Traitors are worse than Jews

I find it increasingly exasperating to discuss with white nationalists, even with those who come regularly to comment on this blog.
A few seconds ago I had the following soliloquy remembering a taxi driver, a native Englishman, who took me to the train station in Essex, just outside of London, a few years ago. I asked him what he thought of the coloured immigrants in the area. He answered:
‘I love them!’
Now, what is worse: this native Englishman or the Jews of London?
It is obvious that the white is worse, as the traitor is worse than the enemy.
The monocausalists who leave their comments on this site are unable to see something so obvious. And don’t come up with the lame excuse that the poor Englishman was brainwashed by the Jewish media. Twenty years ago, when I lived in England for a year, I was shocked to see black men with English roses on the street. It was a time when I did not even know there was such a thing as white nationalism. I was a normie in many senses. But my instincts were noble.
If we take as a parameter of elemental nobility my sentiments when I was a normie twenty years ago, any Englishman—or white European or American male—who does not feel the same shock to see a subhuman walking with a white woman is a thousand times worse than any fucking kike you can mention. The traitor is worse than the enemy.
How is it possible that monos are so blind, so absolutely unable to see something so obvious?
Is it is because they suffer from the gravest sin of all: pride, and a sort of self-righteousness for their race? As I said in the epigraph of a recent entry: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in the Jude’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

41 Replies on “Traitors are worse than Jews

  1. The question is why do the native Englishman “suddenly” love these immigrants? Look at the British rule over India. Only only needs review at how the British treated the hated “wog” less than one hundred years ago to understand just a short time ago the English clearly did not “love” these people and how amazingly fast this transformation in attitude has occurred.
    In just a couple of generations, the traditional disdain the English have held for these people has now turned to “love.” What’s more, this is in full light of the destruction these people are bringing to their native land! Just how did this happen between the time of grandfather and grandson?
    Can you provide one other historical example where such a miraculous transformation occurred at an historical speed of light in any civilization prior to the twentieth century? If not then you might explain why it has happened with such rapidity over the last one hundred years.
    Throughout history, various cultures have viewed neighboring cultures with vehement hatred for centuries!. This was true for Christianity as well. Witness the “Christian attitude” towards people like Muslims and the mesoamericans over the last two millennium. While Christians might mouth their creeds to “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek,” for centuries they have clearly acted quite differently in their approach to opposing views and the more primitive races.
    Now, at this point, in an historical nanosecond, western civilization, all western civilization and only western civilization have come to “love” the primitive third world mud people they disdained for centuries.
    Just how and why did did the Englishman and Christianity change its attitude towards these people? More to the point, how did this happen at historically unprecedented, mind-bending speed?

    1. Witness the “Christian attitude” towards people like Muslims and the mesoamericans over the last two millennium.

      After the 1521 violent Conquest then came the religious orders, all preaching love for the Mesoamericans, to the point that even the first Viceroy was put to trial for massacring a bunch of Indians. Love for them was the standard as soon as the war was over. Take note that this happened with zero kike influence in the newly formed New Spain.

      Just how and why did the Englishman and Christianity change its attitude towards these people? More to the point, how did this happen at historically unprecedented, mind-bending speed?

      Not unprecedented: it also happened right after Constantine’s takeover. The only difference is that with technology now we have treason at the speed of light.
      You cannot make excuses for the Romans who accepted an alien cult; the Iberian religious orders who loved the Amerinds, or those who like the taxi driver so gladly accept the most poisonous message of all time.
      Even white nationalists who are not rejecting Xtianity are sinners from this POV. For example, the most recent article at Occidental Dissent claims that Pope Francis is an anti-Pope, conveniently ignoring that he’s merely imitating St Francis: the saint he chose as his papal title.
      If I as a normie maintained my good feelings and the Englishman couldn’t, that can only mean that he surrendered his will to EVIL; he was worse than the Jews.

    2. “Can you provide one other historical example where such a miraculous transformation occurred at an historical speed of light in any civilization prior to the twentieth century?”

      The American Civil War was fought to give the negro equal citizenship and political equality with whites (something, btw, they already had in Britain and in France.) There were always whites in America who loved negroes. In fact, negroes were already citizens and even voters in several of the states at the the time of the Constitution’s adoption.

      1. The American Civil War was fought to give the negro equal citizenship and political equality with whites (something, btw, they already had in Britain and in France.)

        The current commonly, disseminated misconception taught to school children is that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. There were many factors that resulted in the Civil War. The Negro question was the least among them, positioned by later historians as the match to the powder keg.
        The prime issue was one of wealth. The Southern states had the lead in agricultural production and the North had yet to fully embrace the emergent industrial revolution. There was great envy among northerners at the grand wealth of the South’s agricultural production. Remember agriculture was king in those times before technical advances rendered it a background vocation. The Negro was, at best, viewed as an unfair labor advantage, even though many Northerners owned slaves.
        Much like a reverse of the modern day situation with what is happening in California, Southerners objected to the taxation levied by Northern Federalist, rightly perceiving it as a drain on their wealth. This resulted in mutual enmity between the nations and a call for succession of the Southern States.
        By Constitutional law, the South had every right to secede from the union. It was the bandit Lincoln that decreed the clause invalid, declaring martial law in the process.
        When it comes to questions as to the historical reason “why,” one can invariably look to wealth and its transfer as the primary cause. The golden rule – He who controls the gold, makes the rules.

        1. Wow! Looks like I’m behind the times with my old fashioned ideas, but that’s how geezers have been since time immemorial. I’d better study up!

      2. “The Negro question was the least among them, positioned by later historians as the match to the powder keg.”

        Lincoln himself names slavery as the cause of the war in his Second Inaugural Address. The invention that it wasn’t the cause is yours, and that of other bad scholars who push misleading versions of history.
        In any case, all of this happened long before the twentieth century, long before mass media, television, and movies, and long before Jews entered America in any great numbers. Your initial point that whites loving negroes is a recent phenomenon is clearly wrong.

      3. Try Lincoln’s first inaugural address. He makes it clear that he will resort to force to collect his imposts(taxes). As for slavery he says he has no right to interfere with that institution.

      4. “As for slavery he says he has no right to interfere with that institution.”
        That’s a little hard to square with his actions, isn’t it? He not only interfered with it, he abolished it. Further, that this was his intent all along can be discerned from the fact that once the war was over, in the speech that inspired John Wilkes Booth to assassinate him, he urged citizenship and voting rights for the negroes.

        The amount of constituency, so to speak, on which the new Louisiana government rests, would be more satisfactory to all, if it contained fifty, thirty, or even twenty thousand, instead of only about twelve thousand, as it does. It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. … The colored man too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it, than by running backward over them?

        – Abraham Lincoln, last public address, Washington, D.C., April 11, 1865

  2. Take note that this happened with zero kike influence in the newly formed New Spain.

    Was not King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella influenced by Jewish counsel? Was it not the Jews that surreptitiously provided the funding for Columbus’ voyages in return for a percentage of the expected golden treasures waiting to be found in the new world? Or is this just more Jewish lies?
    How can you assert such statements when history proves otherwise? Given the historical invisibility of the Jews, how can such statements even be accurately assessed? Do you have proof that there was no Jewish influence, when the facts show throughout history Jews have worked invisibly behind the facade of the hated goyim’s religious and political power to undermine their host nations.
    Your past assertions claim Rome collapsed with virtually no Jewish influence. Yet voices from that era say otherwise. In his Defense of Flaccus, Cicero said,

    “Softly! Softly! I want none but the judges to hear me. The Jews have already gotten me into a fine mess, as they have many other gentleman. I have no desire to furnish further grist for (((their))) mills.”

    He also said,

    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor. He speaks in accents familiar to his victims and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear.” Cicero Marcus Tullius, 106-43 BC

    If he is not referring to Jews, then to whom might he be referring? Is there any other race of which such statements can be made? Clearly Long before the name “Jesus” was heard, Jews had wormed their way into Roman the politics of the Imperial Court by manipulating the Caesars into providing them Roman citizenship.
    Your supposition that the collapse of nations often occurs without the presence of the Jews is without historical basis. While a few examples of this may be found, since long before the time of Jesus the overwhelming preponderance of evidence proves Jews have been the primary cause of almost all national grief. How can one possibly deny this is once again the case today?
    Here is a fairly complete list of the Jew’s past destructive activities beginning with the Egyptians in 1200 BC.

    1. How can you assert such statements when history proves otherwise?… Do you have proof that there was no Jewish influence, when the facts show throughout history Jews have worked invisibly behind the facade of…

      What sort of hellish strawman is this? (‘Do you have proof that there was no Jewish influence…’). Above I talked about the first years of New Spain when Carlos V was king in Europe (not Ferdinand and Isabella of the previous century). The fact that you have not assimilated my Nth statement that kikes were prevented from entering New Spain (and those who got through were dealt by the Inquisition) can only mean that you are dishonest.

      Your past assertions claim Rome collapsed with virtually no Jewish influence.

      More horribly, horribly dishonesty! I have told you Nth times that ‘Rome vs. Judea; Judea vs. Rome’ is the masthead of this site. And my point above was blaming traitorous ancient Romans who embraced Xtianity. You are writing as if I was excusing the kikes—dishonest.
      And spare me from your little quotations from Cicero: Wasn’t ‘Rome vs. Judea; Judea vs. Rome’ well stuffed with Jew-wise quotations by Greeks and Romans from the beginning? More dishonesty…

      Your supposition that the collapse of nations often occurs without the presence of the Jews…

      Horrible strawman! You know what I really said: traitors are worse than the external enemies. Next time that you make a claim like that (‘Your supposition that…’) you better provide a quotation of what I actually said.
      The problem with you, monos, is that you are religiously unwilling to see the beam in the whites’ eyes (otherwise you’d hate more the traitor than the exterminable kike). That’s why, when confronted, you resort to strawman arguments and outright dishonesty.

      1. Whoa! Wait – a – minute. I never denied your stance on traitorous whites. Am I to understand I am mistaken in your maintaining the collapse of nations have frequently occurred without the presence of the Jew? Have I misread your thoughts on this matter? If not, how is mine a “strawman argument?”

      2. I have never said ‘frequently’, only that, for example, Aryan India managed to collapse without kikes (due to miscegenation). But in European history, it’s obvious that Semites were involved in Xtian takeover all the way through, until the Roman Empire collapsed.

      3. yer theres tons of roman stuff detailing the negatives associated with jews. furthermore there was a lot of antipathy between the ancient greeks and the kikes. the greeks disliked them very much. probably more so than the romans. l would surmise you can put this down to the greeks closer geographical proximity to pre roman palestine.

    2. “A nation can survive its fools…”

      This is not from Cicero. It’s from a work of fiction written in 1965.

      1. It is interesting in how so many sources have suddenly become unreliable. I have this quote from Cicero. Yet you say this is not from Cicero, but a work of fiction written in 1965. Do you have a counter source that reliably qualifies this statement? Perhaps a novel title?
        This reminds me of the time I told my father about the Protocols of Zion. He guffawed, saying that it was a forged work of fiction written in the early sixties. He failed to note the Museum of London accepted a copy of the document in the early 1900s, 1902 as I remember.
        Of course one can always take the Jews’ Holocaust approach, i.e. it doesn’t matter who said or wrote it, just as long as it was said in the spirit of truth, it can be taken as fact; like so many of those Hallowedhoax factual fabrications written by people, who were never there or weren’t even Jews.
        Another lesson learned from the Jews is that if one has no sources, one has no argument. Attack and/or get rid of the sources and Voilà! Your opponent has no voice. Everywhere I detect a subtle paradigm shift being programmed into the people, one that says what we once used as reliable sources are no longer valid. Perhaps this is why rumor is going around that the famous quote about knowing who rules, long attributed to Voltaire, is now said to have been penned by none other than Kevin Alfred Strom!
        This is why I wrote the story of Jesus as a novel. Had it been written in any other manner, say as a scholarly work, the information would have been lost in a blizzard of point versus counterpoint over quoted sources. Then too, I look at how Dan Brown’s schlock novels have been accepted as having a basis of truth. So vat’s not to lose in using a novel format?
        Everything You Know Is Wrong is the name of Procter and Bergman’s Firesign Theater Album. I think (((they))) were trying to tell us something. Years ago this album title came to mind when I was teaching in Alaska and found a “history” book written for grade scholars that taught Negroes built the pyramids and flew gliders around them. I had heard this absurd idea bandied about in the popular media, but was astonished to find it published in a grade school “history” book.
        Funny thing, many years ago I could not figure out what the problem was, why America did not resemble the one in which I had been led to believe. Outside blaming “stupid politicians,” dumb-luck happenstance and the idea that “America was never really like that,” no one had any answers as to why this might be.
        Slowly but surely, over the years I began discovering the answers the hard way, by sitting in libraries for long hours while others watched television. The things that led to the validation of these as reliable opposing facts were one – they were diametrically opposite to what I had learned as prevailing knowledge. Two – the time and effort it took to uncover many obscure accounts, pointed to the fact the information was at the very least being tacitly suppressed. Three – these often obscure authors were clearly not publishing for the money, i.e. no appreciable vested interest.
        By contrast, authors of the popular accounts have everything to gain or lose in publishing their accounts. The fabled hallowedhoax is perhaps the most classic example of this situation of authors having a vested interest in presenting false information.
        Obviously, someone did not want people to know anything beyond the popularly publicized versions of the stories. Finally, the information I uncovered made a hell of a lot of sense as opposed to official accounts that left a lot of details hanging inexplicably with absurd explanations or without any explanation at all.
        What had formerly been inexplicable happenstance was now in context with versions that left no details hanging. Now, once again I find my knowledge base being questioned and dismissed as invalid and therefore useless in making my point.
        More than once I have gone through the “everything you know is wrong” paradigm shift in this life. As such, I am always open to new ideas and historical accounts. However, the new facts must reasonably explain why my thinking has been wrong and they must be validated from several sources that have no vested interest in altering the truth. That last one has become a tall order to fill in the present age.
        Simply attacking and summarily discounting my sources will not do. In the case for the cause of the Civil War I will need a lot more evidence to convince me that it was Negro slavery and not economic factors that were the root cause of, not only the civil war, but virtually every war. The vested interests have ~ well ~ a demonstrable vested interest in blaming slavery for the Civil War. Having a vested interest corrupts a witness’s testimony, making it invalid and unacceptable in a court of law – at least it used to be that way.

      2. “Do you have a counter source that reliably qualifies this statement? Perhaps a novel title?”

        Google is your friend. Hint: the real author is Millard Caldwell. But it isn’t up to me to do your research for you. The burden of proof is on you, as you assured us it’s from Cicero. So how about instead you cite the place in Cicero’s writings where your fictitious quote occurs? You can’t, because it doesn’t.

        “In the case for the cause of the Civil War I will need a lot more evidence to convince me that it was Negro slavery and not economic factors that were the root cause of, not only the civil war, but virtually every war.”

        In this case I even told you where to look. Read Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address. It’s easily found online.

      3. @span,
        everyone knows politicans are liars and sociopaths, doing their master’s bidding. even the righteous lincoln. i cast my vote with arch. fuk pubished sources. editors & publishers can & are bought, too. even back in civil war days.

  3. Saying “I love them” is the default safety first answer for not becoming an ex-taxi driver. If he really meant it; then he’s a traitor all right.

    1. Problem is: when the British National Party was thriving, very few Brits voted for them. (Since voting is secret, there was no fear to become an ex-taxi driver, etc.)
      You cannot escape the obvious conclusion: whites are to blame for their own condition.

      1. the individual owns the consequences of his actions. that’s life. that’s how we grow and learn. and as many “lone” shooters have showed the rest of us, life can be harsh and cruel, when one follows his convictions as opposed to followed group approval. (and i’m a chicken shit: i rather commit suicide than live out a prison sentence and suffer anal rape. and bullying.)

  4. Years ago, I recall reading that during WWII American soldiers were shocked that even then English women were sleeping around with Blacks. Remember that Interacial marriage was illegal in many states then and interracial romance was a big taboo. I believe it almost caused some race riots at the time. The English have had a big problem for quite some time;it didn’t just start recently.

  5. The first half of the 20th century has been a genocidal campaign of warrior whites. The second half was a breeding campaign of slave whites.
    The warrior gene – high testosterone, pain tolerance, developed amygdala – was more present in the White population back in the Victorian days. This gene made Whites rulers of the world.
    These higher humans were always a minority throughout history, but after two consecutive world wars slaughtering them by the millions, today they are rarer than ruthenium.
    With this gene so diluted in the White blood, Whites are ruled today by honorless psychopaths. They live surrounded by traitors.

    1. No, it’s not a genetic or bio-reductionistic thing. The male Swiss did not die massively in WW2 and today they are as feminized as the Germans.
      It’s the software, not the hardware, what has the viruses for the white psyche.

  6. exactly! most of the current day examples of white humans are propaganda victims. theyll never break free of their installed mindsets. generally speaking l no longer trust white people. sometimes you can challenge their thinking – but only with very mild counter ideas, and you need to be subtle. otherwise youll be instantly branded and their brains shut down on you. its automatic response on their part

  7. @stanislav, wise & true.
    @slork, so true. the malware downloads of the parents, compulsory education & state (MSM) renders the masses zombies. i experience the statics and dynamics of what you describe over and over. at 67, i’m too tired and too chickenshit to live the consequences of taking the personal action that stanislav states. better to cave and wilt away.

    1. Cave and wilt away?
      Ward Kendall has written a novel for the older folk. I have not read it but I’ve heard that the characters are men in their 60s diagnosed with cancer. They became far more dangerous for the system than younger WNsts.
      Once the fear of death is gone (as with cancer the novel’s characters would die anyway) they become overmen: even teaching a lesson to those younger fags in the movement who are too coward to fight.

  8. What is the point of this question?
    “who is ‘worse’?” is a question that shouldn’t even be asked in this context.
    morally judging jews is dumb. Jews are gonna jew. the are obviously to blame for what is happening.
    the white prole has some small amount of responsibility, but ultimately it is not his fault. he is a prole. he does what he’s told. always has done always will do.
    The fault or moral blame falls with the white leadership caste.
    I don’t get your obsession with calling people ‘monos’ btw do you actually see people denying that whites have failed to defend themselves/ have done nothing wrong?

    1. I call monos those WNsts who eat so many Jews for breakfast that they have become totally blind to the fact that whites have been complicit, all the way from the historical past, as our enemies started their Xtian psyops 1,600 years ago. Did you click on the site that links them all? Who among them is planning real action in the real world?
      Didn’t the Führer say that something could be done if at least 9,000 Aryan males would be willing to risk jail? And talking about real men, the SS men weren’t ‘monos’. In the SS pamphlet explaining National Socialism that I have been advertising in this site for the last five years, in addition to Jewry the SS also blamed the Xtian churches. Anyone who, in addition to Jewry, recognises another major factor for white decline is, by definition, not a mono.

      “who is ‘worse’?” is a question that shouldn’t even be asked in this context.

      Why the hell not? What’s wrong with my above example (‘any Englishman—or white European or American male—who does not feel the same shock to see a subhuman walking with a white woman is a thousand times worse than any fucking kike you can mention’)? Respond to that J’accuse of mine, Mr Blake.

      Jews are gonna jew. The[y] are obviously to blame for what is happening.

      The point is if they are the only ones to blame. Do you think that whites have been innocent in handing over their societies to the Jews, especially since the 19th century?

      the white prole has some small amount of responsibility, but ultimately it is not his fault.

      Are you deaf? Why didn’t you address my example, the taxi driver prole? If I could feel infinite shock, as a non-English normie, while watching roses & chimps—why on earth millions like him didn’t vote BNP some time ago? You are making excuses for the absolutely inexcusable!

      The fault or moral blame falls with the white leadership caste.

      So those proles who instead of BNP have been voting for New Labour and the other UK parties are blameless, right? Try again.

      1. The parable of the consecrated wine
        We find a body suffering sclerosis of the cultural liver from imbibing too much of the Jew’s consecrated wine and we know a body cannot cleanse itself of poisons if the liver ceases to function. The body then finds out that it has terminal cancer as well from ingesting the Jewish mind parasite now eating away its brain.
        Which ailment do you treat first? Obliviously, the easiest thing to do is to begin stemming the effects of the Jew’s consecrated wine on the liver. The way to accomplish this seems simplicity itself, stop drinking so the healthy cultural liver can begin cleansing the Jews’ poisons from the body.
        However we are talking serious alcoholism here. Every Sunday, the body starts drinking the Jew’s consecrated wine and continues imbibing throughout the week. Can one expect the body to actually stop drinking because you have enlightened it to the consequences of drinking consecrated wine? Perhaps you try telling the body that concentrated wines do not exist, but he then he pulls out his holy guide to fine, Jewish, consecrated wines to prove you wrong.
        So what to do? Do you send the body to Winers Anonymous, where it will hear how drinking consecrated wine will cure its illness? Yet, even as you work on the alcoholism, the terminal cancer has metastasized throughout the body, rotting away the brain along with the body’s other critical life support systems.
        What do you do about the cancer? Ignore it and continue working on the alcoholism? Try treating both? What about the fact the body refuses to stop drinking consecrated wine because it helps hide the fact cancer has eaten away most of the body?
        The prognosis for the body is dim, very dim indeed. Addressing the body’s alcoholism will do nothing to stop the cancer that has already eaten away the most of the critical life support system.
        The body has reached a point where there is no possible way to save what little remains of its life and what’s more, the body finds the Jew’s consecrated wine is one of its few remaining pleasures. Through its gauzy, alcoholic, haze, the body finds hope in resurrection from the dead to life everlasting.
        What can be done is to record and warn other bodies of the dangers of the Jew infection. But that has already been done and the information failed to save other bodies. Yeah, one can continue telling other bodies about the dangers of drinking the parasitical Jew’s consecrated wine, but wouldn’t it be more effective to eliminate the vintner?

  9. I simply don’t expect much of anything from the average person so I don’t get upset at them or feel the need to blame or hate them. I don’t share your emotionalism on this issue.
    I agree with Himmler totally. I have actually taken up your idea of making a shirt with him on it. I’ll send you one when I get it printed how I like.

    1. But why don’t blame those Englishmen who didn’t share my shocking, normie horror when watching the Abomination of Desolation, the very Sin against the Holy Ghost (that must never be forgiven)?
      Why don’t hate them? Could it be that you have not read the last pages of The Turner Diaries, where Pierce treats them all as honorary jews (by nuking them)?
      Only hate will save the white race from extinction, more hatred than what the jews feel I mean. Just think a little about these words. I for one am starting to hate more the Enemy than loving my own life. You can imagine what an army of such men would be capable to do in a real fight in the real world…

      1. Yes, this is a quote from my DOW:
        And we must remember the Indian costume of selling, and even giving as presents, their daughters. The same Malinali, later called equivocally Marina or “La Malinche,” Cortés’ right hand, had been sold by her mother to some traders from Xicallanco, who in turn had sold her to some Mayas who sold her to some Chontales, who offered her as a present to Cortés. Thomas even takes as historical the words of the chronicler in regard to Xicoténcatl II’s delegation when, after Xicoténcatl’s people suffered crushing defeats, he went into the Spanish camp with words that portray the treatment of the Indian woman by their own: “And if you want sacrifices, take these four women that you may sacrifice, and you can eat their flesh and their hearts. Since we don’t know how you do it we have not sacrificed them before you.”

        1. This custom is portrayed in Jeremiah Johnson. Johnson offers a Christianised, French-speaking Indian Chief some oxen and silk. Despite the Christianisation of this tribe, a Leopard can never change its spots, and the Chief resorts to the custom of having to give an agreeably better gift back to Robert Redford. The Chief racks his brains and then decides on his daughter.
          Perhaps it is because this Race was insane that they did not bat an eyelid at giving their daughters not only to foreigners but to Racial Aliens (us White folk). Could you imagine the Scandinavians of Yore committing this sin against the Holy Ghost?
          There is something else I wanted to say about Exterminationism: America faced many conflicts with the Indians. Conflicts which many times burst into open flame. There are accounts of European villages being burned, citizens being killed, and women taken captive. Even babies being killed.
          Now, I don’t know what happened to these White girls whom fate dealt a bad card (no source seems to say what happened, and my school sure as shit never told me), but I can assume it wasn’t very pleasant. I can assume it was similar to what would happen if you replaced the Indians with the Mongols.
          Whatever happened to these girls (I don’t even want to contemplate it) would not have happened if the White settlers had murdered every Indian they saw, including women and children. Instead what we have is people being taken from their homes and receiving Tomahawks to the throat for the horrible crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
          Or if the Vikings had been hell-bent on colonising America, like to say, then this would not have happened. That is a few thousand less White people whom would have had their lives ruined.
          I am I making sense here?

      2. ‘Sin against the holy ghost’ means a sin against, say, the nymphs of my sidebar. The other races don’t count.
        Tom Goodrich, after publishing Hellstorm wrote a disturbing book about the fate of those Sabine women that the Amerinds abducted.

        1. And yet who weeps for them? This would never have happened if the European colonists just killed them all.
          Psychologists would like to tell me that I am disgusted because I am projecting. Apparently I would like to emulate the actions of the Amerinds, the Mongols, the Huns, the Soviets in 1945.