Cuvier’s Heroic Science

“It is astounding to see how inventiveness grows in nature when existence is at stake. This applies to both defense and pursuit. For every missile, an anti-missile is devised. At times, it all looks like sheer braggadocio. This could lead to a stalemate or else to the moment when the opponent says, ‘I give up’, if he does not knock over the chessboard and ruin the game. Darwin did not go that far; in this context, one is better off with Cuvier’s theory of catastrophes.” -Ernst Jünger, ALADDIN’S PROBLEM

It has often been argued of great Continental scientists, such as Goethe and Mircea Eliade, that since their methods were not in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, they must not have had methods at all. No matter how many times a scholar debunks such nonsense, those initiated into the cult of Anglophone science continue to believe it, just as they will continue to venerate the brave joystick warriors of Arthur Harris. Our subject is a foremost example of this tendency, as he has been mistreated by our execrable history of science books in the Anglosphere.

Life and Achievements

During the Second French Revolution of 1830, which resulted in the overthrow of King Charles X, an aging Goethe remarked to a Genevan friend, “The volcano has come to an eruption; everything is in flames, and we no longer have a transaction behind closed doors!” After the Genevan friend responded by weighing in on the political details, Goethe responded that he was not referring to the 1830 Revolution at all, but to the heated scientific debate between former friends Georges Cuvier and Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. [i]

“Geoffroy followed Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in a line of speculative evolutionists,” notes one monograph on the argument, “while Cuvier has come down in history as the archfoe of transformism and Lamarck’s chief opponent.” [ii] One historian believes Cuvier was able to “score a decisive victory” in this argument, while another argues that “both Cuvier and Geoffroy defended extreme positions.” [iii] These interpretations are not necessarily incompatible, as decisive victories, by definition, are not won in moderation. Even after their falling out, Geoffroy continued to respect Cuvier, describing the latter as “the greatest authority in the natural sciences.” [iv]

“Cuvier, a Protestant in a Catholic milieu,” explains the monograph, “held the traditional belief that the Creator could not be constrained in His activity by any such pretended laws as the chain of being or the unity of plan in the animal kingdom.” His rival Geoffroy has been described as a “child of the Enlightenment” who “was attracted to a Deist view of nature similar to Buffon and Lamarck,” a cosmology in which “God had in the beginning established laws, and nature was then left to unfold in accordance with them.” Cuvier, a Lutheran of Swiss-German descent, disliked this philosophy “because it hinted of pantheism or, worse, materialism.” [v]

To appreciate Cuvier’s record of scientific achievement that gave him his credibility, we turn to an earlier time in another country. During his presidency of the United States, when he famously commissioned the Lewis and Clark expedition, Thomas Jefferson hoped the two explorers would find what he considered an undiscovered larger relative of the elephant. Jefferson was what would today be called a cryptozoologist. His speculations on this subject were based on the discovery of mastodon fossils in North America during the early 18th century, though these discoveries were not subjected to anything like a scientific study until the middle of that century. By the late 18th century, it still hadn’t occurred to anyone that these fossils belonged to something extinct, for the very concept of extinction was alien to the 18th century mind. “Such is the economy of nature,” Jefferson had written in 1771, “that no instance can be produced of her having permitted any one race of her animals to become extinct; of her having formed any link in her great work so weak as to be broken.”[vi]

No elephant-like cryptids would be discovered by Lewis and Clark, but the truth about the mastodon would be discovered in Paris, where fossils of the lost creature had been shipped from the Ohio Valley decades earlier. A young naturalist named Jean-Leopold-Nicolas-Frederic Cuvier, better known as Georges Cuvier after a deceased brother of his, would set the record straight about the mastodon fossils. Natural history would be changed forever.

Cuvier was from a French town on the Swiss border, in which he was a German Protestant minority among the French Catholic majority. Like many people of his time, he had at first naively welcomed the French Revolution as a reasonable reform, but grew appalled as it showed its true colors. “Although well-disposed to the initial phases of the Revolution,” explains Toby A. Appel, “Cuvier soon became disheartened and disgusted by senseless violence committed in the name of liberty.”[vii] M.J.S. Rudwick further notes that “as the Revolution lurched into its most radical phase, Cuvier witnessed scenes of atrocity that reinforced his profound horror of violence and social unrest, and his strongly rooted preference for firm government and social order and stability.” [viii]

Many scientists were expelled, and in some cases guillotined, during this period. Observes Rudwick on this point, “Cuvier therefore made a bold and risky decision to move to Paris in search of a scientific career.”[ix] Appel notes that “when all other institutions of the ancien regime were being suppressed as elitist,” France’s chief institution dealing with the life sciences “was not only spared, but expanded.” Why? Probably “because natural history, unlike the physical sciences, was seen by the Jacobins and the populace as a science of the common man, one that did not divorce nature from moral ends.” [x]


Cuvier’s Apocalyptic Philosophy of Nature

Cuvier hated the 18th century philosophes; or rather, more accurately, he hated the ideas of the philosophes — for it is true that, to paraphrase an aphorism from Socrates sometimes misattributed to Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds hate ideas, average minds hate events, weak minds hate people. Cuvier’s work does not lend itself to pop psychology, and is unsurprisingly unfamiliar to advocates of what Werner Sombart called Herbert Spencer’s “department store ethics.” This does not mean Cuvier’s books do not have an underlying philosophy, as most natural histories of his time did.

Life, wrote Cuvier, “is a vortex, more or less rapid, more or less complicated, the direction of which is invariable, and which always carries along with it molecules of similar kinds, into which individual particles are continually entering, and from which they are continually departing; so that the form of a living body is more important than its matter. As long as this motion subsists, the body in which it is, is living—it lives. When it finally ceases, the body dies.” Furthermore, “life can be enjoyed by organized bodies only… Life, then, in general, presupposes organization in general,” just as the movement of a clock presupposes the clock itself. [xi]

Cuvier dealt only with natural history. He left what we might call the “natural history of the future” to the imagination. It doesn’t take much imagination, though, to figure out what the logical conclusion of the Cuvieran trajectory is.

The next great upheaval in nature — whether entirely manmade, partially manmade, or not manmade at all — will not signify the evolution of the human race, but the extinction of it. This was stated explicitly by the Scottish anatomist and Cuvieran race theorist Dr. Robert Knox, whose ideas are overshadowed by his notoriety as the customer of professional murderers Burke and Hare. (It was also propounded in the mature works of Oswald Spengler, who changed his view of time from purely cyclical to apocalyptic in his later philosophy.) [xii]


Cuvier’s Reputation

One book on the subject of extinctions notes that “British geologists largely rejected Cuvier’s revolutions in the history of life” and instead “preferred to regard Earth history as being the product of the same processes they saw operating in the modern world,” an easy and all-too-common mistake for mediocre modern scientific minds to make.[xiii] That this error is often included in the “scientific consensus” only affirms what Codreanu says about democracy as the mortal enemy of science. This is a stable of merchant science.

According to Elizabeth Kolbert, Cuvier “was a visionary, and, at the same time, a reactionary. By the middle of the nineteenth century, many of his ideas had been discredited. But the most recent discoveries have tended to support those very theories of his that were most thoroughly vilified, with the result that Cuvier’s essentially tragic vision of earth history has come to seem prophetic.” [xiv]

Kolbert points out that Cuvier was wrong on chronological details, but right on theoretical generalities: “The empirical grounds of Cuvier’s theory, have, by now, largely been disproved… At the same time, some of Cuvier’s most wild-sounding claims have turned out to be surprisingly accurate.”[xv]

“Catastrophes did happen,” explains Kolbert, “What is sometimes labeled neocatastrophism, but is mostly nowadays just regarded as standard geology, holds that conditions on earth change very slowly, except when they don’t. In this sense the reigning paradigm is neither Cuvieran nor Darwinian, but combines key elements of both—‘long periods of boredom interrupted occasionally by panic’. Though rare, these moments of panic are disproportionately important. They determine the pattern of extinction, which is to say, the pattern of life.” [xvi]



Darwin concludes On the Origin of Species by affirming his trajectory of undying progress, arguing that “as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress toward perfection… Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows.” [xvii]

Thus says the merchant science. But is this really true, or just another self-congratulatory myth in the Anglophone textbooks? After all, Anglodom’s tradition of scientific historiography reaches virtually Talmudic levels of self-glorification. It is today accepted without reservations that nature is an eternal casino. But one ghoulish Scottish exponent of the Continental tradition in biology felt differently:

“Extend the phrase climate to times past, and times to come; ask yourself what climatic changes destroyed the mammoth, the aneplotherium, the dinotherium, the sivatherium? the fishes of the ancient world? the saurians? Man destroyed them not; yet their race is run… The destroying angel walks abroad unseen, striking even at the races of men.” [xviii]

That is what distinguishes the heroic science from the merchant science. Realizing mankind’s destiny is to die one day, heroic science cannot adopt that vampire slogan, “To life!” Instead its motto is that of Codreanu: Not bread at all costs, but honor at all costs.



[i] [Appel , Tony, The Cuvier-Geoffrey Debate: French Biology in the Decades Before Darwin, p.1]

[ii] [Ibid p.2]

[iii] [Ibid p.3]

[iv] [Ibid, p.40]

[v] [Ibid, p.7]

[vi] [Jefferson quoted in Kolbert, Elizabeth The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History pp.27-28]

[vii] [Ibid, p. 30]

[viii] [Rudwick, Martin J.S., Georges Cuvier, Fossil Bones, and Geological Catastrophes, p.3]

[ix] [Ibid, p.13]

[x] [Appel, p.18]

[xi] [“Of Living Beings and Organization in General,” from the intro to Cuvier’s The Animal Kingdom in Conformity With Its Organization]

[xii] [See Farrenkopf, John, Prophet of Decline: Spengler on World History and Politics, p.214]

[xiii] [See Macleod, Norman,The Great Extinctions: What Causes Them and How They Shape Life, pp. 38-39]

[xiv] [Kolbert, Sixth Exctinction, p.25]

[xv] [Kolbert, Sixth Extinction, p.45]

[xvi] [Kolbert, Sixth Extinction, p.94]

[xvii] [ed. Wilson, Edward O., From So Simple a Beginning: The Four Great Works of Charles Darwin p.760]

[xviii] [Knox, The Races of Men: A Fragment, 1850 edition, p.314 (The later edition is unchanged other than the illustrations and additional chapters; for more information on this idiosyncratic thinker see Bates, Alan, Anatomy of Robert Knox)]

  • Pingback: Cuvier’s Heroic Science | Aus-Alt-Right()

  • The Right stole two key themes from the Left.

    Concern for American Workers and Anti-War peace movement. The Right must make a big deal of this.

    Incredibly, Hillary led a war party into the crazy zone. She even had traditionally anti-war progs chanting for new cold war over Russia. They cheered for the destroyer of Libya, Syria, and Ukraine that led to great miseries.

    Historians remember WWI as a terrible mistake.

    Reactionaries see the tragic fall of European dynasties.

    Nationalists see stupid entangling alliances that sucked everyone in.

    Socialists remarked how the left in every nation supported the war instead of opposing it and saving workers from the meat grinder.

    Race-ists see it as a tragedy of whites killing whites.

    Eugenicists saw an entire generation of bravest and brightest get wiped out, esp as so many elite officers died as well.

    Looking back, WWI was so unnecessary.

    100 yrs later, in this 21st century, we faced similar dangers. After the Cold War, there can be peace and mutual understanding around the world. But globalism led by US elites seeks domination all over(with homo fruitsade as proxy), and it seeks to punish or crush any potential rival.

    Risky policy with Russia(and China) can lead to needless wars that mean nothing to MOST Americans. US already sullied its name with all these disasters in the Middle East & North Africa.

    There were alarming parallels between then and now.

    The crazy alliances that makes war more likely. NATO was originally defensive to protect Western Europe. Now, it’s mainly offensive to provoke Russia. If nations like Georgia and Ukraine are allowed to join, things get nervier over there.

    And the crazy alliance of US, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Arab Emirates that made the Syrian War possible only forced Russia and Iran’s greater role in that conflict which is a total humanitarian catastrophe.

    The Left traditionally led the anti-war movement, but there was no protest against the destruction of Libya, the wrecking of Syria, and the dangerous provocations in Ukraine.

    Eerily, the so-called Left, like the socialists on the eve of WWI carried away with patriotism, supported Hillary was a war-mongering saber-rattling witch threatening new wars and confrontations. (Jill Stein was a minority voice on the Left.) Shockingly, the vilification of Russia is more extreme now than during the Cold War. Why? Tribal animus of the 2%.

    Maybe Hillary was just throwing some meat at her donors. Maybe as president, she would have been more sensible. But her sociopathic responses to US policy in the Middle East suggests she can really be a cold-blooded psycho. Gaddafi was no angel, and maybe there was some poetic justice to his gruesome end, but laugh about it? But Hillary also snickered about her defense of a child rapist.

    Anyway, with Hillary as president, it could have been WWI Redux.

    Unlike WWII that really was instigated by mad dog Hitler, WWI could have easily been avoided by all sides if all they talked more and balked less.

    Thanks to Trump. We avoided that tragic repeat of history.

    As a side note, Pat Robertson got some flak over a book in which he blamed Illuminati and Jewish bankers for the machinations that led to WWI. I don’t how true his ideas are, and I don’t trust him on history.

    But an honest look at post-cold-war US foreign policy cannot ignore the strong Jewish component in the lies, aggressions, war crimes, and the brinkmanships. In government, finance, media, etc.

    Trump has to be lauded as the Peace Candidate.

    In a way, this is why the Left is most embarrassed. Their themes passed to the Right cuz Hillary got too close to Wall Street and War State.

    The morally creditable Anti-War mantle fell onto the lap of the Right.

    No Wars for Globalists should be the motto.

    Justin Raimondo of Anti-War and the American Conservative Magazine deserve credit for creating this space on the Right.

    Hillary: Let’s send even our daughters to war.

    Peace Right: Let’s not even send our sons.


  • Ed Edgerton

    Cuvier’s brain was the largest on record at the time. He was later overtaken by the Russian author, Turgenev. It is hard to find more recent “largest brain weight” records. I wonder if it is because this is something the (((usual suspects))) don’t want discussed?

    • Yerg Gantor

      Most likely. Remember that Gould was a huge champion of this sort of thinking, and even though it is widely known that his data was bad (either because of falsification or incompetence, with Gould one cannot be too sure), it hasn’t damaged his reputation or what he stood for.

  • J.j. Cintia

    Utopians and perfection-seekers are either gullible or insane. History is not a rising tide from ignorance to knowledge. More ignorance exists today than in 1776. The “Enlightenment’ is a fraud. There is no “New Man” or “Next Stage of Humans”. Its just infantile predilections for easy answers to hard questions, and avoidance of Metaphysics by vile materialists who have no philosophy beyond their petty bureaucratic sinecure.
    Science like Philosophy is the search for Truth. When it is used for political or financial ends, it might as well be prosaic literary criticism. The real scientist does not sit in labs or lecture lazy students in classes at university. Science is found everywhere but where clock watchers wait for paychecks. Nature is not a place, it is everywhere. People who use bones to make arguments may as well be Witch Doctors.
    Science is not advanced by ideas, or movements, but by men with the Vision to make sense of disparate parts that when fit together explain a mystery of life. Beware any who claim to be scientists who cannot find a use for their science. Man does not write nature’s laws, but real scientists eventually outgrow theories and become Engineers. Engineering is the real proof of science. Without application, science is merely wishful thinking by the most cynical and unimaginative.

  • Western ideology has been messed up by the dichotomy of left vs right and/or conservative vs liberal.

    The only division that makes sense is us versus them or ‘mas'(ours) vs ‘tous'(theirs).

    In any healthy organic community, there must be room for liberal and conservative. They need each other like man and woman, yin and yang, night and day, fire and ice.

    Choosing only the left or right is like choosing only masculinity or femininity. Men cannot go on with only manhood. They need womenfolk. And women cannot go on only with sisterhood. They need menfolk. To preserve food, we need ice and refrigeration. To cook, we need fire. Only a fool would declare himself an ice-ist and apply cold to everything. Only a fool would declare himself a fire-ist and apply fire to everything, even to a burning house that really needs water.

    Communism failed because it was all about the labor and worker. Now, communism was right to say the worker was deserving of certain rights and guarantees. But when the issue of class conflict became the ONLY lens for seeing, judging, and solving everything, communism was bound to fail. It disregarded or destroyed too many other sectors of society that play vital roles. It’d be like trying to warm the soup with a block of ice. Or like cooking where everything is fried, even ice cream.

    The poison of ideology is in trying to solve every problem with ONE idea as panacea for all things. But then, why did ideology arise? It was because of the problem of genealogy of power. There was a time when power was passed down along dynastic and noble lines. So, if your pa had the power, you had the power, even if you were an idiot, in which power became idiotological.

    Against this genealogy of power, people who wanted reform and change had to conceive reasons. Since they lacked power by bloodline, their justification for power was based on supposedly better ideas. The radicalized form of this was ideology where a one or few ideas became central and dominant over all else.

    This radicalization of ideas could have been avoided IF the power of genealogy had been more open to reform and change by those with good ideas. Great Britain avoided something like the French Revolution because those with power of genealogy allowed space and opportunity to those who offered up good ideas. Maybe this was more doable with the Brits cuz they had better manners. So, a Brit with a good idea might propose his ideas nicely, and the kings and noblemen might give him a hearing and chance. In contrast, French like to talk passionately and insult one another, and this might have led to great reluctance on the part of the kings and noblemen to give a hearing to those who were pontificating loudly.

    When the power of genealogy is too rigid, the other side turns to radicalization of ideas, or ideology. And it all came to a head in the French Revolution. On one side was the pig-headed power of genealogy of the French King. On the other side was the firebrand power of ideology of the revolutionaries who were convinced their ideas could change the world once and for all.

    But in fact, both sides were right and wrong. The power of genealogy may have been corrupt and repressive, but it preserved the heritage, culture, and glory of France. The power of ideology got violent and destructive, but it opened the way for new ideas and possibilities. Anyway, if the French had better manners, maybe an accommodation could have been found between the power of genealogy and power of ideology, a meeting of the minds between tradition and reform, as happened in Great Britain.

    Italian Fascists understood that the issue wasn’t right vs left. Mussolini began on the left but moved to the right, but he retained a respect for the left and wasn’t a simple reactionary.

    It’s like an organism needs all its organs. It cannot be brain-ist and ignore or attack other organs. It cannot be lung-ist and be anti-heart. It cannot heart-ist and be anti-anus. Every organ counts for something, and they must all work together.

    Same goes for so-called right and so-called left. They shouldn’t be seen as enemies but necessary partners. It’s like a tree needs roots, trunk, branches, and leaves. It would be stupid to discuss the tree in terms of rootism vs leavism. Both roots and leaves serve vital and necessary functions. Even though situated at opposite ends, their functions are most complementary.

    Any organism must conserve and preserve itself, and in this resides its rightist core. But organisms must also adapt and explore and evolve better ways to gain advantage, and from this comes the leftist ventures. No organism can be entirely ‘rightist’ or ‘leftist’. Rightism is the clench, leftism is the release.

    Or consider a ship. Some people will work on deck with ropes. And some will work in the dark underbelly of the ship. And someone will be on perched up high with a telescope looking for land. Different people have different task and work at opposite ends of the ship, but they are all part of a same shared voyage. If the guy with the telescope sees land and yells out, he is doing it for the good of the entire ship, even those working under the deck.

    It’s like a sports team has offensive lineup and defensive lineup, but they all work for the good of the team. Football team has offense and defense, both both share the same goal. To win. The offense goes up against the defense of the other team but is served by its own defense that goes against the offense of the other team. So, the issue isn’t necessarily offense vs defense but OUR offense and defense versus THEIR offense and defense. Mas vs Tous.

    Same goes for right and left. The real question shouldn’t be right vs left but OUR right and left versus THEIR right and left. Indeed, the reason why Jews are so powerful is they understand this. There is the Jewish Right and Jewish Left, but both sides are agreed on serving Jewish identity and interests in Israel, US, and EU. Jewish Right and Jewish Left don’t fight one another like white right and white left.

    Neocons and Liberal Zionists may sometimes differ on policy proposals, but they are united on the necessity of serving and furthering Jewish interests. So, Jewish left and Jewish right are like the two fists of a boxer. They aren’t enemies but partners. The leftist jabs set up the opening for the right across.

    What Mussolini tried to do was fuse the left and right together. Granted, most Italian leftists saw him as an ideological turncoat, and he got too cozy with certain rightist elements, but he didn’t want an Italy divided along ideological lines. He wanted socialists, capitalists, monarchists, modernists, and spiritualists to find a way to work together and perform their vital duties of society. And the good side of National Socialism was an attempt to bring together German labor with German capital with German conservatives with German modernizers, and etc. And there were certain successes before Hitler went nutty with wars. (What some people fear most about Trumpism is not the ‘far rightism’ but the nexus of right-and-left fusionism among whites.) In the US, FDR fused right and left. He was pro-labor but not anti-business. He was certainly no communist. He pushed reforms but preserved conservative social values as he appreciated the power of social morality.

    This means that white people can have both left and right as long as both are ‘mas’, or ours. Right need not be rigid and pigheaded, and the left need not be traitor and self-loathing. When Germany and then Japan were modernizing fast in the late 19th century, both the right and left were united by a sense of nationalism. Preservists and Adaptists were agreed on serving the good of the race and nation. Japan had to modernize/westernize in order to survive. It would have to change and lose much of its old ways, but the core of Japanese race, identity, and race would be made stronger by the modernization.

    Now, the danger is that both the right and left can become cancerous, thus working against than with the other. The right can become overly rigid and pigheaded, like the Japanese militarist in the 1930s. And the left can become overly adventurous and reckless, like it did in Russia. Worse, leftism can turn traitor and collaborate with alien forces to destroy the core domain. The good side of leftism is its critical perspective and reformist impulses. But when healthy criticism turns into radical self-loathing — like white self-hatred — , it is cancerous and has to be replaced by a healthy leftism, a mas-leftism or ‘our leftism’.

    Both Mas-rightism and Mas-leftism are nationalist. Even though leftism is more likely to turn traitor and turn against itself, this danger exists on the right as well. After all, during WWII, it was the French Right that turned traitor while the French left took on the patriotic role of resisting German Occupation. And since end of WWII, it was the Japanese Right that has been most cucked out to US occupation and domination. Japanese Right is said to control Japan, but it cannot even resist Homomania since US insists on massive homo parades all over Japan or Cuckpan. And after WWII, many nationalist and anti-imperialist movements were led by leftists like Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro.

    Anyway, white folks need to create a new paradigm that goes beyond ideology of left vs right. Instead, they must acknowledge that a healthy society needs both the right and left, both conservatism and liberalism. It’s like a university is both conservative(in storing wisdom and knowledge passed down through the ages) and liberal(in carrying out research, debate, discourse, and/or experiments to find new truths or test improved theories). A university that is only conservative would never improve. A university that is only liberal would have no grounding, no compass.

    White folks need to think in terms of left and right, not left vs right.

    The problem is the left in the West has become synonymous with anti-white traitorism controlled and manipulated by the GLOB that uses Political Correctness and Pop Culture to turn whites into pod people and potheads. Instead of rejecting the entire idea of the left, white folks need to develop their own left that is racial and patriotic.

    There is no reason why the Left cannot be race-ist and nationalist. Zionism was social-nationalism.

    So, more crucial than the development of the Alt Right is the development of Our Left. The Left, in the healthy nationalist sense, means being open to new ideas and possibilities for the improvement of one’s own side.

    During the Meiji Reform era in Japan, the modernizers learned much from the West, but they were not serving the West but Japan. Likewise, the Young Turks learned a lot from Western Europe, but they were learning to empower Turkey.

    White people need Our Right but they also need Our Left. Mas-right and Mas-left.

    As long as it is Mas, it serves the white race.

    It’s like Israel has right and left, but both serve Zionism in the end. Of course, there is the cancerous left in Israel that is into open borders and that craziness, but there is a healthy left that upholds identity and nationalism.

    FDR was a mas-liberal. He proposed new ideas with leftist pedigree but he was an American nationalist. He wasn’t using leftism to hurt America or to destroy white folks.

    That kind of poisonous leftist came later, and there was an ethnic component to this.

    Many in the Wasp/Anglo Left wanted a better white society. Jack London was a racial-socialist. They proposed leftist ideas because they thought it would make white society even better, not because they wanted to destroy white society. Take the great Margaret Sanger who urged abortion for non-white babies, especially black ones. What a great feminist lady who loved her own race. Even feminism is good if it is Mas-feminism or Our feminism.

    But when Jewish leftists gained prominence, their sense of ‘our’ or ‘mas’ was different from that of white anglo leftists. In time, the Jewish leftists persuaded the white leftists to turn traitor against their own race, and this is when leftism turned cancerous for white folks.

    But then, same happened with conservatism when Neoconservatism took over National Review and the GOP. White Conservatism went from defense of White/Western Civilization to worshiping MLK(black god created by Jewish power), kissing homo ass, and waving the Israeli Flag. White Americans lost both ‘mas right’ and ‘mas left’ as both the right and left fell under the spell of Jewish-Globalist power.

    What needs to happen is that white folks need to create a new kind of fascist-democratic worldview that allows for mas-right and mas-left working together like husband and wife, like the man with the telescope and the man with the rudder.


  • Gubbler Chechenova

    Say NO to Nakba II.

    With Nakba I, Jews ethnically destroyed the Palestinians.

    With Nakba II, they seek to destroy white people in North America, Australia, and EU.


    Jews seek to Palestinianize us. Say NO to Palestinianization.

    Spencer, Radix, and NPI have been Palestinianized and Nakba’ed from Twitter.

    Say NO to Nakba II. Resist like the Palestinians.

    The Alt Right needs to use more NAKBA memes.

    And the Great Famine memes. Jewish Bolsheviks led the Stalinist Forced-Collectivization in Ukraine and killed millions.

    Jews are now trying to destroy Alt Right kulaks. They are trying to starve us out.

    Jews starved 500,000 Iraqi children to death. Madeleine Albright is as ruthless and bloodthirsty as Lazar Kaganovich.

    Now, Jews are trying to STARVE and CLEANSE all Alt Right people from Social Media.

    They are trying to sanction the Alt Right. It is the Albright Plan.

    Heartless Jews who don’t care about half a million dead Iraqi children(and all those dead Palestinian children) don’t give a crap about the white race either.

    Jews are trying to KATYN the Alt Right.

    When Germans and Soviets invaded Poland, they tried to decapitate the intellectual and military class of Poland. Nazis killed the Polish elites, and so did the Soviets. Soviets rounded up 20,000 Polish officers and had them killed.

    The KATYN-ing of the Alt Right. We need some Katyn memes too.

    Because the crimes against the white race was carried out by both Nazis and Commies, Alt Right must not become cozy with 14/88 types. After all, German Nazis colluded with Soviet commies to destroy Poles.

    Alt Right must be about fusing the white right and white left into a



  • New York Times or Jew York Times runs a story that says:

    “White Nationalists Celebrate ‘an Awakening’ After Donald Trump’s Victory”

    How much was spent for the NPI meeting?

    How much is spent for AIPAC conferences?

    How much damage has NPI done to the world? Did it call for wars, invasions, and sanctions on other nations? I think not. I don’t think NPI has any politician or institution under its wing. White Nationalists have done zero damage to the world since the end of the Cold War. All the new wars waged by the US have been cooked by Neocons and Liberal Zionists by pulling the strings of the shabbos goyim. And think of all the Wall Street robbery and manipulations that enriched the 1% over everyone else. Look at the power on Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Ivy League, and DC, and none of it has to do with white identity or white nationalism. Wars and the looting of the world was carried out by the Globalists, not nationalists. If anything, nationalism has been the most effective instrument against total-Jewish-supremacist-globalism.

    AIPAC owns all the presidents and all the politicians. Its agenda has destroyed entire nations and regions.

    Yet, NYT doesn’t call AIPAC ‘Jewish nationalist’ or ‘Jewish supremacist’. It finds nothing strange or weird about all US politicians hailing Israel to high heaven and shedding zero tears about Palestinians who are far more oppressed than blacks under Apartheid.

    It finds nothing wrong with 98% of Americans being pressured to support and praise the nationalist and even supremacist agenda of the globalist 2%.

    NYT is okay with the Jewish elephant trampling the entire world but freaks out about the white mouse that wants its voice heard.

    But then, this fear is understandable. Jews are the mouse with elephant power, whereas whites are the elephant with mouse power. According to the Narrative, serving and pandering to Jews is what America is all about, but voicing any interest in favor of white identity is eeeeevil.

    Jews and white gentiles are like British imperialist elites and the native masses in India. Brits were the mouse with elephant power while the Hindu masses were the demographic elephant with mouse power…. that is until they began to speak up and resist. (This is why Jews are so eager to destroy any gentile majority in all nations. It is united gentile unity that has been the bane of Jewish supremacist takeover. Jews promote Diversity in the US not out of love for Muslims or anyone else. After all, the Jewish agenda calls for more wars and more mass destruction for the Muslim world. Jews simply want Muslims in EU and US to use them against the white majority. So, the very people whose agenda has killed millions of Muslims[and other non-whites] are inviting Muslims to the West as a battering ram against white people.) If Jews love Diversity, why do they insist on keeping Israel as Jewish as possible?

    Jews are the 2% mouse with elephantine powers, and whites are the majority elephant that has been forced to hide behind the wall. But when the real elephant awakens and gains elephant power, the real mouse will have to hide in the hole.

    Anyway, the MSM highlighted the Alt Right to use it to smear Trump. They thought Alt Right would act like a bunch of Neo-Nazis, but in fact, most Alt Right people made cogent and sensible arguments. MSM realized how their smear campaign had backfired. Alt Right didn’t take the bait and act like Hollywood KKK or Nazis. They spoke more truth than the MSM.

    So, now the MSM is reversing its policy and trying to shut down all Alt Right voices.


    There is something wrong with the New ‘Progressivism’.

    It is pathologically narcissistic — represented by mindless & trash self-obsessed celebrities and ‘stars’ — , yet it claims to care about humanity.

    Christian missionaries in the past may have been earnest and foolish, but they were willing risk and give all to convert and save mankind and do good work. Many of them were genuinely selfless. Even the brutal Crusaders were willing to risk life and limb for Christ.

    Communists and socialists in the past may have been naive and ruthless, but they were willing to make great sacrifice for the good of humanity. They rolled up their sleeves and worked with the workers and poor. Their main goal in life was not to hang around movie stars and fashion models.

    Today’s Progs are really Probs or Prog-snobs. They join NGO’s or seek some plush gig at some well-funded ‘news’ site like Huffington Post or Huffing-and-Puffing Post.

    Or they seek some job at Hollywood or MTV or fashion industry. Or they remain within the bubble of Ivy League community. They’ve formed an alliance with Hollywood, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and even with Las Vegas. They promote narcissistic rap culture and even promote the pornification of mainstream culture, what with Disney now swaying young girls to dress like hookers and act like Miley Cyrus. They are all into me, me, and me, BUT they claim to speak for humanity. They promote globo-homo-American pop-slop-culture all over the world BUT they claim to care about cultures and peoples around the world.

    They are completely blind to the fact that in 2016 their favored candidate was the Wall-Street-funded and War-State-sponsored Hillary Clinton whose policies destroyed entire nations, especially Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, leading to deaths of countless folks. That she was the darling of Wall Street and foreign rulers(esp Saudis) who see US as a cash cow. And that her call for a ‘new cold war’ with Russia is far crazier than the Cold War that at least was real ideological life-and-death struggle.

    Also, for a movement that is supposed anti-right and anti-nationalist, the guiding hand behind it is Zionist-nationalist and Jewish-supremacist as Hillary has no problem praising the Occupation in West Bank and declaring a New Cold War with Russia that is premised mostly on Jewish animus at Russians for taking back their country from Jewish Globalist Oligarchs.

    I mean if ANYTHING resembles ethnic supremacism in the US, it is AIPAC ‘nurenmberg’ rallies where ALL politicians, Trump included, whore out to Jewish Greatness and Zionist Glory with ZERO sympathy for Palestinians who still live under Occupation.

    And for a movement that purports to care about the Ordinary Person, the Progs spend an inordinate amount of time and energy with mega-millionaire celebrities, movie stars, rappers, and other biggies whose only real interest in life is staring in the mirror and raking in the bucks from suckers to live like pigs.

    How can a movement that is so into celebrity, fashion, hipsternism, narcissism, self-obsession, privilege, hedonism, and wanton excess be a movement for the People?

    We often hear the Progs or Probs bitch about how Trump and his supporters are ‘racist’, ‘misogynist’, ‘Islamophobic’, ‘supremacist’, and thuggish.

    But these Progs sound just like Jewish Zionists who bitch about Palestinian terrorism * violence while being utterly blind to the fact that Israel has been the main aggressor against Palestinians. They are total hypocrites without even the saving grace of being halfway aware of their own BS.

    I mean what is more ‘racist’ than the US support for Israel that still occupies Palestinian land and has 300 illegal nukes(and ignores international Nuclear treaties)?

    What is more ‘racist’ than black thuggery in rap that is hostile to all groups and even encourages young blacks to see other blacks as ‘ni**az’ and shoot them? And what is more ‘racist’ than black thuggery that targets non-black races with impunity?

    What is more ‘racist’ than the illegal immigrant notion that they should be above the law as they break into the US? They come not with respect but with contempt for US laws. Who do they think are, forcing themselves into the US, violating US laws, and then demanding that the US offer them pathway to citizenship?

    And what is more ‘racist’ than Stop-and-Frisk and Gentrification implemented in big Liberal Cities that are really meant to control and contain black violence. Just like the Cold War sought to contain communism, the real Hidden Agenda of White-Jewish-Homo Liberalism is to contain black crime and pathology by increasing immigration(thus using browns, yellows, and Muslims as buffers) , locking up lots of blacks(like Bill Clinton did), and by gentrifying downtown neighborhoods so that blacks will be priced out and relocated to other areas. In other words, make Liberal White Urban communities whiter by dumping the problem-blacks on white suburbanites or small-towners.

    And speaking of ‘misogyny’, which group depict women as a bunch of whores, biatches, cu*buckets, and a piece of ass? Are Rappers or Evangelicals promoting the image of the woman as a ‘bitchass ho’ or ‘skankass ho’? Which race came with up ‘twerking’ that urges women to act like sluts in public and shake their asses like they are f***ing? Does 700 Club or Hollywood disseminate images that encourage women to drink like a fish, party like an animal, and use their bodies like hookers?

    Did new ‘feminists’ or Phyllis Schlafy come up with ‘slut pride’ culture?

    Is it the American Conservative or Rolling Stone magazine that promotes women-as-whore-slut-hookers meme?

    Is it the Amish or Mormons OR is it the Liberal Jews who control Pornography and Pornographized mainstream culture in the US?

    And speaking of trash-sexualization of the American public, who were behind Jerry Springer show, Maury Povich show, and all those ‘gay pride’ parades that feature homosexuals as degenerate sex-obsessed freaks acting lewd in front of families.

    Do conservatives control the media that dished out such trash to the American public?

    And which families, Liberal or Conservative, take their children to homo parades to watch these kind of degenerate street theater as ‘new normal’ and ‘progressive’?

    Which group in the US is most involved with rape and violence against women? Black Democratic men or White Conservative males? Look at crime stats, and black men really dominate in raping, and not only black women but white women and other women. Most blacks are Democrats and purport to be ‘progressive’.

    And who controls sports culture? The sports media are controlled by Jews, and it promotes the Thug as the ‘new cool’. And black athletes go out of their way to show that they only care about fame, fortune, whores, and notoriety.

    And speaking of ‘Islamophobia’, what did Obama-and-Hillary’s policy do to the Middle East and North Africa? That entire region is reeling from violence brought about by US and its allies pulling all sorts of dirty tricks to weaken national borders and supply extreme Jihadis with weapons with which to raise hell all over, in the process undermining what were once stable modern secular Arab nations.

    Yet, Neocons, Hillary, and Obama claim to care about Muslims by offering them refuge WITHOUT ever mentioning the fact that terrorists now run amok all over the Middle East and North Africa. And the media are complicit in suppressing the fact that Muslim refugees are on the march(often with rage) because of Zionist-Globalist foreign policy that emanates from the US, the barely hidden agenda of which is clearly Jewish-Zionist-Globalist-Supremacist.

    But Prog-Snobs are too busy making love to their own holy image — supposedly it is morally superior because its heroes are thug rappers like Jay-Z, deranged pigs like Lena Dunham, and uncle tom Muslim like father Khan whose son served in the Zio-controlled US military to kill fellow Muslims in the Middle East — to realize what utter phonies they’ve become.

    It is telling that the Hillary slogan was “I’m with Her”. Oh her highness. It’s all about me, me, me.

    Now, I think it’s fair game to say Trump is boorish, crude, vulgar, and brash.

    But his ascent in politics was made possible because shamelessness and crass self-promotion was normalized in America. I mean what was the Obama Cult all if not crooning about how he is The One, the messiah, the savior, the redeemer, and all that crap? And what is the Oprah cult all about? Oprah is some fat black woman who made billions with new age flakery, but she’s been hailed by all sides as some kind of prophetess. And look how the Clintons got so close to showbiz aspect of American Culture.

    In the early 80s, many Liberals scoffed at the notion of Reagan, a former Hollywood actor, as a politician. But now, Liberals turn everything into celebrity-mania. Anyone with celebrity is ‘cool’ and even ‘wise’. So, if the Current Year says Lena Dunham has cultural value — even though her only claim to fame is acting like a shameless pig — , then we must run with that meme. Or if the Current Year says it is glorious and courageous for a man to cut off his wee wee and get a fake vagina to be called a ‘she’(or sue for big bucks), that is what Progress is all about.


  • Fr. John+

    Whew. Both the article and the comments are brain stretchers. Thanks.

By: A. E. Stern

%d bloggers like this: