For the reasons explained in my previous entry, I am moving elsewhere.
In a sense this is a pity. The handsomest Style Sheet I’ve found in the blogosphere is precisely the one I have been using here at Blogger.
Please find the next entries to The West’s Darkest Hour at WordPress.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
For the reasons explained in my previous entry, I am moving elsewhere.
Friday, March 11, 2011
“Unquestionably Syme will be vaporized,
Winston thought again.”
Along with my two other blogs hosted by Blogspot, today my blog was deleted for about an hour. When I tried to see it I got a message that I didn’t write down, something like: “Sorry, the blog at caesartort.blogspot.com has been removed. This address is not available for new blogs.”
As can be ascertained in my stats page, at 14:48 people still were visiting this blog. After that visitors were going to the cache page and my blog was not restored until about 15:40.
At the same time my G-mail was blocked. They wanted me to verify with a mobile number which I did and I got a code which I inputed. At that time my three blogs and G-mail were opened.
At the beginning of December 2009 something similar happened to Dennis Mangan... for several days! In his article “Thoughtcrime,” Malcolm Pollack comments of the temporary deletion of Mangan’s blog:
I can tell you from personal experience that for a dedicated blogger, having one’s website go down is profoundly disconcerting; I don’t think it is an overstatement to say that it feels like a sudden existential amputation. My advice to any of you out there who have blogs on Blogspot: do yourself a favor and get your own site, especially if you have anything pungent or controversial to express.
Besides Pollack’s full article, I would also recommend Mangan’s own “Restored to Life,” which contains a series of interesting linked comments about censorship in the internet.
If Big Brother permanently vaporizes The West’s Darkest Hour, I would like my visitors know that in that case I will transfer all of the content elsewhere.
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
In the past months I removed two recommended blogsites from my list, Occidental Dissent and Occidental Quarterly because since the last year these guys no longer pass Alex Linder’s acid test for the true white nationalist: (1) explicitly racial, (2) name the Jew and (3) the ethnostate as the ultimate goal.
Although Dennis Mangan cannot pass this test either—he fails on #3 and his blog is not exactly a racialist site—I kept it in my list because Mangan’s commentariat section is almost always stuffed with intelligent comments on reactionary topics, including Dennis’ own comments.
Yes: I understand perfectly that conservative reactionaries don’t have to share always our nationalist views. We respectfully agree to disagree. But today the following reasonable comment didn’t even clear Dennis’ moderation in one of his discussion threads.
This is my comment that Dennis censored:
Dennis Mangan wrote:
“Other things [from the commenters] that do not get posted: the merest hint of a threat of violence or the advocating of it; gratuitous ethnic insults; and if you mention the H-man or the NS state, you better have a really, really good reason to do so.”
Well: I am glad you have said this because now I understand why some comments don’t get through. Still, why do you have such policy?
Last year I received my first lesson on the “H man” in a blog that does not promote him at all (Occidental Dissent, here). On the contrary, most OD-ers believe that any mention of NS Germany in WN circles is a non-starter. Like most OD-ers, for decades I had swallowed too the accepted, post 1945 wisdom about the NS state and purchased books on the subject only with the PC imprimatur. But in that Occidental Dissent discussion I witnessed for the first time in my life a vigorous exchange that would be unthinkable in other blogs, let alone in MSM.
The discussion ended in a sort of draw or stalemate when a Jewess intervened with silly posts, but I learnt more in a couple of days than what I had previously learned about NS by reading books, or watching the History Channel.
Yes: I know that here at Mangan’s we can finally discuss the Jewish Question, which in other sites is still taboo.
Counter-jihadists are so ignorant about the JQ that they simply cannot respond when one confronts them with historical facts that they had never heard of. For example, a couple of days ago I posted, under my real name, comments telling Robert Spencer et al that Stalin’s Jews killed more innocent civilians than Hitler’s willing executioners.
They had never heard of it before. Why? Precisely because what they call “anti-Semitic” views are taboo in counter-jihad sites.
Dennis Mangan is somewhat better. For a time he censored the posts of those conscious about the Jewish Question. But like me, Mangan saw the light and he now accepts discussing it.
Alas, conservative reactionaries have their limits, too. For them National Socialism, the coming revolution and the “H-man,” as Mangan put it, are, and will continue to be, taboo.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Among other things, in the last pages of William Pierce’s The Turner Diaries, originally published more than three decades ago, I enjoyed the fate of the feminized westerners in the final, apocalyptic stages of the coming racial wars in North America and Europe.
In his novel Pierce wrote: “For the first time I understand the deepest meaning of what we are doing. I understand now why we cannot fail, no matter what we must do to win and no matter how many of us must perish in doing it. Everything that has been and everything that is yet to be depend on us. We are truly the instruments of God in the fulfillment of his grand design. These may seem like strange words to be coming from me, who has never been religious.”
Pay special attention to those words, because I am not a religious person either. My chosen image at the bottom of this entry (of which I must get a much higher pixelated copy), part of the Florentine Fete murals exhibited at the National Museum of American Illustration, reflects better than a thousand words what we have in mind: the potential divinity of the white race.
To avoid anachronisms, below I slightly edited the final pages of Pierce’s 1978 masterpiece, the toughest book in the white nationalist movement that I know. I also omitted ellipsis between the unquoted paragraphs:
Food became critically scarce everywhere during the winter. The Blacks lapsed into cannibalism, just as they had in California, while hundreds of thousands of starving Whites, who earlier had ignored the Organization’s call for a rising against the System, began appearing at the borders of the various liberated zones begging for food. The Organization was only able to feed the White populations already under its control by imposing the severest rationing, and it was necessary to turn many of the latecomers away.
Those who were admitted—and that meant only children, women of childbearing age, and able-bodied men willing to fight in the Organization’s ranks—were subjected to much more severe racial screening than had been used to separate Whites from non-Whites in California. It was no longer sufficient to be merely White; in order to eat one had to be judged the bearer of especially valuable genes. In Detroit the practice was first established (and it was later adopted elsewhere) of providing any able-bodied White male who sought admittance to the Organization’s enclave with a hot meal and a bayonet or other edged weapon. His forehead was then marked with an indelible dye, and he was turned out and could be readmitted permanently only by bringing back the head of a freshly killed Black or other non-White. This practice assured that precious food would not be wasted on those who would not or could not add to the Organization’s fighting strength, but it took a terrible toll of the weaker and more decadent White elements. Tens of millions perished during the first half of that year, and the total White population of the country reached a low point of approximately 50 million.
Outside these zones of order and security, the anarchy and savagery grew steadily worse, with the only real authority wielded by marauding bands which preyed on each other and on the unorganized and defenseless masses. Many of these bands were composed of Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos, and half-White mongrels. In growing numbers, however, Whites also formed bands along racial lines, even without Organization guidance.
As the war of extermination wore on, millions of soft, city-bred, brainwashed Whites gradually began regaining their manhood. The rest died.
The Organization’s growing success was not without its setbacks, of course. One of the most notable of these was the terrible Pittsburgh Massacre. The Organization had established an enclave there in May of that year, forcing the retreat of local System forces, but it did not act swiftly enough in identifying and liquidating the local Jewish element. A number of Jews, in collaboration with White conservatives and liberals, had time to work out a plan of subversion. The consequence was that System troops, aided by their fifth column inside the enclave, recaptured Pittsburgh. The Jews and Blacks then went on a wild rampage of mass murder, reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Jew-instigated Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, 75 years earlier. By the time the blood-orgy ended, virtually every White in the area had either been butchered or forced to flee. The surviving staff members of the Organization’s Pittsburgh Field Command, whose hesitation in dealing with the Jews had brought on the catastrophe, were rounded up and shot by a special disciplinary squad acting on orders from Revolutionary Command.
The only time, after that November, that the Organization was forced to detonate a nuclear weapon on the North American continent was a year later, in Toronto.
Hundreds of thousands of Jews had fled the United States to that Canadian city, making almost a second New York of it and using it as their command center for the war raging to the south. So far as both the Jews and the Organization were concerned, the US-Canadian border had no real significance during the later stages of the Great Revolution, and conditions were only slightly less chaotic north of the border than south of it. Throughout the Dark Years neither the Organization nor the System could hope for a completely decisive advantage over the other, so long as they both retained the capability for nuclear warfare. Then, of course, came the mopping-up period, when the last of the non-White bands were hunted down and exterminated.
With the principal centers of world Jewish power annihilated, and the nuclear threat neutralized, the most important obstacles to the Organization’s worldwide victory were out of the way. From as early as that year the Organization had had active cells in Western Europe.
The disastrous economic collapse in Europe in the spring, following the demise of the System in North America, greatly helped in preparing the European masses morally for the Organization’s final takeover. That takeover came in a great, Europe-wide rush in the summer and fall, as a cleansing hurricane of change swept over the continent, clearing away in a few months the refuse of a millennium or more of alien ideology and a century or more of profound moral and material decadence. The blood flowed ankle-deep in the streets of many of Europe’s great cities momentarily, as the race traitors, the offspring of generations of dysgenic breeding, and hordes of Gastarbeiter met a common fate. Then the great dawn of the New Era broke over the Western world.
As everyone is aware, the bands of mutants which roam the Waste remain a real threat, and it may be another century before the last of them has been eliminated and White colonization has once again established a human presence throughout this vast area.
Sunday, March 06, 2011
It’s no secret to anyone who visits The Occidental Observer that the left desperately seeks to reduce Europeans to political impotence and cultural obscurity. The triumphant of the culture of critique has it’s own agenda when it comes to benefiting from the collapse of the White majority in America and Europe. Generally the Jewish left phrases their arguments in a moralistic tone and wants everyone to believe they are motivated by the deep concern for the less fortunate. But in reality hatred of the non-Jewish outgroup and resentment for past wrongs (real and imagined) motivate their psychological aggression.
Not too long ago, I corresponded with Noam Chomsky, the well-known pioneer in linguistics and perhaps one of the most widely known critics of U.S. foreign policy, which he sees as a threat to the very survival of humanity. Chomsky has a reputation as a universal humanitarian, a common self-image of Jewish leftists described in Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique (Chapter 3). For moral reasons Whites must be eclipsed by Third World immigration due to their ancestors’ bad behavior while colonizing the Americas, Africa, East India and elsewhere.
In Chomsky’s eyes, resistance by indigenous Europeans who do not wish to give up living space and political power is tantamount to Nazism. In response to my concerns about the imposition of Sharia law in Europe and my statement that “I take it that you believe indigenous Europeans have no right for living space,” Chomsky wrote that “talk about political impotence of the indigenous population as a result of Muslim immigration (to Europe) is so outlandish that one hears it only among neo-Nazis.” When asked what he thought about the recent trend of European leaders from England, France, and Germany declaring multiculturalism to be an “utter failure” Chomsky responded in saying:
“Shocking and disgraceful, and confirms my long-held suspicion that Europe is even more racist than the US.”
Even noticing the obvious fact that multiculturalism is not working is labeled as “racist” and therefore a grave moral sin. Well, European countries would’ve done themselves some good if they looked across the ocean to America prior to embarking on a disastrous immigration policy. The glorious multicultural America is filled with racially segregated neighborhoods, Middle Eastern terrorist cells, race riots, countless bureaucracies devoted to fixing a dilemma that was promised long ago to disappear; it’s a country where politics are becoming racialized, with Whites hunkering down and voting against the non-White coalition that has become the Democratic Party. The longer Western nations pursue this insane policy the more apparent the failures are becoming. It hasn’t worked in America and it’s not going to work in Europe.
I responded to Chomsky telling him that “it is true that Sharia Law would almost make any civil society not worth living in, but a society filled with Blacks and Hispanics is equally undesirable”. Chomsky is a vocal proponent of international law and wishes it to be applied to America when it commits atrocities, believing that all U.S. presidents since Truman have been war criminals. But when pressed whether international law is applicable in protecting Whites, and whether they have legitimate interests in retaining political and cultural control in Europe Chomsky responded saying: “I answered all your questions, but I did not of course respond to the question you are now posing: whether indigenous Europeans have the right to living space—that is, to remain the overwhelming majority and barring entry to those they have been crushing for centuries. And I won’t.”
Is it really that difficult to answer whether or not Whites in Europe have a right to exist? Don’t all groups of people have this right? Notice Chomsky’s point about “barring entry to those they have been crushing for centuries.” The former masters at the mercy of their victims. It’s difficult not to think that Chomsky (an Israel Lobby denier who famously claims that Israel’s bad behavior is because it is acting on behalf of US oil interests) is here reveling in a Jewish revenge scenario—the deep sense of historical victimhood and desire for revenge that has been so central to Jewish self-concept. Freud’s Hannibal fantasy of conquering Rome comes to mind (see here, p. 115).
Europeans should wake up to where this massive immigration as a moral imperative is really headed—the destruction of Europeans and their culture.
This is typical of public Jewish leftists like Tim Wise in his vitriolic rant against whites, and Bill Maher who fawn over the idea that Whites are going away. Here’s Maher:
Some time in the distant future, brown people are probably going to—and I say this without judgment—breed their way to power in both Europe and America. Arab populations are growing in countries like France and Holland, and I think we all see where this Mexican thing is going in America. That’s right, because they fuck more, the darker skinned people are going to rule the world, and white people, for their own self-preservation, should get a start on being nice to them now!
I can’t help but infer that leftists aren’t interested in setting the wrongs of the past right, but to humiliate the biological heirs of the West and to destroy societies that nurtured them. This is the overwhelming political culture of leftists: Whites don’t have a right to political hegemony in their ancestral homelands, and perhaps not even a right to exist at all.
I read this very recent article by John Sobieski at The Occidental Observer, here.
Friday, March 04, 2011
The formerly white nationalist site Occidental Dissent, now much closer to a conservative blog, got it all wrong. The nationalists are not to be blamed that the masses of whites are not supporting their own interests. It is the fault of the masses and the conservatives. The following article by Dr. William Pierce (photo below), “A Call for a Spiritual Elite: Conservatism or Radicalism?” was originally published in Attack! (no. 51, 1977):
Conservative and right-wing political groups are concerned with a number of problems these days: forced school busing, taxes, gun control, street crime, inflation. They oppose these things in various ways: through public demonstrations; through propaganda efforts with leaflets, magazines, or newspapers; through lobbying; and through election campaigns. And they gain members and supporters from those elements of the population who are also opposed to these things.
In general, the more concrete, specific, and immediate a problem is, the larger and more enthusiastic will be the public response to right-wing efforts. Some of the ad hoc organizations opposed to forced school busing claimed more than a million members at one time. The National Rifle Association, which is certainly the principal group opposed to gun control, has more than a million members now, I believe.
The people who joined the anti-busing groups did so, generally, because they felt immediately threatened by a specific and concrete menace. The people who support the NRA because of its opposition to gun-registration and gun-confiscation laws feel—and rightly so—that their fundamental right of self-defense is in immediate danger of being taken away from them.
When the issue becomes less immediate or more abstract, right-wing groups can still gain support—but not so much. American foreign policy in the Middle East and in Rhodesia is horrendous, but there is far less organized opposition to it than to busing or gun control.
Even more abstract issues, such as miscegenation and non-White immigration, still bring forth a good bit of right-wing rhetoric, but there is almost no public response to this rhetoric.
Now, everyone has observed this, and the consequence is that people or groups who want to win public support for themselves, for whatever reason, honest or dishonest, concentrate their propaganda on immediate, concrete, specific problems. That wins elections. And it brings the contributions rolling in to the money-hungry, “conservative,” fundraising outfits.
But, interestingly enough, the immediate, concrete, specific problems remain with us and continue to grow worse. Why is that?
Why is it that with so many people belonging to or supporting organizations opposed to forced busing, we have every year more and more school districts being ordered by the Federal courts to bus White children into Black schools?
Why, with all the rhetoric against taxes and with so many conservatives and right wingers supporting anti-tax organizations, do income taxes and social security taxes and property taxes become worse practically every year?
Actually, there are two ways of approaching the question. We can say we have more and more busing every year, despite all the opposition to it, because the enemies of White America want to mongrelize the country, and they are stronger, with all their money and their control of the media, than the busing opponents, and they have slipped their allies into the Federal judiciary over the years, and they have brainwashed the public, and conservatives won’t work together, and so on. And we can answer the questions about taxes and gun control the same way.
But answers of that sort, about the mechanics of the struggle, are not what I’m interested in tonight. We have a general and fundamental question before us, which is: Why do the enemies of White America keep on winning? Why are they stronger than their opponents? How is it that they have been able to slip the sack over our heads so easily? Why does the White majority always lose?
The answer we want to understand tonight is this: Right wingers, and conservatives, and the White majority generally, have been losing battle after battle—and are obviously losing the whole war as well—simply because all they are really willing to fight for are immediate, concrete, and specific things—and, in particular, things which affect them personally. That is the answer we must understand.
I was talking to our guest, Ed Fields, after our last meeting, and he told me about a speech he gave at an anti-busing rally in Louisville, Kentucky, last year. He had been talking for about 10 minutes, he said, about the importance of preserving the White race and saving White culture and stopping non-White immigration and halting intermarriage, when he was interrupted by a shout from someone in the crowd who yelled, “We don’t care about all that crap! Tell us how to stop this busing!”
Now, I believe that was an extreme case. Most opponents of busing and certainly most ordinary, decent White people do care about the things Ed Fields was talking about. They just don’t care enough about them to leave their TV sets and go to rallies and risk being labeled “racists” by a yapping pack of Jewish media hounds and their liberal camp followers. They’ll only put out that effort and take that risk to oppose something which they see as an immediate and personal threat.
So, the big conservative and right-wing groups concentrate on those things—the immediate, concrete, and personal things—and the White race keeps losing the war.
The problem is a matter of motivation, of priorities, of values.
The great majority of our people who are not liberals—that is, who have not joined the enemy—are not really concerned with winning the war. They just want to avoid becoming personal casualties. No army in history with that sort of motivation has ever won a war. And we won’t either.
When a man has a personal problem to solve—a truly personal problem—then self-interest is a proper motivation. But when a whole race is faced with a major problem, self-interest is no longer a proper motivation, and it will no more solve the problem for the race than an attitude of “every man for himself” will win a war—or even a battle—for an army.
And yet self-interest is what the conservative and right-wing organizations keep appealing to, because that is what gets an immediate response.
The essence of the problem is this: The man who is against busing is generally a man who is fairly well satisfied with the other things around him. Let’s solve this busing problem, he thinks, and then I can go back to my TV. Or let’s defeat this gun-control law, and then I can go back to what I was doing before.
If you read conservative publications, you are overcome by the stench of this attitude. American Opinion, the magazine of the John Birch Society, reeks of it. And so does the weekly tabloid published by Liberty Lobby.
They are outraged about the Federal bureaucracy because of the way it interferes in their lives. They don’t want the government meddling with their property rights. They want to be left alone so they can continue making money and spending money the way they want and doing what they want without interference.
And about the last thing they want to do is have a revolution. Why, that would be even more of a nuisance than busing, gun control, and all the Federal meddlers put together. That would really keep them away from their TV.
Remember, there are literally tens of millions of people out there, a substantial portion of them conservative, patriotic Americans, who really care whether Liz will leave John and go back to Dick again and whether the Dodgers will win the World Series.
I said it’s a problem of values. Let me give you a couple of specific examples. In American Opinion a few months back there was an article complaining about Federal forced-housing efforts. The author didn’t want anyone to think he was a racist, and he said that no true conservative has any objection to Black neighbors, so long as they are good, quiet, middle-class Blacks. He said conservatives would rather have hardworking, middle-class Blacks for neighbors than poor Whites, or, as he put it, welfare-class Whites.
The conservative objection to forced housing, he said, is only that it is forced, that conservatives don’t want to be told they have to have Blacks for neighbors, especially dirty, disorderly, welfare-class Blacks, whom they regard in exactly the same light as poor Whites.
Well, we certainly must admit that there are some Blacks who would make quieter, cleaner, more orderly neighbors than some Whites. And if that’s all we care about—that and not having the government tell us what to do—then we have to agree with the Birch Society.
But we believe—all of us here believe, I hope—that there is much, much more at stake in the forced-housing issue than property values and freedom from government interference. We have a set of values and a motivation which are fundamentally different from those of the Birch Society. And yet so many people can see only the superficial resemblance between us and the Birchers that comes from our having similar stands on certain issues.
Let me give you another example. In this week’s issue of Newsweek magazine there is a guest editorial by a White conservative complaining about the ridiculous extent to which the courts and the Federal bureaucracy—especially the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—have gone to assure minorities a better-than-even break. Reverse discrimination, he says, is un-American.
Of course, we’ve all heard the Jews yelling the same thing, as soon as Blacks started demanding their share of jobs in those occupations in which Jews are overrepresented, such as journalism and university teaching. With the Jews it’s clearly selfishness, pure and simple, because they’re all for reverse discrimination when it’s the White plumber or electrician or sheet-metal worker who has to give up his job to a Black or a Chicano or an Asiatic.
But I don’t believe the White conservative writing for Newsweek is worried that some Negro is going to get his job. His worry is simply that the Jews and the guilt-ridden liberals and the corrupt politicians who cater to the minority vote are overdoing the “equality” racket and are generating a backlash among Whites which is undoing what the Federal equality laws were supposed to do, namely, to create a society without discrimination of any kind, a color-blind society.
He sees the EEOC fanatics stirring up a hornet’s nest of hostility, of racial conflict, of divisiveness. Forcing equality on people, he says, is disuniting the United States and unmelting the melting pot. And that means trouble and unrest ahead. And, like conservatives in general, he doesn’t want trouble. He wants unity and prosperity and peace at any price.
Now, perhaps we should try to be charitable and not accuse such conservatives of being motivated by nothing but egoism and materialism. Perhaps the fellow writing in Newsweek is basically a patriot who simply wants a strong and peaceful and united United States above all else, completely aside from what these things will mean to his own income and safety and living standard. And perhaps he really believes that a truly color-blind government, which discriminates neither in favor of Blacks nor Whites, will make America strong and peaceful. Maybe he really believes that. I am sure a lot of conservatives do.
But even if they were right—and, in the long run, they certainly cannot be—their values and their priorities are totally wrong.
Prosperity and harmony are nice. Peace is nice—but not peace at any price, certainly not peace at the price of racial mongrelization.
And, in fact, our values are so totally different from conservative values that I say we would not even be interested in peace if we could be guaranteed that it would not lead to mongrelization. Not even if the country or the world could be divided up into little enclaves for Blacks and Whites and Chicanos and Jews and so on, every one respecting the rights of his neighbors and staying inside his own boundaries. That, again, is the dream of a conservative soul, and it is a false dream.
Our dream is a progressive dream, a dream of unlimited progress over the centuries and the millennia and the eons which lie ahead of us. It is no conservative dream of peace, no sheeplike dream of ease and consumption and safety, but a dream of the achievement of our Destiny, which is Godhood. It is the only dream fitting for men and women of our race; it is the spirit of the Creator, it is the Universal Urge within us, expressing itself through our race-soul.
You know that is true; you know that is the only dream for us, that what I am telling you is right. Yet, when you leave here tonight it will be all too easy, I am afraid, for you to slip back into old ways of thinking, into wrong ways.
I’m afraid of that because I receive letters all the time from our members, who’ve been paying their dues and receiving their bulletins regularly, who apparently do not understand what is written in those bulletins. They are teachers and policemen and lawyers—people for whom our message certainly should not be too abstract or too complicated to grasp—but they are also people thoroughly enmeshed in contemporary society, thoroughly involved, every day, with other people whose values and ideas all come from their TV sets.
And because our values are so different from the TV values, it may be hard for some of our people to make the transition, to clear the conservative cobwebs out of their minds, so that our dream, the dream of the White race-soul, comes through loud and clear.
It is easier for us, here in our little community, to understand our Truth, and it may be necessary for many of our other members, scattered all across the continent—all across the world now, in fact—to also have the moral reinforcement which comes from living and working together with others who have the same dream before they can achieve the same degree of understanding we have.
I am sure that will be necessary for some, but not for all. For some the dream is strong enough so that it is sufficient for them to receive our publications and listen to our meeting tapes—that is, to be members of our community in spirit, even if they cannot be here in the flesh.
But the problem that remains for us is this: our dream is a radical dream, and the dream of the masses is a conservative dream.
We want a revolution which brings about a permanent transformation of the values and priorities and goals of our society and lays the groundwork for the building of a whole new world. They want a quick and easy end to certain concrete and specific annoyances, so that they can go back to their TV.
Even the least selfish and most thoughtful of the conservatives base their programs entirely on the TV values, the TV philosophy, the TV religion. At most, they want to annul the social and racial changes of the last few decades and restore what existed before the last war.
So this great gulf lies between us and them, between our Truth and the materialist-conservative view of life. And yet, they are our people. It is from them, from the great masses, that we must recruit the new members upon which the growth and even the continued existence of our community depend.
We certainly have not reached the point where we can afford to wall ourselves and our families off from the rest of society, where we can isolate our community from the Jewish Babylon around us and depend upon our own reproductive powers to continue building our community. We may never reach that point. So we must bridge the gulf.
How? Do we put on a conservative mask and continue putting out leaflets and publishing a newspaper which talk about busing and gun control and racial job quotas and the media monopolies and the other things conservatives are interested in—as we have been doing—but without the radical overtones which frighten or confuse or bore them?
That is, do we deradicalize our public image? Do we become a sort of conservative front group?
Remember, we talked a couple of meetings ago about making it easier and less frightening for prospective recruits to join us. We talked about the necessity of growing faster than we are growing now.
But there is also something else to remember. And that is that there are dozens of conservative groups already out there, experienced, well-financed, well-organized conservative groups. And at least some of them are run by real conservatives, men who think and feel the same way those do they are trying to recruit.
Should we imagine that we, outsiders who think and feel on an entirely different wavelength, can be more successful at that game? I think not.
And even if we were more successful, by being cleverer or more energetic or more ruthless than the others, would we have a real success?
We would have a structure without a foundation, a structure held together by pretense. Is that what we want for the long haul ahead? I think not.
Now, I am certainly not ruling out the use of front groups and ad hoc organizations. They are perfectly good and useful tools, and we expect to use them at a certain stage of our development.
But for the achievement of our long-range goals, for the principal vehicle for our revolution, for the organization which embodies the fundamental Truth expressed in our Affirmation, we must have a foundation of the hardest stone, not of sand. And that stone must be cemented together with truth, not pretense.
We do not bridge the gulf between our community and the masses of our people by pretending to be something we are not. If we have made a mistake in the past, it has been trying to sit on two stools at the same time, trying to be both conservative and radical. And if we are to correct that mistake in the future, it must be to abandon conservative pretenses. It must be to become completely truthful in our recruiting efforts.
So, let us light a beacon of truth and let us always hold out a friendly hand of understanding to the masses of our people who do not yet share our outlook. But let us make no compromises with the falsehoods which now govern their lives. Let us make no pretense that we believe that busing or taxes or racial quotas are really fundamental issues. Let us make it clear to everyone that these things are only symptoms of the disease, and one does not cure a disease by treating its symptoms.
What this means for us now and in the near future—that is, as long as we are working through one organization and are not yet ready to use fronts—is this: We will concentrate our resources on fundamentals and will be obliged to a very large extent to let other groups attack the symptoms. We will concentrate on reaching the masses of our people with our Truth in its most fundamental form, and we will let the National Rifle Association fight gun control and the National States Rights Party fight busing, and we wish them well.
Another way of saying this is that we will be uncompromisingly radical rather than conservative. Of course, if the word “radical” still frightens you, you may substitute “fundamental”—which means exactly the same thing—for it.
And does this make sense when we so desperately need to grow faster than we have been? Does it make sense to try to reach people ruled by materialism with a message which is essentially spiritual? Does it make sense to be more radical when some of our own members even now are still thinking in conservative terms?
Well, let’s concede first that, although we will be preaching to the masses, we understand that only a minority, only a spiritual elite, will be capable of responding to our message. We want to light a beacon and we want to make it burn as brightly as we can, so that it will cast its rays over all our people, but we know that only a few will actually see our light, will actually understand and respond to our Truth. We concede that.
But this is the way it has always been. Every great and positive revolution of human history, every conscious step upward on the never-ending Path of Life symbolized by our Rune, has been the work of a minority, of an elite. Masses don’t make revolutions—determined and committed minorities do.
We don’t hope to make revolutionary idealists out of the egoistic and materialistic masses, but we do hope to awaken and inspire and recruit that minority of our people in which the Divine Spark already burns brightly enough to illuminate their souls and their minds so that they can grasp our Truth. And the way to do that is to present our Truth to them as purely and as plainly and as clearly as we possibly can—not to dress it in a conservative disguise, which leads only to confusion.
We want everyone to know that we understand that what’s really important is not whether we can elect a government which won’t try to impose racial quotas on us or whether we can achieve domestic tranquility but whether the Truth that is in the race-soul of our people shall overcome the alien falsehoods which rule us now, so that that Truth can guide us once again to the upward Path, to the Path of the Creator’s Self-Realization, and so that we can once again become agents of the Universal Will—except this time fully conscious agents—and resume our never-ending ascent toward our ordained Destiny.
That’s what’s important, and that is what must be achieved. Then everything else—all the conservative goals—will either have been taken care of automatically or they will have become irrelevant.
So, once again, the immediate question before us is not whether to be more radical or more conservative in order to grow faster, but how to present our radicalism—our Truth—in the best, in the clearest, in the most appealing way, how to avoid confusion, how to minimize negativism, how to reassure those who are timid and hesitant.
We understand that we are casting our net very wide and expecting to catch only a few. But we want to be sure that we do catch all those who are fit for catching. And the way to catch those who are fit is with the pure and unadulterated Truth.
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
In 2009 the counter-jihad movement impressed me and I posted excerpts of a remarkable article that had been published in a couple of well-known anti-Islamist sites. I titled my February 2009 excerpts: “Nuking Mecca: a truly fascinating exchange.” Since then I realized that the counter-jihad movement was dominated by intellectually coward neo-cons, half-Jews and deracinated, Jew-blind pro-Israel “whites.”
Below I simply replace reference to Islamic words in the original article as well as in the commentariat section. Islam thus becomes ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government in the U.S.), Muslims become Jews, Islamism becomes Judaism, Mecca becomes Jerusalem, Medina becomes Tel Aviv, etcetera.
Have you ever wondered how similar Judaism and Islam are? They are almost mirror images of each other, except one is particularist and the other is universalist. —Euromike
Westerner wrote [excerpt]:
In recent years, several knowledgeable writers—including Kevin MacDonald (The Culture of Critique) and Hervé Ryssen (e.g., La Mafia juive, Le Miroir du judaïsme and Histoire de l’antisémitisme, here)—have described what the Jews actually do in Gentile society, both in theory and in practice. Judaism is not “just another religion,” but rather an intrinsically subversive movement, and serious Jews wish to establish the rule of Israel over the entire globe (see e.g., the top quotation of an issue of Israel magazine here). However, although the writers mentioned above correctly state the nature of the Jewish threat to our country and our way of life, they do not say how we can counter that threat. Harold Covington is somewhat better, because he not only takes the ZOG threat seriously, but has a plan of action for defending our society. He and William Pierce suggest (quite sensibly) that we should defend ourselves against the Judaization of America by refusing to accept Jews from other countries, and sending home those who are already here. In their novels they also suggests that we must destroy the Israeli nuclear facilities, and should prevent any other Jew from acquiring nuclear weapons.
However, although Covington’s plan is advisable, it is still inadequate—the world would still contain a sizable number of Jews. We cannot be safe unless Judah is crushed; that is, so reduced in strength that it can no longer threaten the free world. Our overall strategy for doing so should include the following steps: (1) The only way in which we can quickly break both the financial power of the Jews and their grip on our society is to freeze the Jews’ assets. (2) Totally destroying several Jewish holy or political sites, including Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. We should announce in advance the dates when those places will be destroyed, and that Yahweh (Hebrew: יהוה) is either unwilling or unable to protect them. We should then, using nuclear weapons, proceed to vaporize each of those sites in sequence.
It may be objected that this program involves the killing of a large number of people, many of them innocent. So do all wars. We did not choose this war; it has been forced on us. Of course, this program cannot be carried out by the United States—or any coalition of Western nations—until there is sufficient popular support for it. The purpose of this article is not to cause the immediate adoption of this program, but rather to create an understanding of what needs to be done.
Commenter 1 said:
The people who implement such steps will not appeal to ordinary folk like you and me. Along with nuking Jerusalem and occupying Israel, they will remove what’s left of our civil liberties, militarize our societies, imprison and execute those who disagree with them, increase the power of the state, nationalize our economies, and enact powerful controls over the entire populace via the media, the schools, and all public institutions. Because that’s what happens when drastic emergency situations arise, when an entire civilization is at stake. The people who undertake actions that kill or impoverish millions of people are the same kind of people who do all those other nasty things. Men who are that ruthless will act just as ruthlessly to preserve and extend their own power. You can’t avoid it; it’s a package deal.
Commenter 2 said:
I don’t really think the ideas presented in Westerner’s essay are really that bad. Honestly, I’ve had pretty much of those ideas for a little while because I don’t really see any alternative in dealing with ZOG. Therefore the only solution left is to fight back against ZOG with the same ferocity with which they fight us. Sure, the death of millions upon millions of people doesn’t sound like the best thing to moral people, but what choice do we have? We could be morally superior, so to speak, and not take such drastic action, but in that case we would be dead, or in the best situation, living as slaves for the Jewish people. Sorry, but I am certain of one thing: I personally will do absolutely anything to avoid having the world go Judaized.
Commenter 3 said:
Regarding the nuking of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Judaism has been around for 3,000 years. Nukes have only been around for a little more than 60 years. ZOG is seriously begging for having these sites nuked. So it’s just a matter of time before it happens. If it doesn’t happen early, nuclear proliferation will make sure that eventually an Islamic nuke will hit Israel. So there is no stopping this. The only open question is how much destruction, death and mayhem the world will suffer from before that event takes place.
Commenter 4 said:
Actually we will reach a point when this sort of drastic measures will be simply unavoidable. Maybe not in our lifetime, but the next generations will witness such a society. It’s the fault of our irresponsible, blind, spineless, dumb leaders and elite, because they are unable and unwilling to stop the Judaization of the West right now. When the Turks besieged Constantinople, the priests and theologians were debating about the sex of angels. This is what our politicians are doing now. If we don’t remove the idiotic political elite which is leading the West nowadays, our grandchildren will pay bitterly for the mistakes and weakness of their ancestors.
Commenter 5 said:
It may well be that such a development would be inevitable during an all out confrontation with the Jews, and that’s the reason why I favor a quick and dirty solution, rather than a corrosive stalemate eating our democracy and civil liberties from within.
Commenter 3 said:
ZOG must be eradicated. And this is the reason why Jerusalem has to be completely destroyed; burned to the ground. This is the decisive blow against ZOG. Praying to Yahweh, when its holy city is just rubble will not strengthen your faith: it will eat you up from the inside. And you cannot go on pilgrimage to a place that doesn’t exist. Two of the most important cities of Judaism effectively eliminated. Tel Aviv should be destroyed in the same way, of course, so they won’t start turning there for prayer. All in all it has to be a massive power demonstration showing beyond any doubt that it’s not Yahweh that rules this planet but the civilization with the greatest means to apply violence and destruction, i.e., us.
Put ZOG and nukes together in a laboratory environment, and the outcome will always be a destroyed Jerusalem. So the ways things are setup can only eventually lead to a giant showdown.
Commenter 6 said:
Most regulars here know quite well that my preferred first course of action is for Western militaries to begin targeted assassinations of ZOG’s clerical, financial and scholastic aristocracy. To quote an old Danish saying: “Go to the horse’s head, not it’s tail”. Decapitating ZOG should be our first priority. The damage done through a few hundred or thousand killings could quite possibly change the entire course of history. Rest assured that not killing ZOG’s aristocracy will most definitely lead to a holocaust of one sort or the other. A great first step is to kill any Jew on earth that openly talks of exterminating whites, starting with Noel Ignatiev.
Bearing in mind my unshaken opposition to first-use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, I can only go on to agree that obliterating Jerusalem with an atomic bomb is one of the few ways to adequately conveying both the West’s displeasure with ZOG and the total fallibility of Yahweh. As with Machiavelli’s observation, the blow we land should be one that does not heal. There must be a permanent record of just how foolish Jews were to constantly provoke the West.
This is why Israel’s nuclear weapons project should be shut down and her atomic arsenal confiscated. Once proliferation occurs within the Middle East now that still more Islamist nations are joining the nuclear club, a holocaust is only a matter of time.
ZOG’s destruction is the only acceptable outcome. It will be a supreme moral challenge for the West to understand that military pre-emption costing hundreds of thousands or even more than a million lives will be far more humane than allowing the inevitable holocaust that ZOG is sure to precipitate.
Commenter 7 said:
All this talk of how to deal with ZOG is pointless, because it ignores the real problem: liberals that are preventing us from doing anything. The home front is the biggest front. It would be relatively easy to defeat ZOG if we had a free hand. What’s the point of discussing whether we should nuke Jerusalem when we can’t even stop the Jews from coming to our countries because liberals and egalitarians won’t let us do that? Let’s talk about how to defeat liberals instead! That is the real problem.
Commenter 8 said:
Commenter 1 and others in this thread argue as follows: “Solution X may be what we need to do for our survival, but the support for X does not exist, therefore Solution X is not a good idea and I disagree with it.” This is to argue backward, in a way that is very common among conservatives, and shows a failure to grasp the radical nature of the challenge before us. Obviously, any kind of solution to the Jewish Problem that is favored by serious Western patriots will be completely outside current accepted thinking. Therefore any solution offered by white nationalists is going to lack current support and seem completely out of the question—by current standards. Commenter 1 and others implicitly imagine that the solution they seek could be arrived at within the current liberal assumption that governs our world. But that is false. It is modern liberalism itself—the belief that all people and cultures are basically the same and that discrimination against and exclusion of any group or religion are the greatest sins—that is leading us to our destruction.
Therefore it is the liberal worldview that must be challenged and defeated. For Commenter 1 to say, “Solution X is no good, because the liberal orthodoxy would refuse to support it,” is to give up the battle without having even tried to fight it. What Western patriots need to grasp is that Western survival requires and assumes the defeat of liberalism. Those who are not prepared to challenge liberalism on a fundamental level will not be able to save the West. Thus any policy that the participants in this discussion favor—ranging from stopping all Jewish immigration, to designating Judaism as a political ideology and placing legal restrictions on it, to initiating Jew out-migration, to the quarantine of Jews within Israel or Madagascar, to the more radical and violent steps that Westerner and others have proposed—all these policies assume that the West will have gone beyond its current liberalism. The defeat of liberalism is the assumed starting point of all our proposed solutions. Therefore the end of liberalism should not be seen as some distant, impossible goal, but as the indispensable condition of our survival.
To believe in the West and in our own life as Westerners, is to believe in the defeat of liberalism. Those who are unwilling to challenge liberalism may offer a lot of lip service about defending the West, but they will eventually yield to its destruction. So how do we get from here to Solution X? Not by saying, “There’s no support for it.” Not by saying, “We have to wait for liberals to change.” Not by saying, “Let’s spend the next 20 years telling people that ZOG is a mortal threat to our civilization, but never telling them what they can do in order save themselves from this threat.” No. We get to Solution X by making our case, our whole case, including the diagnosis (ZOG is a mortal threat to us) and the possible cure (my own preferred cure is the removal, disempowerment, and permanent quarantine of Judaism; others have their preferred cures and we should continue discussing them). By making our whole case, we persuade people (1) of the nature of the problem, (2) of the only possible solutions to the problem, and (3) of the fact that these solutions are not possible within liberal assumptions, because liberalism is a suicidal ideology, and therefore we must renounce liberalism. It’s the whole case that will persuade people and move them to the position that will make Western survival possible. Not a quarter case, not a half case.
Commenter 1 said:
To be clear: it may someday become necessary, moral, ethical, and imperative to raze Jerusalem, pulverize the rubble, bulldoze it flat, and sow the ground with salt. We haven’t come to that pass yet, but we may reach it someday. It grows more likely with each passing day of our feckless policies towards ZOG. But we aren’t there yet, and I strive to find ways to arrive at our goal via a different route. I think laying out the whole case occasionally has value, but the effectiveness of my mission may be better achieved by concentrating most of the time on the itty-bitty baby steps.
Commenter 8 said:
As the audience sees it, it’s not clear that Judaism is bad, because (1) the liberals skillfully excuse ZOG, and (2) even the Jew critics don’t really seem to think Judaism is that bad, since they never say that we should do anything about it. The seriousness of the analysis of the ZOG threat is underscored by the seriousness of the proposals to deal with it.
The best we can do is ruthlessly manage the problem:
(1) Deport all Jews from the West; kill the Jews who resist or try to circumvent #1.
(2) Set up a new Iron Curtain around the lands to where the Jews have been deported, and kill the Jews who try to leave. Will this be possible to implement perfectly? Of course not. Even if we had the political will to do this, there would still be holes in the system, and the West would probably continue to be plagued into the indefinite future with rogue cells of underground Jews who have slipped through the net and who try to attack in various ways.
Commenter 10 said:
Sadly, the simple fact is that we have neither the will nor the stomach to undertake such a strategy that as short a time ago as 1945 was seen as a quite reasonable way to wage war against one’s sworn enemies. Look at the very first comment in this discussion [not included in this collection], which considers the rather mild military measures considered by the original poster to be “pornographic.” And that commentator is somehow officially associated with a blog whose avowed purpose seems to be to discuss how to fight the Jews!
No, I fear we are in for a great many disappointments in the years ahead as the West continues to quiver fearfully and retreat from the aggressive assault of ZOG, and the first comment in this thread is part and parcel of exactly why: when even folks who pretend to understand the threat of modern Jews on the march express squeamish reservations about actually fighting them, we are indeed on the losing side. And if the West were truly serious about its “war” with the Jews it would make war the way it did when it was last serious about actually winning (as opposed to simply not losing, which is a different thing), and which is within the memory of some still living, the events of which occurred scarcely two generations ago. But, alas, it is not, and there we are.
Commenter 6 said:
The West has only a decade or two, at most, to dismantle ZOG before we come under an Orwellian world.
Commenter 9 said:
You are ignoring an approximately 1,700-year-period when the West was both globally powerful and not corrupted by the ideas of the French Revolution on egalitarianism so that the West was uninhibited in horning in on the Third World through Colonialism and in doing so interfered massively all over most parts of the Middle East. As a consequence, do you think it was mere coincidence that the Jews were more docile during that period, relatively speaking?
All we need, and even this is a tall order, given the mainstream dominance of politically correctness and multiculturalism throughout the West, is to regain our former rationality and apply it to the threat of ZOG, and over time the Jews will hunker down again. Additionally, a Judaism that is internationally isolated (under the kind of geographical quarantine I proposed above, echoed by Commenter 6) will of itself become quickly weak. Under such a geographical quarantine, will the Jews cease to be a threat to the West? Of course not. Will that threat become considerably—and therefore sufficiently—reduced, rolled back to the levels of the way it was during Western Colonialism or even better? There is no good reason to think why not.
Commenter 3 said:
The holy sites should not just be pulverized and named after Hitler and Himmler: they should be forever occupied. Thusly it will make Judaism impossible, and even the prospect of being able to do it any time in the future inconceivable. In fact, I think that probably one should just destroy Jerusalem first. And only after that, when the Jews have redirected their hopes and prayers towards the Tel Aviv government, should that city be destroyed in a similar manner.
Finally Commenter 6, your suggestion of targeted assassinations against ZOG’s aristocracy also belongs to the category of age-old wisdom, and yes such a suggestion belongs on the table for a problem of this magnitude. But also here I will say that because it’s Judaism it won’t work. Your suggestion amounts to cutting off all the heads of a hydra. While it will hurt them severely, the heads will eventually grow back. No, we need to go for the body for the kill, i.e., we need to attack their faith. All in all, I think it will be fairly easy to destroy Judaism once we have collectively understood that this is what we need to do.
The day this total war turns hot we need more than such a half-hearted stance against ZOG, because this is what would be truly insane. In the face of such a formidable enemy we must muster all our mental focus against him. A half-hearted approach only aiming for limited war and treating the monsters with respect, is a sure formula for failure. Limited war has been the paradigm of the United States since World War II and it has left the world in chaos. Most of the cases have been utter failures: China, Vietnam, Iran, Lebanon, Somalia. And even the cases that succeeded have been half-measures: Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq. The idea that war can be successfully waged with the left-hand and without the mental focus on total victory is simply bourgeoisie crap.
Commenter 9 said:
Commenter 8, you wrote: “To protect ourselves from ZOG we do not need to exterminate every single Jew on earth. We just need to destroy the Zionist Occupied Government that is the actual threat to us.” Unlike in past wars, the threat from ZOG is mostly unrelated to individual states. The predominant threat comes from an amorphously trans-national shadowy network, often seemingly harmless and ordinary Jews. This reflects the more general problem about Jews: since we cannot sufficiently tell the difference between harmless Jew and dangerous Jew, we must, in the context of our collective self-defense, rationally treat them all as dangerous.
Commenter 3 said:
Commenter 6, I cannot see why the destruction of Jerusalem couldn’t be done in addition to your Ruthless Management policy. If the Jewish world has first been rendered essentially harmless, there is little risk. But the opportunity is great. With a successful outcome we’d break the spirit of Judaism, and it won’t be necessary with a perpetual ruthless management. Judaism has never before been properly defeated. Only the Greek Antiochus IV, the Roman Titus and the pan-Germanic Hitler tried.
While many other actions would surely just lead to strengthening their fighting spirit (such as e.g. nuking Tel Aviv), this one, nuking Jerusalem, is designed to crack it. Nothing would break their faith in Yahweh like this. And without an immovable faith in Yahweh the whole Judaization of the West becomes pointless for them; meaningless. How can Yahweh guarantee a Messiah on earth if he cannot protect Jerusalem? Does he even exist? This will kill their fighting spirit, and then continue to eat up their belief in Judaism from the inside. The snake will keep rattling for some time after we have cut the head of it, so we need to keep it at a distance during that. But the snake cannot keep moving for long without its head.
Commenter 11 said:
Forget the fantasies of nuking Jerusalem until we learn to “nuke” the left-wing biased media and academia. Can anyone deny that they have managed to make the number one concern of the West the guarding against racism (and thus anti-Semitism)? Fear of racism has literally been made greater than fear of an existential threat. This is suicidal.
Commenter 12 said:
What would be far more effective than merely destroying that Wailing Wall that die Juden worship in Jerusalem would be to carve from it an enormous statue of a crowned Hitler with His foot on a prone Moses’ face, or on a cracking and crumbling Star of David, while holding up a shield with a swastika and a straight, Christian sword. Instead of being able to indulge in romanticized nostalgia for a vanished sacred object such as Muslims do for the Black Stone or Christians for the Holy Grail, Jews would then be confronted in an ongoing unavoidable way by the permanent and utter defeat, the weakness and falseness, of their religion.
Commenter 3 said:
The discussion is also essential in the way that in order to know how to destroy ZOG properly, you have to fully understand its nature. And even though the people discussing here are top tier, I would say that there are still several ones that haven’t yet taken in the full nature of it.
In a few more decades of unchecked immigration, half of the West will be lost. This is a much bigger damage than one or a couple of nukes could do.