It and Essence

Posted on April 8th 2011

on Southern Mentality

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

Uh, actually it does, if it's the reason you come out on top. Again, I suggest you educate yourself out into a marginally less ignorant state by looking up the definition of aristocracy rather than challenging me.

Both times they failed. That's what interests me. It is not what interests Southerners like you. Praise your grandpappy all you want, it doesn't mean anything to me one way or another. Personally, if I were Southern, I'd be most concerned with how a people who had the better of the argument - intellectually, legally, and morally -- and the better physical/material position -- needing only to hold on until the North gave up -- manage to lose every single time. It seems to speak to a defective culture. I'm identifying precisely what those defects consist in, which is a task that doesn't interest any Southerner I've ever heard of. That's why the only hope for our race in America comes from outside the South.

Jefferson was a Southerner, and he was as much an Enlightenment fantasist as any of them. The problem lies more in religion than anything. Christ-lunacy and Enlightenment fantasy are different versions of the same mistake. It is necessary to perceive a problem, or perceive a problem correctly, before one can solve the problem. Christ-insanity precludes accurate perception. It is a cultural failure with biological implications.

It's not the fact of the defeat that matters or interests, it's the reaction to the defeat, the reasons for the defeat. You ever notice that Germans, NS Germans, defeated in WWII, do not react the way Southerners do to their people's defeat. Side point: Northerners aren't a people except to Southerners. No one in the North ever calls himself a Northerner. What ought to interest Southerners but very emphatically does not interest them, apart from fun but irrelevant military rehashings, is why the South lost. The South is too God-addled to take a clear view of the meaning of its history of losing to smarter outsiders.

It is my oft-stated view that the religious crankery of the top Southerners, aped and emulated by the dirt eating base of the demographic pyramid, is primary reason the South lost. The cult of the 'noble, honorable' christ-man, jes' doin' he duty, etc etc, lives right on today, to the exclusion of all interest in what precisely it would take to defeat the judeo-North. Southerners have no interest in any other people but themselves. They hate the enemy, but they don't even define it or understand it. Thus they repeat their actions, which are mistakes, and get the same bitter yield. Worse than this, 99% aren't even aware of this, and cannot be made aware of it by having it pointed out to them. They just want to bleat and repeat ad infinitum. It's what they're capable of. And the kicker is that their top dogs believed that God determines all outcomes, both of causes and individual lives. Therefore, God held it just that the South was defeated. So why bother wondering whether different actions, different politics, different ways of behaving, could have produced different outcomes? This is how most Southerners would think, if this stuff rose to the level of conscious consideration, which it does not, because they are mostly...dumb. They don't respect intelligence or learning, they equate it with homosexuality. The stupid jew bibble is enough to satisfy their tiny capacity for learning, wonder, and imagination. They also lack all sense of humor. So when you say to them, "You're going to defeat the jew with that brain, with that way of looking at things, with that proven-fail pattern of behavior...?" - they don't see what's funny about that. I honestly see no hope in the South or Southerners at all. There are individuals from the region who are worthwhile, but the mass of them, save an active physical struggle, are simply bible primitives. It is beyond them to understand what is happening, let alone turn things in a different direction. A Southerner, in my opinion, is someone who can't understand something AFTER it's been explained to him. That's unfair to say about many, but for most Southerners it's spot-on.

Yeah, so, you were the one asserting the jews completely controlled the president, but as I showed, that was not the case. There was still wiggle room back then. As far as I know Eisenhower was the last to oppose Israel on something significant. And Piper shows that Kennedy, in private, opposed them too. And then he was killed. Since then, they have only been opposed in minor ways, by delaying loans or grants, or tiny remonstrations about some of their more publicly obnoxious mass murders. I would say it is fair to say our political system, including presidents, is controlled by them today, and probably since LBJ, which was when everything else went to shit, although that is best seen as as culmination of the work of decades of behind-the-scenes termitic activity on the part of the jew-commies.

I would say the jews print lies about jewish suffering in their mass media, and these claims are swallowed whole by christian retards suffused in a culture that worships the Ultimate Sufferer, Jew christ.

Christ-insanity is anti-White. Have I said that? Cuz itz pretty important.

Because he favored Israel over the US. If Piper's theory is true, then he obviously would have feared assassination himself.

He espoused plenty of views. The Kennedys were big supporters of the America First Committee. I believe JFK's older brother, the one Old Joe had his hopes pinned on to be president, organized an AFC chapter at Harvard.

You were the one denying that JFK could possibly oppose the jews. You obviously don't know the history of the period or the relation between Kennedys and kikes. They were not all buddy-buddy. You think JFK would have written something respectful about Hitler in his book if jews had been as all-powerful then as they are today? Of course not. It's quite plausible he didn't want jews acquiring nuke power, because he knew, from the WASPs at State, that it was going to stir up a hornet's nest in the middle east. Which it did.

There aren't any refutations of the evidence he produces concerning the Izzy nukes matter. There are counter theories about the assassination, but his theory is better. I don't claim it's absolutely certain he's right, as I do about Mossad producing '9/11.' But from what I've seen, his is far and away the likeliest explanation. It's very clear Israel had the motive, means and opportunity to murder Kennedy, and I think that's just what they arranged.

If you have the facts, you don't need a 400-page exposition of tangential material, which is what most books about the assassination are. Not to mention, what's most compelling, to someone like me with little interest in the JFK murder beyond what's "good for Whites" that can come out of the story, is exactly what Piper starts with, which is what I had always noticed and thought odd, but never seen anyone mention - until Piper. Namely, that the other theorists and theories about who killed JFK never mentioned Mossad. That alone is passing strange, given Mossad is the #1 assassination group in the entire world. The clear implication is that the alt-explanations are being managed as carefully by the mass media as the official Warren coverup. Again, directly parallel to WTC demolitions explanations. It's harder to impose the lies today, but the attempt is always to divide explanations into two classes: muslims did it, or "our" government did it. If the internet didn't exist, we wouldn't even know about the accurate explanation: Israel did it. Back in JFK times, there was no internet, there were only three tv stations, and a bunch of jew-edited newspapers, and they could keep a lid on things. You can bet that Piper's theory would have been out there as soon as the president was killed, and perhaps things would have gone a different direction - if the 'net had existed back then. Against all these pertinent facts we have your manifest bias against Catholics and JFK. I don't like Catholics or JFK, but I can see you've become unbalanced on the subject, just as on Lincoln.

I guess you've lost the ability to perceive my motive, but it is purely to understand these things. In my view, Piper's theory is the likeliest to be correct. I hold no brief for Piper, JFK, Catholics or anybody else.

I have never advocated noble lying. I despise the WASPs it comes from, and I deny that people need religion, and i also deny that the very dumbest among us can't handle the truth. It's merely a matter of the form the truth is put into. Most people need things made simple for them, but making things simple is different from lying.

I'm a critic. I point out what's wrong with things. I don't come from one place, I lived all over the place. The places have a mix of qualities, like anywhere. I don't like most atheists, they are usually leftist. But that doesn't mean I'm going to deny they're correct to reject the christian fantasy figures called god and jebus.

My interest is in raising a force that can contend for power. The people who have the power are jews. I watch what they do. I look at the demographic base of those most likely to oppose them. I see how the cultures match up, and why one side always comes out on top. I agitate to change that culture so it might be able to win, for once. That's the source of my anti-Southern and anti-Christian diatribes. I deliver those critiques with heat and spice not just because that comes natural to me, but because I believe it is the most effective way to effect change in attitudes and perceptions.

He sure as hell is. I had never even heard the theory. I studied that period on college, there was never a word breathed about israeli nukes and Kennedy opposition. If his theory hasn't gone farther, that's not his fault.

Piper's book came after all the others, not before. It's also been through multiple editions. He's aware of anything people can bring up. Far as I'm concerned, the fact that those prior to him never mentioned Mossad pretty much proves what's going on. Not formally, but in a street sense.

What really matters about the theory is what concerns me: what's good for Whites. The one demographic group that is both huge and more or less outside WN circles is - (Irish) Catholics. Imagine what learning that JEWS ASSASSINATED THEIR BELOVED JFK can do to turn them Whiteward. That's the point.

If YOU have a better theory about who killed JFK and why, by all means put it foward. Until you do, Piper's theory will stand.

[Back to writings]

[Back to home]