church and be chaste. There was “a law for the lion and a law for the lamb.” Again, I’m not endorsing it, just commenting on it. That’s how it was.
I’ve read that when Louis XIV reached his teens and was considered at an age ready to learn about sex, he was taken to the house of one of the most elegant prostitutes in Paris for this older woman to induct him into the arts of love. This “instruction” was aranged by his mother, the Queen! Yes, the aristocrats had quite a different, non-prissy, and very wordly, view on these matters — a wholly different outlook from the puritanical, bourgeois standards that our middle class knows today.
I can understand Bret’s sophisticated, and “very, very wealthy” friend setting up such an arrangement for her daughter in order to keep the girl out of trouble, get her through these difficult years, and spare her all the pain of learning about life the hard way (as most of us do)… especially if the mother is an atheist, a realist, and thus untroubled by religious compunctions. Really quite civilized, I’d say! Lucky girl.