Keep the #NRORevolt Political, not Personal: Regarding the French Family Drama


We’re winning the battle with National Review. The comments have generally been favorable toward identitarian and Neoreactionary positions. Trump’s civic nationalist revolution against the Beltway status quo is bedeviling the neocon wonks and weasels, and Ann Coulter said what was on everyone’s mind (philo-semite and anti-semite alike) about the CNN Debate; “Cool it with the pro-Israel pandering!”

Ann Coulter, who’s exceedingly Jew-friendly, said exactly what Jason Zengerle said last week in New York Magazine, that the Sheldon Adelson Primary was getting out of control. It’s not even “good for the Jews” at this point. As Ann Coulter noted, the candidates were obnoxiously pandering for Israel wildly out of context, off-topic, and over-the-top for the entirety of the exhaustive debate. Those who deem Coulter’s tweet to be anti-semitic are implying that noticing Jewish political power being expressed is anti-semitic, regardless of context or motive.

We’re pivoting National Review into precisely the position we want them, which is where they bundle identitarianism in with Trump (who is not an identitarian), confirm their anti-White political bias, and expose their treasonous pandering to the Israel Lobby. They’re attempting to delegitimize Trump’s candidacy by falsely associating himself with our positions, which offers us a unique opportunity to deliver our critiques of neo-conservatism as if they’re coming from Donald Trump himself.

To stop us from winning, to stop us from having and exploiting this incredible platform, National Review and the rest of the cuckservative crowd would have to admit that Donald Trump is neither racialist nor anti-immigrant, and they hate Trump too hard and are too afraid of his civic nationalist position to treat him honestly. They’re throwing everything at Trump that they think will stick because they’re in an existential battle for their wonky survival, and there are currently more of our tweets and quotes posted at National Review than at our own websites.

The men who instigated #NRORevolt–like the unstoppable @Jimmy_Vaughn99–have been roasting National Review with hard facts and clever attacks, making the most of this temporary glitch in the matrix of mainstream political discourse. There’s no centralized coordination of these sorts of things, and nobody answers to anybody else, so it’s only natural that the least appealing angles coming from our camp will be propped up and presented as representative of our views and there’s nothing we could or should do about the situation.

At this stage in the game, chaos is our best hope.

When I refer to least appealing angles, I’m referring in particular to the handful of folks who’ve jumped on National Review columnist David French’s family life, namely his having adopted an Ethiopian orphan. Technically, biologically, any adoption is categorically “cuckoldry,” and as a White Identitarian, I agree with the Leftists who believe that the fad of interracial adoption is deeply problematic. It’s problematic for the community the children are being taken from, for the children who are placed in communities dissonant with their heritage and identity, and for the communities they’re placed in.

But it’s not our problem, it’s not our fight, and it’s a fight which threaten the success of the “cuckservative” label. While David and Nancy are indeed both White, they’re what I refer to as WIBOs: White In Biology Only. They never claimed an allegiance to their ethno-racial kinsmen. They’re global cosmopolitan citizens of the world who are loyal to a handful of vague political abstractions and paperwork peccadillos regarding who is and is not a fellow “American.” America is a multi-racial empire that’s hostile to all of the organic traditional identities within its borders except for the privileged Jewish one, with a particular hostility toward our own.

Black conservatives generally catch flack from their racial kinsmen for being traitors to their identity, and their kinsmen are right. A Black who’s promoting universalist classical liberal ideals is only biologically Black, and his chosen identity and future is a deracinated melting pot of global consumerist paperwork patriots. It’s impossible to know exactly how many White folks with White spouses and White children have a degree of vestigial or hidden loyalty to their identity. But at this point, it’s safe to say that a huge subset–probably the majority–of White American families are only technically White at this point, not politically so.

White identitarians in America must abandon the obsolete notion that White skin implies a White identity. At one point in the living memory of some of our older advocates, this was pretty much the case. But it’s not the case, it hasn’t been for a while, and it’s unlikely to be the case again in the immediate future. The only appeal that’s going to work is an appeal for folks of our persuasion to be allowed to exist without being destroyed by the virulent anti-Whites. And not all who opt out of Whiteness are anti-White. I’ve met several folks over the years who are married to non-Whites or even are mixed race themselves who are indifferent toward or even supportive of my choice to remain White.

Plenty of deracinated Whites can tolerate or even respect Whites who wish to opt out of the multicultural social experiment. Practically none of them will tolerate the implied premise of the attacks on the French family, that their choice to be in interracial relationships and participate in a multicultural society is challenged. Both husband and wife have leapt onto their respective blogging platforms to complain about the abuse they’re receiving, and I agree with them that they should not be receiving the abuse.

A lot of Whites in America, perhaps most, are already gone. Don’t let their pale skin and light hair fool you. They have close family members who are non-White, close friends who are non-White, and decades of indoctrination against White identity which guarantee that they’ll choose a Brazilian-style future over one which preserves the heritage and qualities that they’ve been trained to feel at best ambivalent about and typically downright guilty about. That’s their choice. We don’t have the power to stop them, and I wouldn’t stop them even if I had the power.

My attitude is “Farewell! Best of luck!” At some undetermined point in the future, they may well regret the decision and demand entry into our formal or informal enclaves of Whiteness. It’s at that point that their personal choices would become relevant. At that point, perhaps they’ll gnash their teeth and regret having discarded tens of thousands of years of adaptation to a precious and rich social and cultural disposition in return for some vacuous abstractions. Or perhaps they’ll get along just fine in the multicultural “American” nation of immigrants they’ve selected.

It’s not my family. They’re not part of my community. Their choices aren’t my concern, and my choice to remain White and preserve a White living space shouldn’t be their concern. When we make the moral mistake of challenging their choices, we’re implying a commonality of identity and sovereignty which we should be moving away from. You go do your thing, and allow us to do ours. While the virulent anti-Whites will attack and hate us and push White Genocide regardless of what we say or do, there are persuadables for whom a coherent and consistent moral argument matters.

I don’t care about their family, because caring is a finite resource which I choose to reserve for those who share my tribe and tradition. I favor some degree of charity for the aliens and foreigners, particularly for disaster and emergency relief. But the globalization of caring results in what we’ve come to today, a society where we couldn’t care less if our neighbors choke while we eagerly await our Kony 2012 packets and passionately cheer about this or that media-driven humanitarian “concern” for a week or so before moving on to the next one. The French family doesn’t share my identity, and I don’t care what multicultural globalist Americans do with their lives.

What I do care about is winning the hearts and minds of the rapidly shrinking subset of Whites who are still persuadable, still capable of deciding, “You know what? I am White. I have a rich heritage. The kinds of societies my ancestors built are the kinds of societies I wish for my grandchildren to enjoy. And I would rather they look and act like me.” If we forfeit the moral argument in our eagerness to overextend the apt political analogy of the cuckold into the personal realm of a loving family’s beloved child, then they’ll tune out our compelling arguments from history, science, and personal experience for White Identity.

It’s not about moderation, but about direction. We should not bother being politically correct. People have had it with political correctness. We should not hold back in naming and blaming Jewish Power. We should not sweep the problem of Black-on-White crime under the rug. We should be bold and direct, and always on the offensive. But to actively attack a blended family, making a young child the target of political vitriol, …that’s just offensive.

Update: I wasn’t aware of the extent to which the French family have egregiously and repeatedly relied on their adoptive daughter as a political prop for their anti-White agenda. I was under a false (and gullible) assumption that they were responsible parents who weren’t shamelessly exploiting the young girl. Why do I keep giving anti-White scum the benefit of the doubt? My position is that private family situations should be approached with caution and delicacy and I maintain that position. However, in light of their having made the daughter’s race a public and political issue to repeatedly attack White Identity, the matter is certainly fair game. Play ball!


  • J.j. Cintia

    I disagree. Burn the race traitors with the Cuckservative label. Let them twist in the wind. Traitors have no nation to belong to. Let everyone see these White race traitors twist in the wind. Their brown and black “friends” will not side with them, and the alien parasites will give them no succor. Let Whites see this Brave New Raceless World and what it means to them. Dispossession and no loyalty or respect from their Anti-White Lifeless Soulless Parasite frenemies.

  • Trainspotter

    Lots of good points, Matt. While I agree with the general spirit of your piece, I have some quibbles as well.

    “What I do care about is winning the hearts and minds of the rapidly shrinking subset of Whites who are still persuadable…”

    Rapidly shrinking? I was surprised to read this. My own impression is quite the opposite, namely that the subset of whites who are persuadable is rapidly increasing. Why do you think this group is still shrinking?

    As to the issue of “attacking” a blended family, I hear you…up to a point. It’s a delicate issue, and getting into it can easily backfire. However, I think it is legitimate to show the persuadables that the Beltway cucks really HAVE bought into the multiracial worldview – literally. They aren’t on our side, secretly or otherwise. It’s not that they’ve been cowed into silence, it’s that they have zero interest in the cause of white identity, and in fact now have very personal and self-interested motives to oppose us. In some very fundamental ways, they’ve burned their bridges. Putting a spotlight on this serves the interest of basic transparency, among other things.

    In other words, this is fair game.

    Further, we ARE against miscegenation, transracial adoption, etc. – in white communities. If someone wishes to leave the white tribe and join a mixed-race community, fine. Good riddance to bad rubbish. We don’t seek to force our worldview upon them, but these cucks are not extending the same courtesy to us. They unapologetically seek to impose their multiracial worldview upon us. That these people have managed to insert themselves as “thought leaders” in the so-called conservative movement is a serious matter, and shows just how much of a joke that movement really is. Since our goal is to discredit modern conservatism in favor of our own vision, the stakes are real.

    In short, their personal choices in this area are relevant and, at least to a certain extent, fair game. It should go without saying that the children in question never had the opportunity to make a choice and, obviously, should not in any way be attacked. But the parents did, and those choices have serious implications – again, their bridges are burned. That some of these people are lecturing whites on their evil racism, while not being forthcoming about their own mixed-race families, is fundamentally dishonest – in some ways similar to Tim Wise running his “we whites” are evil racists routine.

    • Rapidly shrinking? I was surprised to read this. My own impression is quite the opposite, namely that the subset of whites who are persuadable is rapidly increasing. Why do you think this group is still shrinking?

      A more accurate answer would be that our pool is steadily shrinking. There has been, over the past several months, an uptake in identitarian interest and sentiment. But that’s against a grinding demographic reality that with each passing day, neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, and families in America are becoming more racially diverse.

      However, I think it is legitimate to show the persuadables that the Beltway cucks really HAVE bought into the multiracial worldview – literally. They aren’t on our side, secretly or otherwise. It’s not that they’ve been cowed into silence, it’s that they have zero interest in the cause of white identity, and in fact now have very personal and self-interested motives to oppose us. In some very fundamental ways, they’ve burned their bridges. Putting a spotlight on this serves the interest of basic transparency, among other things.

      Noting that they have a racially blended family as a neutral matter of firmly identifying them as “other” is definitely fair game. Same with Jeb’s wife. It’s abundantly obvious that his marriage is politically symbolic and relevant. He is quite literally, in his own words, “bi-cultural.”

      His eyes light up with warmth when he thinks about Latin American culture, and his face grows cold at the dreadful prospect of any kind of equivalent celebration of his White American identity.

      You’re right that the child’s presence is politically relevant, and I’m sure the French family would agree with me that the child definitively proves that they will absolutely never ever in their whole live-long neocon lives endorse, support, or perhaps even tolerate the existence of a separate and sovereign White Zion.

      Since our goal is to discredit modern conservatism in favor of our own vision, the stakes are real.

      I agree that the stakes are real, but my goal is to extract our identity from the Cosmic American political identity. It’s vital to maintain that focus, as much of the task of critiquing and repairing modern conservatism is beyond the scope of my work. The cardinal imperative (and you’re correct that noting that they’re a blended family interests with this) is to polarize, polarize, polarize on identity.

      And that polarization must not be done on racial taxonomy, but on ethnic-tribal loyalty. We must incubate subcultures, cultures, communities, and broad networks of White Americans who don’t consider Cosmic Americans “us,” regardless of their skin color. Whether those Americans are liberals, conservatives, libertarians, or even civic nationalists like Trump doesn’t matter.

      They all need to be “them,” and we need a lexical toolkit and memetic arsenal to facilitate that sociocultural speciation process. Whitaker’s introduction of “Anti-Whites” and confirmation that Anti-Whites can be and often are themselves White is huge, but I think we’re still missing a neutral term inclusive of Whites who have chosen, like the French family, to “other” themselves.

      I’m fond of the Cosmic American term, though it hasn’t caught on. Hopefully someone more witty can make something work. Since “Anti-White” categorically can’t refer to non-Whites and blended families which are either chill with White identity or too young to be politically engaged, there’s a gap in our rhetoric which perhaps leads to this sort of uncomfortable situation.

      That some of these people are lecturing whites on their evil racism, while not being forthcoming about their own mixed-race families, is fundamentally dishonest – in some ways similar to Tim Wise running his “we whites” are evil racists routine.

      Agreed.

      Both sides, cuckservatives and identitiarians alike, typically presume and accept a shared moral, social, and political commons, an arrangement which will invariably lead to either one faction or the other prevailing in the “American” sociopolitical “habitat.” This is one reason why I stand behind our controversial “Death to America” position. Our side is the one losing the battle to define what it means to be an American.

      Some rearguard defense and recruiting action is necessary as long as most of us remain “American” to varying moral, social, and political degrees. But the majority of our resources and the entirety of our vision and strategy must be on finding a way out from under the multicultural future that the French family and tens of millions of other Whites have already literally signed their allegiance to in blood.

    • Mary Nelson

      Sharing the same girl??
      Andre Anglin and YOU Both screwed an arab lady at the same time according to my uncle Rodney

    • Your uncle Rodney has insisted that the Arab woman and I…

      1. Have a living child from the incident,

      2. Had an abortion to cover up the incident,

      3. Had the incident with Anglin.

      I never had sex with the Arab woman. There is no child. I have never had a “threesome,” and if I did, it certainly wouldn’t be with a man as handsome and virile as Anglin, who would certainly upstage me.

  • Richard Bird

    You are wrong. When a muslim leader tells the muslims in Europe to make children with white woman in order to eliminate the white race, and the jewmedia are pushing interacial relationships with all their might, it does become our business. Speak out against the destruction of our race by condemning the practice, no matter if you are called intolerant, a racist, bigot or any other perceived insult. Do we really want to make children who bear no resemblence to ourselves?

    • In the European context, this argument makes perfect sense. Hungary is for Hungarians. We’re full. GTFO.

      In the American and other colonial diasporatic contexts, it’s not so simple. A Black American is as “American” as I am. Our states are multiracial empires. A generation or two ago, that argument may have been winnable, but social and demographic changes over the past few decades have set that goal firmly out of reach.

      The goal is to extricate ourselves from the racial integration melting pot, not to attack it, per se. Attempting to impose the taboo against race-mixing on contemporary American culture is a tactically hopeless fool’s errand which distracts resources from the more achievable goal of building a case for our right to opt out of the social experiment altogether.

      “Oh? You adopted an Ethiopian orphan? I’m sure she’s lovely. My wife and I are saving up to move to [White Zion] here in about six months, but we’ll be sure to stay in touch.”

      The taboo against miscegenation can and should exist within our nascent subcultures, and certainly in our future communities, just as the Jewish community loudly and proudly warns against marrying out. But the onus is on ourselves to incubate and develop the communities and networks within which such a taboo would be and could be the social norm.

      The “American general public” is emphatically not that community.

  • The media war is a war of appearances. You can say that America is not a white country, never was; but my mental picture of America is of a white country, and when you take that away, you don’t have my America, you have glop. (Claiming that this point of view might work with a European country but not with America, is casuistry.)

    The Frenches got caught up in this war of appearances because they tried to make themselves palatable to the anti-identitarian crowd by buying and promoting their Ethiopian baby. Picture here, picture there, here’s another…what a lovely little whatever. “See, we’re conservatives, but we believe in trans-racial adoption.”

    The Frenches got what they deserved. This behavior needs to be ridiculed loudly and often. The Frenches could have acquired their Ethope and kept the business to themselves. But no.

    • You can say that America is not a white country, never was; but my mental picture of America is of a white country, and when you take that away, you don’t have my America, you have glop.

      I said that the argument that America is a White country was winnable a few decades ago. Now I believe it’s untenable and unwinnable.

      For the majority of White Americans at this stage, America is indeed glop. It makes more sense to leave them to their glop and move forward toward a White Identity which is post-American.

    • Excuse the stridency of my comment then. To back up a bit in the argument: personally I don’t believe it was so winnable a few decades ago. We bred like rabbits in the 40s, 50s, 60s, but without any direction, and often with dysgenic effects. Quantity was prized over quality. With the breakdown in overall quality, there was a loss of national pride and identity. (Compare, say, the Californian identity of 1950 with that of 1980.) To overcome this we must have a long-term goal, and that does not include retreating into some kind of Bantustan homeland. You can call it a White Identity, I prefer a ‘Nice White Country’ because that is non-abstract and easy to visualize.

    • A Northwest Republic/Avalon/White Zion/Bantustan/Whatever is an achievable long-term goal.

      I don’t believe that a general decline in White genetic quality is a factor, or that a White Supremacist project or one which involves deporting hundreds of millions of people is practical or attractive.

    • I know many people are of your opinion, but that redoubt idea has been mooted for decades and just doesn’t catch people’s imagination. “White Supremacism” is an invention, a shibboleth on the other side. Nobody is proposing to deport “hundreds of millions.”

    • Nothing anybody is doing has succeeded, or we would be successful. So that line of argument sort of shuts down everything.

      White Supremacism would, by definition, involve Whites culturally and politically dominating the United States while hundreds of millions of non-Whites remain. So what do we do about a hundred million non-Whites? Deport them all? Dominate them? What am I missing?

    • You’ve bought into this “White Supremacism” line, unfortunately, which is a pejorative created to enervate clear thinking on these topics. Of course these problems can be solved. I personally cannot give you blueprints for a rocketship to Mars, but that does not mean that rocketships to Mars cannot be built or do not exist. The bogeyman of mass-deportation doesn’t have to apply to more than a few dozen million current illegals, and maybe not even them.

      An alternative idea is to have a humane and ethical eugenics program. Some of the creatures will happily accept cash or a prize—a mobile phone, a transistor radio, whatever—in exchange for being sterilized. Perhaps we could agree to let illegals stay if they are spayed or neutered. We are frequently told that this is a humane thing to do to dogs and cats, because it’s better for their health and makes them more docile, and we can’t afford to find homes for all of them. Seems to me this is a very kind and charitable solution. Some of the aliens won’t want this, of course, and will self-deport. But the point here is there are all sorts of reasonable solutions that are not being discussed.

    • I was stating, without being triggered by the taboo hovering around “White Supremacy,” that an arrangement where Whites and non-Whites co-exist under the same government isn’t desirable or sustainable.

      It’s not the mass deportation of illegals which is the question. It’s the tens of millions of Black Americans who’ve been a fixture in North American since well before the state’s founding.

      You seem to be operating exclusively within terms of what ought to happen, rather than what is achievable given the current demographic, geopolitical, and sociocultural context.

    • Matt, I’m being a little lighthearted with this, borderline facetious. The business about the ‘White Supremacy’ nonsense is simply my objection to letting the enemy set the terms of debate. Let’s leave it at that.

      The “mass deportation of illegals” did indeed seem to be the question, as you were talking about “hundreds of millions,” presumably including those who have not yet stormed the gates. Now you say you are really talking about the “Black Americans.” Well I’m sure we can find an ethical, charitable, Christian solution.

      What is clear is that in our lovely multiracial quilt, they are the most disruptive and clashing color. What is also clear is Chief Justice Taney’s decision in 1857: there was never any intention of giving the African Negro citizenship or pretending that he was the equal of the White. That’s just reality, a reality that has not changed, no matter how many brummagem 14th and 15th Amendments get instituted by fiat.

      Even if “Black Americans” as a group could claim some outstanding historical “right” to be in North America, as a matter of security and economics their presence is unsustainable. We simply cannot afford or permit any more Fergusons or Detroits. Andrew Jackson moved the Creeks and Cherokees from the Southeast because extensive tracts of Indian settlements—even civilized, peaceful Indian settlements—were an endless security hazard and onerous cost, given the extraordinary violence of Indian uprisings and massacres in the early 19th century. So pick the Reservation option if you will. Or the buyout option. Either one would be a lot kinder and cheaper than what we have now.

    • Fr. John+

      THEY ALL HAVE TO GO. that pretty much sums up my POV, as I was raised in the era before 1965, and the Celler Immigration ‘Reform’ Act.

      I WANT a WHITE AMERICA, and I want it ‘by any means necessary.’

      I am not a Russian, I am not an Antiochian, I am not a Greek. I am an Englishman of Anglo-Celtic ancestry and this is MY homeland, dammit.

      So, yes. I am fully identitarian, and I resonate with the TRUMP TRAIN.

      I’d gladly put the ‘xenos’ on the trains, and be righteous in doing so.

      This is fully the mindset of Codreneau, and the other Orthodox Nationalists who became Saint-Martyers at the Hands of the Christ-killers.

      This time, we’re not going so easily. Public sentiment in the wake of ‘Queen Ann Coulter’s’ comment, clearly is in our favor.

      http://www.dailystormer.com/the-establishments-narrative-is-collapsing/

  • Jack Spratt

    It’s interesting that you can tell the French’s are still sore at the Left for attacking them for transracial adoption. They actually come across as much angrier at the Left for that than at us for the same thing. (To some extent it’s to their credit, that they’re not purely extensions of the Left like the other NRO columnists.)

    Transracial adoption is an important symbolic issue where the Left and us agree. It goes to the issue of what White people are for:

    1. Cuckservative position: White people exist to get a feeling of smug superiority by paternalistically ruling over their non-white children.

    2. Liberal position: White people exist as the antagonist in the story of how non-whites achieved cultural and collective self-actualization via take-over of America.

    3. White Nationalist position: White people exist for White people, and should achieve cultural and collective self-actualization via creation of White ethnostate.

    The liberal position is much closer, relatively speaking, to the White Nationalist position than the Cuckservative position. More importantly, the liberal and Cuckservative positions are inherently antagonistic.

    The most important reason we’ve got to the point where a Hollywood celebrity like Seth Rogan feels the need to come out swinging against the concept of White genocide is because the Left is getting to the point where it’s clear Cuckservatives are dead men walking.

    I’m ambivalent about whether the French NR article helps or hurts us. On the one hand he put the effort into coming across as non-retarded, an effort he probably wouldn’t have bothered putting forth if his adopted kid had been left out of it. On the other hand he just social proofed the hell out of our opposition to race-mixing by associating us with Coulter in the context of talking about our opposition to race-mixing.

    The wife tried agree and amplify on us, which is kinda funny. It made her husband seem like less of a hapless Beta than he probably really is. I mean, just on a visceral level a man who is capable of getting his wife pregnant isn’t going to go along with his wife adopting an unrelated couple’s kid unless he’s more alienated from his basic instincts than is healthy.

    I get the whole we’re all children of God thing, but what David French probably can’t see is that even if he doesn’t care about the continued existence of White people, the alienation from his own normal masculine instincts represented by the adoption is just the sort of self-repression that makes Cuckservatives too weak to have a fighting chance against the Left. This is the same reason why the biologically White part of the Leftist coalition will eventually fall and at best be subjected to rank humiliations.

  • Pingback: Cuckservatives: French Family Edition | Neoreactive()

  • ps mike

    That was a great article, Matt.

  • EricStriker

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPMJxRxUAAAzlDU.jpg What are you talking about Parrott? This wimp deserves to be mocked, in front of any normal people who read his shit in the National Jew-View. His adoption is reprehensible because there are millions of poor white orphans in war zones like the Balkans or Ukraine that French could’ve adopted, that would’ve been far better able to assimilate, but he chose the black baby because of its fashionable career bettering properties (especially for a conservative, what better proof you “aren’t” racist).

    We should get very personal against our most virulent enemies, they absolutely deserve it and wouldn’t hesitate to take it to that level against us. Look at how these cuckservatives treat Donald Trump, talking about his divorces, etc.

  • Fee-fi-fo-fum

    It is only a matter of time before ALL whites realize just how much Jews hate us and want us all dead.

  • zombiekiller117

    Glad I read to the end and saw the UPDATE, I was about to launch an attack on Matt because they used that kid as a political weapon. As Matt said, it’s open season !

  • Fr. John+

    “It’s not my family. They’re not part of my community. Their choices aren’t my concern, and my choice to remain White and preserve a White living space shouldn’t be their concern. When we make the moral mistake of challenging their choices, we’re implying a commonality of identity and sovereignty which we should be moving away from. You go do your thing, and allow us to do ours. While the virulent anti-Whites will attack and hate us and push White Genocide regardless of what we say or do, there are persuadables for whom a coherent and consistent moral argument matters.”

    Matt- Perhaps others have written on this subject. But, if we were living in First-Century Judea, with the ‘Multicultural Empire’ of Rome all around us, and your attitude had been the prevailing one with the Apostles, do you think ANY of the Israelites in Judea and Samaria, and the ‘ends of the earth’ would have converted to Christianity?

    Perhaps the ‘Gentiles’ but even here, such a cavalier disregard for ‘one’s own folk’ BEFORE EVEN TRYING TO CONVERT THEM TO TRUTH, seems a tacit disregard for the ‘ensamples’ made by the Judahites of Christ’s day, to bring the ‘Good News of the Gospel’ to them, prior to St. Paul’s being sent as ‘apostle to the Gentiles.’

    Also, the public shaming of Mr. French and his ‘Family Affair’ NEEDS to be iterated. How can we return to (even if we are building anew) the Worldview of our ancestors, if we don’t start ‘judment with the house of God’ meaning the RACE OF WHITES?

    I respectfully disagree (as I’ve said on other fora) with your POV.

nancy-with-her-daughter

By: Matt Parrott


Matt is a founding member of TradYouth and is currently the project's Chief Information Officer. He's been active in the White Identity cause for years, primarily as a blogger but also as a street activist and regional organizer.
%d bloggers like this: