Last entry!

Update of June 9, 2022: I have deleted the content of this post to replace it with the following note: The new address of The West's Darkest Hour is: this one.

Vaporized!

“Unquestionably Syme will be vaporized,
Winston thought again.”
.....................................—Orwell’s 1984




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 D.M.... for several days! In his article “Thoughtcrime,” Malcolm Pollack comments of the temporary deletion of D.M.’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 D.M.’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.

The toughest book in the white nationalist movement

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.

But it was in that year, according to the chronology of the Old Era—just 110 years after the birth of the Great One—that the dream of a White world finally became a certainty.

The End

John Sobieski’s “My correspondence with Chomsky”

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.

A call for a spiritual elite

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.

A final solution to the Jewish problem

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.


Comments [excerpts]
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.

Commenter 9:

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.

Roger Devlin’s “Sexual Liberation & Racial Suicide”

What is “sexual liberation”? It is usually spoken of by way of contrast with the constraints of marriage and family life. It would seem to be a condition under which people have more choice than under the traditional system of monogamy. Hugh Hefner’s “Playboy philosophy” seemed to offer men more choices than just sleeping with the same woman every night for fifty years. Feminism promised women it would liberate them from “domestic drudgery” and turn marriage and motherhood into just one among many lifestyle choices.

On the other hand, there was always an element of free choice even regarding marriage: one may choose whether, and to a certain extent whom, one will marry. Indeed, marriage is perhaps the most important example of a momentous life choice. But on the traditional view you cannot make your choice and still have it. Once one takes the vow and enters into the covenant, ipso facto one no longer has a choice. In other words, marriage is a one-way nonrefundable ticket. Your wife is your choice even if she eventually displeases you in certain ways, as all mortal wives necessarily must. Keeping your choice of mate open forever is called “celibacy.”

Ultimately, the ideal of sexual liberation rests upon a philosophical confusion which I call the absolutizing of choice. The illusion is that society could somehow be ordered to allow us to choose without thereby diminishing our future options. Birth control, abortion, the destigmatizing of fornication and homosexuality, arbitrary and unilateral divorce—all these have been pitched to us as ways of expanding our choices.

Now, I am in favor of giving people all the choice they can stand. But I would like to be careful about what this means: analysis will reveal that the term “choice” has distinct and partly contradictory senses which may not be equally applicable in all contexts. In other words, choice is not a single thing which can be expanded indefinitely at no cost; the appearance of greater choice in one area can be shown to entail reducing one’s possibilities in another.

One perfectly legitimate sense of choosing is doing as one desires. When we are asked to choose a flavor of ice cream, e.g., all that is meant is deciding which flavor would be the most pleasing to us at the moment. That is because the alternative of chocolate or strawberry involves no deep, long-term consequences. But not all choices can be like this.

Consider, for example, a young man’s choice of vocation. One of the charms of youth is that it is a time when possibility overshadows actuality. One might become a brain surgeon, or a mountain climber, or a poet, or a statesman, or a monk. It is natural and good for boys to dream about all the various things they might become, but such daydreams can breed a dangerous illusion: that, where anything is still possible, everything will be possible. This is only true in the case of trivial and inconsequential matters. It is possible to sample all of Baskin-Robbins’ thirty-one flavors on thirty-one successive days. But it is not possible to become a brain-surgeon and a mountain climber and a poet and a statesman and a monk. A man who tries to do so will only fail in all his endeavors.

The reason for this, of course, is that important enterprises demand large amounts of time and dedication, but the men who undertake them are mortal. For every possibility we realize, there will be a hundred we must leave forever unrealized; for every path we choose to take, there will be a hundred we must forever renounce. The need for choice in this sense is what gives human life much of its seriousness. Those who drift from one thing to another, unable to make up their minds or finish anything they have begun, reveal thereby that they do not grasp an essential truth about the human condition. They are like children who do not wish to grow up.

Now, sexual choices, especially for women, are analogous to a man’s in regard to his calling. Inherently, they cannot be made as easy and reversible as choosing flavors of ice cream. But this is what sexual liberation attempts to do. The underlying motive seems to be precisely a fear of difficult choices and a desire to eliminate the need for them. For example, a woman does not have to think about a man’s qualifications to be a father to her children if a pill or a routine medical procedure can remove that possibility. There is no reason to consider carefully the alternative between career and marriage if motherhood can be safely postponed until the age of forty (as large numbers of women now apparently believe). What we have here is not a clear gain in the amount of choice, but a shift from one sense of the word to another—from serious, reflective commitment to merely doing as one desires at any given time. Like the dilettante who dabbles in five professions without finally pursuing any, the liberated woman and the playboy want to keep all their options open forever: they want eternal youth.

The attempt to realize a utopia of limitless choice in the real world has certain predictable consequences: notably, it makes the experience of love one of repeated failure. Those who reject both committed marriage and committed celibacy drift into and out of a series of what are called “relationships,” either abandoning or being abandoned. The lesson inevitably taught by such experiences is that love does not last, that people are not reliable, that in the end one has only oneself to fall back on, that prudence dictates always looking out for number one. And this in turn destroys the generosity, loyalty, and trust which are indispensable for family life and the perpetuation of our kind.

Most of those who have obeyed the new commandment to follow all of their hearts’ desire do not appear to me to be reveling in a garden of earthly delights. Instead I am reminded of the sad characters from the pages of Chekhov: sleepwalking through life, forever hoping that tomorrow things will somehow be changed for the better as they blindly allow opportunities for lasting happiness to slip through their fingers. But this is merely the natural outcome of conceiving of a human life as a series of revocable and inconsequential choices. We are, indeed, protected from certain risks, but have correspondingly little to gain; we have fewer worries but no great aspirations. The price we pay for eliminating the dangers of intimacy is the elimination of its seriousness.

In place of family formation, we find a “dating scene” without any clear goal, in which men and women are both consumed with the effort to get the other party to close options while keeping their own open. There is a hectic and never-ending jockeying for position: fighting off the competition while keeping an eye out for a better deal elsewhere. The latest “singles” fad, I am told, is something called speed dating, where men and women interact for three minutes, then go on to someone else at the sound of a bell.

Sex belongs to early adulthood: one transient phase of human life. It is futile to attempt to abstract it from its natural and limited place in the life-cycle and make it an end in itself. Sustainable civilization requires that more important long term desires like procreation be given preference over short term wishes which conflict with them, such as the impulse to fornicate.

The purpose of marriage is not to place shackles upon people or reduce their options, but to enable them to achieve something which most are simply too weak to achieve without the aid of a social institution. Certain valuable things require time to ripen, and you cannot discover them unless you are faithful to your task and patient. Marriage is what tells people to stick to it long enough to find out what happens. Struggling with such difficulties—and even periods of outright discouragement—is part of what allows the desires of men and women to mature and come into focus. Older couples who have successfully raised children together, and are rewarded by seeing them marry and produce children of their own, are unlikely to view their honeymoon as the most important event of their marriage.

People cannot know what they want when they are young. A young man may imagine happiness to consist in living on Calypso’s Island, giving himself over to sexual pleasure without ever incurring family obligations; but all serious men eventually find such a life unsatisfying. The term “playboy” was originally derogatory, implying that the male who makes pursuing women his highest end is not to be taken seriously. The type of man who thinks he’s hot stuff because he’s able to have one night stands will never raise sons capable of carrying on the fight for our embattled civilization.

Confusion about one’s desires is probably greater in young women, however. For this reason, it is misleading to speak of women “wanting marriage.” A young woman leafing through the pages of Modern Bride does not yet know what marriage is; all she wants is to have her wedding day and live happily ever after. She may well not have the slightest notion of the duties she will be taking on.

Parenthood is what really forces young men and women to grow up. Young men whose idea of the good life was getting drunk, getting laid, and passing out suddenly start focusing on career planning and building capital. They find it bracing to have a genuinely important task to perform, and are perhaps surprised to find themselves equal to it.

But without the understanding that marriage is an inherently irreversible covenant, both men and women succumb to the illusion that divorce will solve the “problem” of dissatisfaction in marriage. They behave like the farmer who clears, plows, and plants a field only to throw up his hands on the first really hot and sweaty day of work, exclaiming: “Farming is no fun! I’m going to do something else!” And like that farmer, they have no one to blame but themselves when they fail to harvest any crops.

Understanding the marriage bond as an irreversible covenant similarly influences the way economic activity and property are understood. Rather than being a series of short-term responses to circumstance, labor and investment become an aspect of family life transcending the natural life span of any individual. From a mere means to consumption, wealth becomes a family inheritance. In Burke’s fine words: “The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of the most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends most to the perpetuation of society itself.” By contrast, the characteristically modern view of property finds its clearest expression in the title of a bestselling 1998 financial planning guide: Die Broke. This amounts to a scorched earth policy for our own civilization. Perhaps someday the author will favor us with a sequel entitled Die Alone or Die Childless.

But not everyone is equally receptive to this kind of message. Women in parts of West Africa are averaging over eight children apiece. The revolt against marriage and childrearing is an overwhelmingly white phenomenon. It is primarily in white countries that the birthrate has fallen below replacement level. It would behoove racially conscious whites, therefore, not to ignore the sexual side of the revolt against our civilization, nor shortsightedly to limit our attention to the single issue of miscegenation. The homosexual bathhouse view of sex as merely a means to personal pleasure attacks our race from within and at its source. As much as with inimical races and racial ideologies, our survival will depend upon our ability to organize effective resistance.

When we look around at all the forces arrayed against our race, it can be daunting. How can we fight them all? Are circumstances right? Would we be ready even if they were? And what to do in the meantime? The situation becomes a lot less daunting when we realize that the first battle, and the first victory, must take place within ourselves.

___________________

An address given at The Occidental Quarterly Editor’s Dinner on October 30, 2008 in Atlanta, Georgia, I read this article in Counter-Currents.

The Brigade, excerpts of chapters 1-3

The Brigade
by H. A. Covington
Northwest Publishing Agency
©2007 by Harold A. Covington


Chapter I

❦ “It’s not even about them, Charlie, not in the final analysis,” said Hatfield, shaking his head. “It’s about us. About whether we’re men or dogs.”

❦ “What matters is that these things happened. That we did them. God has given the white man back his courage. The courage to stand up and defy our oppressors’ laws. The courage to fight back with weapons in our hands, instead of a computer keyboard. The courage to be men again.”


Chapter II

❦ “The Old Man himself Came Home in 2002, but for years he simply sat all alone in a series of cracker box apartments or trailers or boarding houses, pounding on a computer that grew older and crankier as time passed. For years he looked for those out-of-state license plates to come over the hill, begging and pleading on his knees with his fellow white people to come to his side and help him, and for year after year, no one came. He asked only for a hundred good men, or women. One hundred people who were willing to place the future of their blood and their civilization over their own personal welfare. And for year after year, no one came.”

“And then what happened?” asked Ekstrom.

“Then they came,” replied Morehouse simply. “We refer to this among ourselves as The Awakening, and we still don’t understand it fully. One day it just kind of began, and one hundred people stopped worrying about themselves and went out and began packing the moving van. The Old Man had his first hundred, and they became the nucleus of the Party that was formed when they came to the Homeland and were in place. Without that first hundred people, there could have been no Party, because it was they who set up the infrastructure and the safety net so the rest of the migrants would have something to Come Home to.”

“We’re going to need more than a hundred men now,” said Washburn gloomily.

“They will come,” said Morehouse with quiet confidence. “They came before. Damned late, but they came. Very well. Let’s get on with it.” He knocked back the rest of his coffee, put down the mug, and leaned forward to speak to them. “We are here to make history, gentlemen. We are here to plan and execute the first organized, armed insurrection against the United States of America since 1861.”

Once that first hundred stepped forward, it wasn’t so hard for others to do so, because more and more, when they came here they found a crowd to hide in. It was getting that first hundred to go first that was the real bitch.

❦ “Your first duty will of course be to clear this North Shore area of all enemy forces and non-whites.”

“Define enemy forces,” requested Hatfield.

“Anyone who is part of the federal apparatus of control and enforcement, or who assists in maintaining the Zionist occupation. State and federal judges and anyone to do with the court system, and all lawyers. Federal bureaucrats of any kind, but especially anyone to do with the IRS or revenue collection. One of the keystones of our strategy is that from now on, not one more dime we can prevent goes to Washington, D.C. from the Pacific Northwest. Elements in the media and the civilian population who actively support the régime or propagandize for it. And of course, anyone with skin the color of shit is henceforth persona non grata in the Northwest. Believe me, Zack, you won’t lack for targets. Basically, your job is to make sure that from Beaverton on down the river to the sea, ZOG’s writ doesn’t run anymore.”


Chapter III

❦ “The NVA [Northwest Volunteer Army] does not fight on the defensive. They do. They don’t hunt us. We hunt them.”

❦ “This is a spiritual problem, not a material one. What we need are men and women with enough balls to pull the triggers and live the life.”

❦ “General Order Number Four orders all non-whites and homosexuals to leave the three basic Homeland states and anywhere else we’re operating. Henceforth all non-whites, especially Jews, are considered to be legitimate military targets and are to be destroyed on sight, in theory. In practice, your job will not be to run around slaughtering blacks and Mexicans en masse. Your task is to drive them out, if you see the difference.”

❦ “It is absolutely vital that we whiten up the Northwest, and fast. That’s in addition to all the problems they cause with their usual crime, violence, drugs, and monkey music. But what’s more important, the white people of the Northwest need to see a difference, a visible improvement in their lives. Fewer Mexicans especially. They have to notice that all of a sudden there are jobs available once again. They should be able to open their windows on a summer evening and not hear jangling salsa music from a boom box or a passing low ride.”

❦ “Blacks are simple,” said Morehouse with a shrug. “You shoot a few and make it clear to the rest of them that remaining in the Pacific Northwest is hazardous to their health. Let them know the Boss Man is back, as the Old Man said in his nationwide address on October 22nd. You’ll get some who’ll go on television and swagger and beat their chests like King Kong and go booga booga booga about how brave they are, and how no cracker woodchuck racists gonna run dere black asses outa nowhere, all that happy horse shit. You shoot them, too. It won’t take long for the message to sink in.”

❦ “We’ve already littered the landscape with enough corpses so they’ll know we’re serious. There’s nothing like killing people to convince others that they’d damned well better listen to what you have to say. For the time being I don’t want us targeting any local police except non-whites, who have already been officially ordered out of the Homeland.”

❦ “The public needs to be able to see and understand why we shot so and so or blew up or burned down such and such a place. The NVA must always hit, hit, hit! We must keep the feds off balance, never knowing when and where we will strike next, but knowing it will be damned soon. But still, there are some guidelines. Some very important guidelines,” warned Donner.

“First and foremost, no kids! If they’re old enough to have a shitty little moustache or visible tits, they’re old enough to do harm to white people and they’re fair game, although personally I’d say play it safe by concentrating on adults. One obvious exception would be blacks or Mexicans in high school that can’t seem to lay off chasing white girls. We need to get the word out: that shit comes to a screeching halt, now! Obvious targets like racially mixed couples and faggots. That shit stops! It stops now! No more! If you know where any live, waste them and burn them out, just make sure you don’t kill any cute little mulatto kiddies.”

“Who else is on the hit parade?” asked Washburn. “Basically, we hit anyone who is part and parcel of maintaining federal authority in the Northwest. Start with lawyers, judges, and anyone to do with the courts. It is absolutely essential that the enemy court and judicial system come to a grinding halt. From now on courts do not sit, unless it’s behind a Bremer wall, and not for long even then, until we get at them somehow. These courts do not judge us, or anybody else. They are no longer lawful and the government they serve no longer rules in this land. We do. If someone in the community is causing a real problem with drugs or genuinely anti-social behavior, the NVA will deal with them, not the American law and not the American courts. All attorneys are considered officers of the court, and the court is an alien and enemy power occupying our land. All attorneys are therefore legitimate military targets. All judges will immediately resign and leave the Homeland, or die.”

“That’s coming anyway,” remarked Hatfield. “Let me hear some more about the goddamned lefty media. They give us the same air time and they refrain from any snide side remarks or manipulation of the news. Oh, and by the way, they don’t use the term ‘terrorists.’ They call us the NVA, or Northwest Volunteers, or white separatists, or even insurgents is fine, but terrorist is the ZOG word for us, and the media will not use it.”

❦ “How often have all of us been driving down the street and seen a racially mixed couple and wanted to blast the creeps? Well, here’s your chance. The basic operating principle for now is this: we cannot allow the enemy to maintain any pretense of business as usual, any pretense that they are still the law and we are criminals of some kind.”

❦ “Most of our jobs are done like a Mob hit. Get in close, two in the head to make sure they’re dead. Make sure you see the brains, as gross as that sounds. Then beat feet out of there and get rid of the weapon.”

“Shoot and scoot,” said Washburn. “You’ve got it.” Donner leaned over to them. “Gentlemen, there’s something else I need to mention here, and I suppose this is as good a time as any for it. Now, what we have been talking about this evening sounds very bad and brutal. It is bad and brutal, but let’s be very clear: this is the only way that this society and this foul world we grew up in is ever going to change.

“We live in a system that is specifically designed to prevent change. America has robbed white people of any hope, any future. They drag our sons away to be slaughtered in Iraq and Iran. They poison our children’s minds and turn our kids into stupid white niggers, grown fat and lazy on fast food and computer games, trashed out on drugs and hip hop, while our daughters present us with mulatto grandchildren.

“The tyranny under which we live may still wear a velvet glove on occasion, but it is unspeakably evil and brutal, and only greater violence and brutality will bring it down. This was their choice. They made it this way, not us. You guys have to understand that in order to win through to freedom, we Northwest Volunteers are going to have to become hard, hard men. The hardest history has ever known, because that hardness of soul is one of the few weapons we can muster against an incredibly powerful enemy who holds all the cards. Compassion and mercy are all very well, but they are luxuries that are possible only in a basically decent world, and that world is not this one. You are embarking on a journey that will become horrible beyond measure, but our fathers and grandfathers sloughed it off onto us. We dare not pass it on to our own children, because we are the last generation that will have a chance to do anything about all of this.”

Esau’s Tears: Excerpts of chapter 13

Albert Lindemann is perhaps the only Jewish scholar who, unlike most Jewish pundits, acknowledges the reasons why they’ve been so disliked. No ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs:

Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge University Press, 2009)



Chapter 13: Jews and Revolution (1917-1934)

The horrors of the revolution from 1917 to 1921 were in some areas even more devastating than those of the war; the connections of Jews and socialist revolutionaries were more visible than ever before and the anti-Semitic potential greater. The perception that revolutionaries were predominantly Jewish and that Jews were particularly vicious as revolutionaries spread now from minds like those of Nicholas II—limited, paranoiac, almost pitiful—to those of a different cut, such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill. It was no longer only scandal sheets like La Libre Parole or the Bessarebetz that identified radical revolution with Jews; now that identification was made by newspapers like the London Times, the Chicago Tribune, or the Christian Science Monitor, all of which enjoyed a reputation for sobriety on Jewish issues and at least relative fairness.

Many of those who had been inclined to a hesitant or inconsistent anti-Semitism before the war, such as Wilhelm II, now embraced more extreme opinions. Wilhelm’s attitude to “the threat of international Jewry” was influenced by reports like those of Walther von Kaiserlingk, the German admiralty’s chief of operations, who had visited Petrograd in the winter of 1917-18: He described the new government as run by Jews in the interest of Jews; it was “insanity in power,” and it presented a moral threat not only to Germany but to the civilized world. Wilhelm agreed that the Russian people had been “turned over to the vengeance of the Jews, who are connected with all the Jews of the world.”

We have seen how, in western countries where Jews experienced less oppression, an active and highly visible minority of them, especially young, secularized Jewish intellectuals in the generation before the war, were powerfully attracted to socialist ideas. Jews such as Hess, Marx, Lassalle, Bernstein, Otto Bauer, Luxemburg, Martov, Trotsky, and León Blum played a major role in formulating, refining, and propagating those ideas. Non-Jews (Engels, Kautsky, Bebel, Plekhanov, Lenin, Guesde, Jaurès) were also important, in many regards more important than Jews, but considering that the Jewish population of Europe was approximately 2 percent of the total, the Jewish participation in socialism, revolutionary and democratic, was remarkably large.

Both Jewish and non-Jewish socialists in the late nineteenth century saw great merit in the idealism and radicalism of a moral elite of Jews. Just as the non-Jew, Friedrich Engels, had praised Jews for their contribution to the socialist movement, so V.I. Lenin, in a speech in Zurich in 1905, observed that “the Jews furnished a particularly high percentage of leaders of the revolutionary movement. It should be noted to the credit of the Jews, they furnish a relatively high percentage of internationalists.” On another occasion Lenin, in lamenting the low moral and intellectual level of his compatriots, remarked to Maxim Gorky that “an intelligent Russia is almost always a Jew or somewhere with Jewish blood in his veins.” León Blum, who after his participation of the Dreyfus Affair went on to become a prominent figure in the French socialist movement, “glorified in the messianic role of the Jews as social revolutionaries.” Although he was one of the most perceptive critics of Bolshevik theory in the debates within his own party in 1919 and 1920 concerning whether it should join the new Communist International, he had earlier written that “the collective impulse” of the Jews “leads them toward revolution; their critical powers… drive them to destroy every idea, every traditional form which does not agree with the facts or cannot be justified by reason.” Revolutionary socialism, he asserted, was a modern form of “the ancient spirit of the Jewish race.”

Most Russian Jews were pulled unwillingly, even uncomprehendingly into the vortex of revolution and ensuing civil war from 1917 to 1921, observers rather than actors. But others, especially many who had felt blocked in their dreams of a career or who had suffered daily under the irrationality and inefficiency of the tsarist regime, were only too understandably moved by a desire for violent revenge. Some of those revolutionaries, especially when driven into the moral anarchy of civil war, proved themselves capable of breath-taking ruthlessness.

Recognizing that there were fewer Jews in the Bolshevik faction than in the Menshevik, or even that Bolshevism was not a typically Jewish ideology, does not mean that the issue of the role of Jews in Bolshevism is settled, for there were still many Jewish Bolsheviks, especially at the very top of the party. And there were even more in the dreaded Cheka, or secret police, where the Jewish revolutionary became visible in a terrifying form.

Any effort to compose a list of the most important Bolsheviks must be unavoidable subjective, but it seems beyond serious debate that in the first twenty years of the Bolshevik Party the top ten to twenty leaders included close to a majority of Jews.

At a notch down in visibility was Yakov Mikhailovich Sverdlov. Described as “very Jewish looking,” he became secretary and main organizer of the Bolshevik Party in 1917. There was at any rate no little symbolism in the fact that a Jew was both the head of the state and the secretary of the ruling party. Percentages of Jews in state positions or in the party do not capture that adequately.

In approximately the same second-level category was Moisei Solomonovich Uritsky, notorious as the chief of the Cheka in Petrograd where Red Terror raged with special brutality. For anti-Semites he became the personification of “Jewish terror against the Russian people.” He was certainly less fanatical than Zinoviev [another Jew], whose pervasive cruelty and vindictiveness toward alleged counterrevolutionaries prompted Uritsky at one point to lodge an official complaint.

A list of prominent non-Jews in the party would begin with Lenin, whose name outweighs the others, although in the first year or so of the revolution, Trotsky’s name rivaled his. Yet his status as a non-Jew and “real Russian” is not as clear as subsequent Soviet propaganda tried to make it. His grandfather on his mother side was Jewish, though a convert to Christianity and married to a woman of German origin. On Lenin’s father side were Kalmyk and Swedish forebears. Lenin the non-Jew, in other words, was Jewish enough to have fallen under the shadow of doubt in Nazi Germany or to have been accepted in the state of Israel.

Lenin was of course considered jewified, if not exactly Jewish, by anti-Semites. As noted, he openly and repeatedly praised the role of the Jews in the revolutionary movement; he was one of the most adamant and consistent in the party in his denunciation of pogroms and anti-Semitism more generally. After the revolution, he backed away from his earlier resistance to Jewish nationalism, accepting that under Soviet rule Jewish nationality might be legitimate. On his death bed, Lenin spoke fondly of the Jewish Menshevik Julius Martov, for whom he had always retained a special personal affection in spite of their fierce ideological differences.

An even more remarkable case was Felix Dzerzhinsky, the head of the Cheka, a “non-Jewish Jew” in a different sense. (The destruction of his statue in front of the KBG building in Moscow in August 1991, after the ill-fated putsch by party conservatives, was widely seen as symbolic of the destruction of a hated past of secret police domination.) In origin a member of the Polish gentry, he had learned Yiddish as a young man in Vienna and had established close friendships with many Jews in the revolutionary circles of the town. He had several romances with Jews and finally married one.

The backgrounds and personal contacts of non-Jews such as Lenin, Kalinin, and Dzerzhinsky help explain how it was that so many observers believed the Bolsheviks were mostly Jews or were in some way under Jewish tutelage. The various refinements of Jewishness—traditional Jew, reform Jew, cultural Jew, half-Jew, non-Jewish Jew, self-hating Jew, Karaite, jewified Gentile—did not have much meaning to most of those who were in a life-and-death struggle with the Bolsheviks and who of course were not used to seeing Jews in any position of authority in Russia; to see them in such numbers spoke for some radical undermining of a previously accepted order. The leaders of the anti-Bolshevik White armies were convinced that they were fighting Jews and other foreigners (Georgians, Armenians, Lithuanians, Poles)—but most importantly Jews—who had somehow seized control of Mother Russia. To most of the Whites the differences between the various revolutionary factions were of little importance; they all appeared alien, foreign in inspiration, jewified, and destructive. Indeed, for many on the right even the liberal Kadets were viewed as westernized and jewified.

Such exaggeration was hardly limited to the White armies. One book published in the West, The Causes of World Unrest, presented a list of fifty members of the Bolshevik government and declared that 95 percent of them were Jews, a common conclusion, as was the notion that the Bolsheviks were murderously destructive.

Destruction of the Jews by the Nazis was from this perspective to be considered a preventive measure, ultimately one of self-defense. As early as 1917, Belloc’s friend and intellectual colleague, C.K. Chesterton, had sternly warned the Jews in Great Britain who were sympathetic to the revolution that “if they continue to incite people against the soldiers and their wives and widows, they will learn for the first time what anti-Semitism really means.”

Anti-Semitism, well entrenched on the right, revived in the rest of the political spectrum, undermining what had been achieved through the patriotic unity of August 1914. The older charges that Jews were unpatriotic or part of the capitalist conspiracy now refocused on the Jew as a social subversive, “taking orders from Moscow.”

A revolutionary unrest spread to central Europe in late 1918 and 1919. The party’s first two leaders, Rosa Luxemburg and, after her murder in January 1919 at the hands of a right-wing paramilitary organization, Paul Levi, were of Jewish origin. Even in France and Italy, with their small and overwhelmingly bourgeois populations, the emerging Communist parties counted a number of Jews in hardship positions. “Foreign Jews, taking orders from Moscow” became an issue.

A Communist coup was attempted in Berlin in January 1919 (the Spartacus Uprising, when Rosa Luxemburg was killed), and in the course of that tumultuous year in Germany pro-Bolshevik revolutionaries took over, however briefly and confusedly, in Munich. In France a general strike was launched in the spring of 1920, and in the autumn of that year there were massive factory occupations in the industrial north of Italy. Perhaps most worrisome to the western powers, the Red Army, headed by Trotsky, launched an offensive against Poland in the summer of 1920 that was touted as the beginning of a triumphant advance of the Red Army into western Europe.

Russian Jews in Revolution: From March to November

One of the first measures taken by the Provisional Government was a decree conferring complete civil equality upon Russia’s Jews. That action was hailed as long overdue by the Russian press; even Novoe Vremia, which, as a semiofficial organ before 1917, had often published anti-Semitic material, applauded the move.

Many of Russia’s Jews were jubilant at the news. In some Jewish homes, Passover was celebrated that year with the reading of the decree instead of the traditional Haggada. Plans were quickly made by Jewish activists for an all-Russian Jewish congress. The excited appeal that went out for it proclaimed that whereas elsewhere Jews had received civil equality, only now in revolutionary Russia were they also going to receive recognition of their separate nationality within another nation. Nothing finally came of this congress, since the Bolshevik Revolution, and then civil war, got in the way.

In Russia, perhaps even more than elsewhere, civil equality for Jews, to say nothing of an official recognition of Jewish nationality, opened up Pandora’s box.

Jews who had faced pervasive discrimination and persecution suddenly found government positions opened to them while closed to the older privileged classes, who were overwhelmingly of Great Russian background.

Still, after 1917, especially after November 1917, there was in Europe a most remarkable change in the status quo: Large numbers of individual Jews assumed, for the first time in modern history, a major role in the government of non-Jewish peoples. Such was the case not only in Russia but in other areas, most notably Hungary and Germany.

The Red Terror—a Jewish terror?

In some areas, for example, the Ukraine, the Cheka leadership was overwhelmingly Jewish. By early 1919 Cheka organizations in Kiev were 75 percent Jewish, in a city where less than a decade earlier Jews had been officially forbidden to reside, except under special dispensation, and constituted about 1 percent of the total population.

The pattern of employing non-Slavic ethnic minorities in the Cheka was duplicated in many other areas of Russia. George Leggett, the most recent and authoritative historian of the Russian secret police, speculates that the use of outsiders may have been a conscious policy, since such “detached elements could be better trusted not to sympathize with the repressed local population.”

It is instructive that the high percentage of Jews in the secret police continued well in the 1930s, when the population of Jews gradually diminished in most other areas of the Soviet and party cadres. The extent to which both Cheka and Gestapo leaders prided themselves in being an elite corps, characterized by unyielding toughness—unmoved by sympathy for their often innocent victims and willing to carry out the most stomach-turning atrocities in the name of an ideal—is striking.

The number of Jews involved in the terror and counterterror of this period is striking. These many Jewish terrorists helped to nurture, even when they killed Jewish Chekists, the belief that Jews, especially once they had broken from the confines of their traditional faith, turned naturally to fanaticism and anarchistic destructiveness.

An even more important institution than the Cheka in defending the revolution was the Red Army, and, again, Jews played a key role in its leadership.

Trotsky fascinated a broad public inside and outside Russia. In Hungary, a Jewish observer who was in fact hostile to the Bolsheviks nonetheless wrote: “The evolutionary flame which has burned beneath the surface of world history is now blazing up for the first time in a Jewish genius: Leo Trotsky!” According to Paul Johnson,

It was Trotsky who personally organized and led the armed uprising which actually overthrew the Provisional Government and placed the Bolsheviks in power. It was Trotsky who created the Red Army, and who ensured the physical survival of the new Communist regime during the Civil War.

Trotsky’s paramount role in the revolution cannot be denied; Johnson’s views even if exaggerated, underline how powerful and durable has been the mystique around Trotsky’s name. He was second to Lenin, but a strong second. There was no Jew in modern times, at least until the creation of the state of Israel, to rival him.

* * *
It has been claimed that the actual proportion of Jews in top party and state positions in the 1930s did not notably drop from the 1920s. However, “visible” Jewish leaders, comparable to Trotsky, Zinoviev, or Uritsky, diminished in numbers and would continue to do so in subsequent years, so that by the mid-twentieth century there were almost no Jews among the highest officials in the Soviet Union.

To state the obvious, Jews were never purged explicitly as Jews in the Soviet Union, and millions survived the worst years of Stalin’s terror.

_______________

Excerpted from a longer entry that eventually will contain most of the book’s chapters.