Dividing the World
Radio/Audio; Posted on: 2004-03-06 06:42:25

by Kevin Alfred Strom (pictured)
American Dissident Voices broadcast of March 6, 2004
listen to the broadcast (mp3)

On this week's program, we discuss the vital question of how we define ourselves. Is our community one of belief, as Mel Gibson argues through his powerful recent film -- or one of blood?

The Passion. By all accounts, it's a monumental work of cinema, and there are lessons for us in it. But the lessons, I think, are not the obvious ones. They're not the ones that the Jewish media want us to learn from it. And they're also not the ones that Mel Gibson would like us to take away from the experience he's given us.

The Passion is not a racialist movie. It's not a pro-White movie. For the most part, it isn't even about White people. It's a movie that deals, really, with the hotly-disputed and poorly documented story of a Jewish rebel and the religious war the Jewish establishment of that time waged against him -- and how that establishment used the power of the Roman state against the Jewish rebel, ultimately killing him. Insofar as White people are represented in the film at all, they're mainly represented by the Romans, and the Romans don't come off too well in it, I am told, just as they don't come off all that well in the gospels on which Mel Gibson earnestly based his script.

The Jewish establishment, which rules Hollywood and runs virtually all the mass media, doesn't like this film at all. They don't like it because their physical and spiritual ancestors -- the Jewish establishment of 2,000 years ago -- is shown as a manipulative, power-hungry, and bloodthirsty tribe, who prove their evil in the most dramatic way possible: by killing one of their own, a rebellious Jew in whom the divine spark burned so brightly that he was god incarnate. Even though the heroes of The Passion are Jewish, as well as the villains, that's still not enough. Organized Jewry still doesn't like it. To the Jewish establishment of today, that portrait of an earlier Jewish establishment hits a little too close to home, and they fear lest their subjects may view them with a little less worshipful regard than formerly after seeing the film. http://tinyurl.com/2x54n

Despite their riches and their temporal power, Jews are a small minority and know it. They are the master opinion pollers and perennial raisers of wet fingers to the wind. They very much worry about -- and keep track of -- what those they call the goyim are thinking, so that any anti-Jewish thoughts can be nipped in the bud before they become anti-Jewish actions that might not be controllable. Jews are more than just a religion, since they define themselves more by ancestry than by beliefs (Communist Herbert Aptheker, an atheist Communist, was considered a Jew, as are the mostly-secular media moguls). But, like any religious, cultural, or racial identity group that intends to survive as a group, Jews divide the world in two: us and them. The fundamental division of the world, to them, is this: Jews versus everyone else. Among some of the more extreme Jews, they even lump all non-Jews in with the lower animals, giving Jews a special status as super-humans or the only humans -- a subject we've covered on American Dissident Voices before. http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=1815 But while psychologically revealing, such extremism is not essential. The essential thing is that they divide the world in two: Jews and non-Jews. This division in two is a necessary precondition for the implementation of a dual code of morality -- one morality for the Jew, and another for the non-Jew. I've discussed this dual code of morality, this double standard, many times on this program. For Jews, their morality is one of ethnic/racial solidarity, identity, and some degree of separatism. For non-Jews, it is the polar opposite (according to Jews): we are supposed to accept the annihilation of our identity, multiculturalism, mass alien immigration, and racial mixing. In other words, we are to accept an ethic of cultural and racial suicide as our highest ideal, and any efforts to affirm our racial identity or protect our cultural or genetic heritage are defined in this insane 'morality' as 'evil.' http://tinyurl.com/2gzp5

But it's not the specifics of this dual code, or the outrageousness of Jewish hypocrisy, that I want to dwell on today. It's the fundamental conception of the world that lies behind it, the necessary precondition for that dual code, that is my main point today: the division of the world into two groups. Without the division of the world's human population in twain, even the idea of a dual code of morality is impossible.

Of course, it isn't only the Jews who divide the world into two camps, though they may have taken the idea to its ultimate extreme. The writer and humorist Robert Benchley once said that "There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't." True enough. Probably the dual code of morality has deep roots in all of us, roots which extend back to our tribal past and even our pre-human past. It is the fundamental distinction of us and them. Our tribe versus everybody else. Since they are dangerous or potentially dangerous, it behooves us to treat them differently. Foolish indeed the tribe whose members regard an interloping or competing tribe with the same trust or generosity or charity with which they regard the members of their own extended family, their own tribe. Such a too-trusting tribe would very soon find itself enslaved or lying bloody in some lonely field and would likely leave few or no descendants.

And so would the man or woman who was excessively individualistic. He or she might have a very narrow conception of the dual code -- 'us' is just me or my immediate family, and 'them' is everybody else, including members of my own people. Such 'individualists' would have very little chance of survival under primitive conditions if they scrupulously adhered to that code and disdained to be members of a larger group -- and if they pretended allegiance to their people and were found out to be disloyal selfish individualists, their chances of survival would also be pretty slim. http://tinyurl.com/2k74y

So the successful tribes and races were ones in which a feeling of identity existed -- a feeling of identity strong enough to ensure cooperation and solidarity and generosity and trust among their own kind -- and strong enough to permit a dual code of morality which deemed outsiders -- 'them' -- not worthy of such trust and solidarity. So we evolved with the dual code deeply ingrained in us. We all divide the world into us and them.

Illustration, top: the Parthenon. Bottom: buildings in the capital city of Haiti. Which was built in the modern age, and which by ancient tribes? Which was built by church-goers, and which by pagans? Which was built by Europeans, and which by Africans? Human beings are social creatures; we advance or decline, survive or perish, as a group -- and we compete with other groups. On this week's program, we discuss the vital question of how we define our group. Is our community one of belief, as Mel Gibson argues through his powerful recent film -- or one of blood?

And that's where Mel Gibson stepped on Jewish toes with his film The Passion of the Christ. Mr. Gibson takes his religion seriously. He's not a racial thinker, though, and his division of the world isn't one that is drawn in biological terms. He sees the world in terms of beliefs. 'Us,' to Gibson, is the community of Christian believers. 'Them' is everyone else. Jews, as the racial/religious/national group with the most highly developed sense of identity and the most uncompromising dual moral code, are extremely conscious of the fact that they are put in the 'them' category by Christians and especially by zealous Christians like Mel Gibson. They don't like it when anyone -- whether Whites or Muslims or Christians or anyone else -- has a strong, powerful sense of identity that excludes them. That's why they promote universalism and we're-all-the-same ideology and egalitarianism among other peoples, while reserving separatism and a strong sense of identity for themselves. They're the only people I know of who do both of those things, and I think that that is the reason they have been so widely disliked throughout history.

So Mel Gibson -- Hollywood star, and (so he thought) Hollywood insider, friend of many wealthy entertainment industry Jews -- suddenly found out that he was an outsider when he wanted to make his film of Christian solidarity, identity, and passion. The Jewish-controlled studio system wanted nothing to do with a movie like this. Of course, they've willingly made movies about Christianity before. But they were all rather banal epics with a philo-Semitic or universalist message, like those Charlton Heston potboilers -- or they were obscene deconstructions or mockeries of the religion, like The Last Temptation of Christ. They refused to invest in or promote a powerful film that cast them in their proper role as the quintessential outsiders and aliens, and hostile aliens at that. They refused to fund a film that so dramatically and emotionally buttressed the faith -- and identity -- of those who see themselves as Christians against the world. Frankly, I don't think it is hostility against Christians per se that drives these Jews -- rather it is the same thing that drives them to oppose White identity politics in America and Europe, and which drives them to oppose Muslim religious governments in the Middle East -- it is an opposition to any powerful sense of identity among those that they consider their subjects, their herd. You don't want the rams in your herd to get any uppity ideas that might make them start thinking that their shepherd is anything less than divine -- or, heaven forbid, that they don't need a shepherd.

So Mel Gibson found himself an outsider in Hollywood and had to fund the film out of his own pocket. He had to assemble his own team. The proof he has no real animus against the Jews is the fact that he put some Jews on that team. But the participation of those few Jews doesn't change the fact that the Hollywood establishment and organized Jewry are very worried about this film. And Mr. Gibson may well find that he's blackballed in Hollywood from here on out. The New York Times quoted the chairman of a major Hollywood studio as saying "I won't hire him. I won't support anything he's part of," referring to Gibson, though an agent said that if the film makes enough money, Hollywood avarice will win out in the end: "If the movie works, I don't think it will hurt him. People here will work with the Antichrist if he'll put butts in seats." http://tinyurl.com/2dzo9

Since there's little danger of any group using the 'Antichrist' to form an interest group opposed to Jews, I'd add that Jewish Hollywood would rather work with Lucifer than either Gibson or an unedited Jesus.

So we have two opposed identities and ways of looking at the world on display in the Passion controversy: that of the Jews and that of the Christians. Most listeners to this program know that the Jewish program for non-Jews is a kind of poison, a recipe for death. So should we embrace Mel Gibson's vision? Should we, whether we are Christians or not, view ourselves as a part of Christendom and our conflict with Jews as a battle with an enemy of Christendom? I think not, and here are the reasons.

We have no choice but to live with a dual code of morality. Groups that fail to do this, that fail to cleave to those they love the best, invariably fail to survive. They are supplanted or wiped out by groups who do practice the dual code.

If we divide the world into us and them on the basis of belief, that is a very shaky basis indeed: anyone, even a sworn enemy, can join if he professes the right creed. And many a Trojan horse has come inside the citadels of the West -- one thinks of 'converted' Marranos in Spain or 'converted' native colonials in Britain. -- on such a pretext. And it need not even be a pretext to be harmful. Whether it is sincere or pretended, the result is the same: the gene pool is altered, and to some degree we cease to be what we are. Our race dies a little bit, and becomes less distinctive. And in addition to the genetic pollution, these 'converts' change our culture, modify our institutions in innumerable and often immediate ways to suit themselves. The only way to prevent these injuries is to define us and them in biological terms. If you are born one of us, you can never cease being one of us. And if you were not born one of us, you can never be converted. Race is absolute proof against 'conversion.' There is no such thing as 'converting' your race.

And look at who we have to accept if our division of the world is on the basis of belief. Unless we accept a very narrow definition of acceptable beliefs, in which case we enter the labyrinth of infinite sectarianism wherein 'us' would become just a tiny section of Christendom which adheres to a strictly-defined 'correct' version of Christianity, we must accept all the nominal Christians of the world as a part of our group. We'd have to accept virtually all Mestizos from Mexico and Central America as 'us.' We'd have to accept the growing number of Korean Christians as 'us.' We'd have to accept all the African converts that the uneaten White missionaries have won over for Christ as 'us.' We'd have to accept the nominal Christians of Haiti as 'us.' If that's Christendom, then the universalist Christians have caused Christendom to cease to exist in any meaningful sense. If Christianity was the answer, Mexico and Detroit would be paradises on Earth.

Look at Haiti. Most of the people there were nominally Catholic when they slaughtered the entire White population there 200 years ago. Since that time, despite White intervention and repeated rebuilding of the infrastructure there by Whites, Haiti has essentially been an isolated laboratory experiment in Black rule. After they killed all the Whites, the Blacks (and a few half-Blacks) were in charge and have remained in charge ever since. They inherited the most prosperous and productive colony in the region. They inherited the finest European-built infrastructure imaginable for its time, which has been rebuilt for them several times since by other Whites. They inherited an advanced European culture and system of government. And what was the result? They not only failed to advance that culture or improve that infrastructure one iota, but they could not even maintain it. Their society quickly devolved into brutal, lawless savagery. The infrastructure was repeatedly destroyed. They made the culture and religion they inherited into a parody of the originals, with an added dollop of blood and cruelty. The current paroxysms there are just more of the same story that has been repeated again and again in Haiti since the Blacks took power there.

In Haiti, the usual excuses for Black failure are not present -- most notably the bogeyman of 'White racism' cannot be blamed, since the White man is almost entirely absent. The claims of poor climate that are sometimes trotted out to explain Black African failure are also absent -- the climate and soil are so favorable that under French rule Haiti was a food exporter and the breadbasket of the Caribbean -- and that before the invention of modern agricultural techniques. Unlike some nations in Africa, Haiti is also ideally positioned for trade with other and quite prosperous nations. The only factor that remained the same was Haiti's essentially all-Black population.

And the result of this accidental experiment? The same as Africa. A society that is falling apart, wracked with starvation, disease, environmental destruction, violence, poverty, and unbelievably primitive superstition. A society wracked with constant destructive revolutions which have no more permanent effect than replacing one bloody big chief with another. A society returning to the jungle. If this does not prove that civilization is a function of race, nothing will. http://tinyurl.com/2qjor

The story is the same in Africa. From Rhodesia to French West Africa to the Belgian Congo to South Africa, the Whites bequeathed an advanced civilization to the Blacks they freed. Yet virtually all of these nations are spiralling downward to the level of Haiti. Squatters defecate in the once-grand hotels of Leopoldville and trees grow up and split the concrete of the wide avenues designed by European city planners. As White farmers are murdered by roving Black gangs in Southern Africa, the region is failing to feed itself and starvation looms. The Africans are dying from lack of food in places where there are wide rivers and rich soil. And they are murdering and mutilating each other to obtain body parts for primitive rituals while beneath their feet lie gold and emeralds and diamonds. Contrast this with landlocked and mountainous Switzerland or remote and volcanic Iceland. Both are small and relatively resource-poor. But both are peopled by Whites and both have a record of centuries of progress and advancement that can be favorably compared with any on Earth. And the Whites in Switzerland and Iceland were not bequeathed an existing civilization to start with -- they started with nothing. That is a racial difference.

The aping of French culture did not make the Blacks of West Africa or Haiti into Frenchmen. The speaking of French did not make them Frenchmen -- any more than teaching our Mestizo invaders English will make them American. The inculcation -- and even the sincere acceptance -- of the Frenchman's religion did not 'convert' the African into a Frenchman or a European. It didn't convert him into one of us. And it never can.

We need to start thinking in racial terms. As humans, we live in groups. As humans who want to survive, we must think in terms of 'us' and 'them.' We must divide the world. We need to make that division a racial one. We need to base our definition of who we are on a natural kinship affiliation, not an artificial one of belief, one which can change in a moment or a year, one which can apply to anyone who recites the right words. I don't want to tell you what religion you should follow or not follow. That's a matter of your reason and your conscience and no honorable White man would presume to dictate that to another.

But when it comes to survival, we all should know in hearts and minds who we are -- and whose children it is who must survive at any cost. The White man or woman who believes in reincarnation or scientific materialism or Catholicism or Protestantism is still a European, still one of us. The Jew or Asian or Black who attends a Christian church and who plays on my country's Olympic team or who even serves in our military is not and never can be. We must see things in racial terms.

That is how we must divide the world if the sacrifices of our ancestors are to mean anything. That is how we must divide the world if the great art and literature and science of our mighty civilization are to survive. That is how we must divide the world if our race is ever to break the chains which bind us to this overcrowded and vulnerable planet. That is how we must divide the world if there is still to be the laughter of White children on the hillsides of our graves ten thousand years from now.

Source: National Alliance • Printed from National Vanguard
( http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2339 )
National Vanguard • Box 5145 • Charlottesville • VA 22905 • USA