The West’s darkest hour

Last entry!

2011-03-26T06:21:00.002Z

For the reasons explained in my previous entry, I am moving elsewhere.

In a sense this is a pity. The handsomest Style Sheet I’ve found in the blogosphere is precisely the one I have been using here at Blogger.

Please find the next entries to The West’s Darkest Hour at WordPress.

Thank you.

Chechar’s gravatar:
the White Tree of Gondor:
its heraldry combines
with the seven stars
of the House of Elendil
…

Vaporized!

2011-03-11T01:08:00.013Z

“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 Dennis Mangan... for several days! In his article “Thoughtcrime,” Malcolm Pollack comments of the temporary deletion of Mangan’s blog:

I can tell you from personal experience that for a dedicated blogger, having one’s website go down is profoundly disconcerting; I don’t think it is an overstatement to say that it feels like a sudden existential amputation. My advice to any of you out there who have blogs on Blogspot: do yourself a favor and get your own site, especially if you have anything pungent or controversial to express.

Besides Pollack’s full article, I would also recommend Mangan’s own “Restored to Life,” which contains a series of interesting linked comments about censorship in the internet.

If Big Brother permanently vaporizes The West’s Darkest Hour, I would like my visitors know that in that case I will transfer all of the content elsewhere.

On Mangan’s

2011-03-08T21:05:00.012Z

Thoughtful discussions in the blogosphere that address and refute the liberal dogmas are so scant that in my blog list I included the site of Dennis Mangan (photo) even though his reactionary views sometimes contrast dramatically with my nationalist views.

In the past months I removed two recommended blogsites from my list, Occidental Dissent and Occidental Quarterly because since the last year these guys no longer pass Alex Linder’s acid test for the true white nationalist: (1) explicitly racial, (2) name the Jew and (3) the ethnostate as the ultimate goal.

Although Dennis Mangan cannot pass this test either—he fails on #3 and his blog is not exactly a racialist site—I kept it in my list because Mangan’s commentariat section is almost always stuffed with intelligent comments on reactionary topics, including Dennis’ own comments.

Yes: I understand perfectly that conservative reactionaries don’t have to share always our nationalist views. We respectfully agree to disagree. But today the following reasonable comment didn’t even clear Dennis’ moderation in one of his discussion threads.

This is my comment that Dennis censored:

Dennis Mangan wrote:

“Other things [from the commenters] that do not get posted: the merest hint of a threat of violence or the advocating of it; gratuitous ethnic insults; and if you mention the H-man or the NS state, you better have a really, really good reason to do so.”

Well: I am glad you have said this because now I understand why some comments don’t get through. Still, why do you have such policy?

Last year I received my first lesson on the “H man” in a blog that does not promote him at all (Occidental Dissent, here). On the contrary, most OD-ers believe that any mention of NS Germany in WN circles is a non-starter. Like most OD-ers, for decades I had swallowed too the accepted, post 1945 wisdom about the NS state and purchased books on the subject only with the PC imprimatur. But in that Occidental Dissent discussion I witnessed for the first time in my life a vigorous exchange that would be unthinkable in other blogs, let alone in MSM.

The discussion ended in a sort of draw or stalemate when a Jewess intervened with silly posts, but I learnt more in a couple of days than what I had previously learned about NS by reading books, or watching the History Channel.

Yes: I know that here at Mangan’s we can finally discuss the Jewish Question, which in other sites is still taboo.

Counter-jihadists are so ignorant about the JQ that they simply cannot respond when one confronts them with historical facts that they had never heard of. For example, a couple of days ago I posted, under my real name (search “Cesar Tort” here), comments telling Robert Spencer et al that Stalin’s Jews killed more innocent civilians than Hitler’s willing executioners.

They had never heard of it before. Why? Precisely because what they call “anti-Semitic” views are taboo in counter-jihad sites.

Dennis Mangan is somewhat better. For a time he censored the posts of those conscious about the Jewish Question. But like me, Mangan saw the light and he now accepts discussing it.

Alas, conservative reactionaries have their limits, too. For them National Socialism, the coming revolution and the “H-man,” as Mangan put it, are, and will continue to be, taboo.

The toughest book in the white nationalist movement

2011-03-07T01:45:00.004Z

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”

2011-03-06T00:48:00.009Z

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

2011-03-04T18:46:00.008Z

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

2011-03-02T07:03:00.047Z

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”

2011-03-01T22:28:00.001Z

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

2011-03-01T03:55:00.023Z

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

2011-02-28T04:19:00.011Z

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.

Homicide or Suicide?

2011-02-27T03:48:00.009Z

Hunter Wallace, formerly known as “Prozium,” blogs at Occidental Dissent. Before he picked fights with nationalist intellectuals he had written a series of fairly good articles, which I’ll be republishing in this blog. I read the following article, “Homicide or Suicide?,” at The Occidental Quarterly.

In the Occidental Observer, Kevin MacDonald engages Eric P. Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America, which is easily the second most important book (aside from The Culture of Critique) about White racial decline in the United States. A shorter review has been posted in VDARE. It doesn’t do justice to the breadth of the subject matter and isn’t worth bothering with.

The thrust of MacDonald’s review is that Kaufmann omits certain facts about the Jewish role in Anglo-American racial decline and glosses over others. Aside from that, MacDonald and Kaufmann are in broad agreement on most points of interest. Kaufmann doesn’t shy away from the fact that Jewish influence was a major cause in the reinterpretation of Americanism along cosmopolitan lines. The major difference from MacDonald’s viewpoint is that Kaufmann (correctly) pays more attention to the indigenous “liberal, cosmopolitan Anglo-Saxon tradition” as a cause of subversion from within.

Having read both books, I came away with the impression that they complemented each other. Each provides certain windows into White racial decline that the other lacks. For example, Kaufmann’s book draws attention to Felix Adler and the Ethical Culture movement, an angle on the Jewish Question and the rise of secular humanism which I don’t recall MacDonald addressing before. Similarly, MacDonald’s account contains a much more in depth treatment of Boasian anthropology and the New York Intellectuals.

It is a sad testament to the decrepit state of American intellectual life that all of two books have been written about the most important subject in American history: the decline of its indigenous White majority. Even taken together, MacDonald and Kaufmann have barely scratched the surface of the subject. In contrast, hundreds (if not thousands) of articles and volumes have been written about the Holocaust and can be easily accessed in any decent college library, an event which didn’t even take place on American soil. This fact alone speaks volumes about ethnic constitution of America’s ruling class and their priorities.

A future scholar will one day have to write a separate book entitled The Fall of the Jim Crow South. There wasn’t a singular Anglo-America or White America that declined on account of Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, the New York Intellectuals, and the Frankfurt School. Until the 1970s, Dixie was another country in its racial policies and cultural attitudes. Neither Kaufmann or MacDonald has adequately addressed this.

The cause of the South’s racial decline is plain enough to discern: the federal government forced the national racial consensus on the region through Smith v. Allwright, Morgan v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Shelly v. Kramer, Sweatt, McLaurin, Gayle, Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Immigration Act of 1965, Loving v. Virginia, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and direct military intervention in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama. There was little popular support for integration in the region. In the South, traditional racial attitudes remained strong from the elites to the common man, and were stoked to new heights during the Civil Rights Movement, whereas they collapsed elsewhere. Integration sparked the massive resistance movement, the citizen’s councils, and a revival of the Klan — why not in Chicago, Boston, and New York City?

In the Senate, Southerners led by Richard Russell filibustered and bitterly resisted the new federal civil rights laws, but were frustrated and defeated time and again by a lopsided coalition of Northern Democrats and Republicans. They deserted Lyndon Johnson at the polls for Barry Goldwater and George Wallace. Beyond the 1960s, Southerners defeated the Equal Rights Amendment and voted against Ronald Reagan’s IRCA amnesty of illegal aliens, the Immigration Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. They also led the opposition to the MLK holiday in Congress and the George W. Bush amnesties.

If the Confederacy had won its independence, there is little reason to believe that cosmopolitanism and anti-racism would have emerged victorious in the American South in the twentieth century. These were not indigenous social movements. Indeed, the only reason that White America held out as long as it did is because the South transformed itself into a one-party state under Jim Crow to defeat integration in Congress. Northern Republicans didn’t stop pushing for civil rights legislation until a Depression overwhelmed the Harrison administration in the 1890’s.

As I have stressed elsewhere, the Cultural Revolution of the 1960’s wasn’t the first time America had flirted with racial egalitarianism. The same laws were proposed and ratified during Reconstruction. They were supported in the North; opposed in the South. The bloodiest war in American history was fought to liberate the negro and impose racial equality on the country. An insurrection was carried on for three decades in the South to reverse the verdict of the Civil War. In the North, it was never reversed, and de jure integration became the order of the day from the 1880’s forward.

If the South was assassinated, the North committed suicide.

From the earliest days of the Revolution, racialism established only a tenuous hold in North. Pennsylvania was saturated in Quaker egalitarianism and repealed its anti-miscegenation law before the Constitution was signed. In the North, Thomas Jefferson’s racial theories were met with fierce opposition by the first abolitionist movement; denial of racial differences were commonplace in anti-slavery circles. Benjamin Franklin thought that negroes were “not deficient in natural understanding.” Alexander Hamilton remarked that “their natural faculties are perhaps probably as good as ours.” Samuel Stanhope Smith, the president of Princeton University, wrote several influential environmentalist tracts; anti-racism only went into eclipse after 1805.

Several Northern states never adopted Southern-style anti-miscegenation laws (Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey) or Jim Crow-style segregation. In New York, an anti-miscegenation law was rejected by the state senate on libertarian grounds. In Massachusetts, the capital of “natural rights” rhetoric, the state anti-miscegenation law was repealed in the 1830’s for similar reasons. National Expansion and Indian Removal were never popular causes in New England and the Jackson administration was widely criticized for both. James Fenimore Cooper lionized the Noble Savage in The Last of the Mohicans (1826). The annexation of Texas was delayed for years by Northern Whig opposition. The Mexican War was deeply unpopular in New England.

In the North, the Amistad case was a cause célèbre, and starred former president John Quincy Adams who was an inveterate foe of the so-called “Slave Power.” In the 1830s, the second abolitionist movement was born and was even more committed to anti-racism and human rights than the first. William Lloyd Garrison and his followers denounced the Constitution as a pact with the Devil and burned it in the streets. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin went on to become the all time bestseller of the nineteenth century. John Brown was lauded as a martyr after his murderous invasion of Virginia. Frederick Douglass was a respected intellectual. The Northern states passed personal liberty laws that violated the Constitution in order to harbor runaway negro slaves. The Dred Scott decision, which affirmed that only Whites could be U.S. citizens, was widely denounced in the North.

The trajectory of the North could not have been more different from the South. In the Antebellum era, a new generation of Southerners came of age and explicitly rejected the egalitarian heritage of the American Revolution. George Fitzhugh attacked capitalism, democracy, and the pernicious egalitarianism of Thomas Jefferson. Josiah Nott and Louis Agassiz pioneered new theories of racial differences. Sir Walter Scott novels were all the rage; the Middle Ages and aristocratic ideals came roaring back in style. In his famous cornerstone speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens stated that the Confederacy was the first nation in the world to be founded on the principle of racial inequality. The Civil War was fought over these ideals: aristocratic republicanism or egalitarian democracy, slave-based feudalism or free market capitalism, federalism or national consolidation, racialism or anti-racism. The victory of the North in that conflict determined the future disastrous course of America.

During Reconstruction, fanatics like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner wrote anti-racism into the Constitution in the form of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Over the next fifty years, as the South retreated into Jim Crow, the North would steadily move towards full blown integration. Fatally, the churning of the Northern capitalist economy would bring wave after wave of European immigrants into the the Midwest and New England, eventually swamping the indigenous Yankee population in most Northern states. After thirty years of struggle, the damage was finally mitigated by the Immigration Act of 1924, but not before millions of indigestible German and Eastern European Jews had settled in the United States.

These Jews quickly established ethnic defense organizations, penetrated Ivy League universities, founded the motion picture industry, bought up newspapers, inserted themselves into the national political debate, and amassed huge fortunes by beating the indigenous Yankees at their own capitalist game. Their “freedom” and “equality” gave them every right to do so. As Kaufmann persuasively argues, Jews found receptive allies in the treacherous Northern Anglo-Protestant cosmopolitan milieu, which was the lineal descendant of the pre-Civil War abolitionist Left. If the Jewish nationwreckers succeeded at propagating Boasian anthropology, Freudianism, multiculturalism, and modernist cosmopolitanism, it was only because they found in the American North a region which by history, tradition, and inclination was already ripe for a fall and receptive to idealistic social engineering crusades. They travelled down the same road to fame and fortune that Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and Carnegie had blazed before them.

By the 1930s, white racial attitudes in the American North were so fragile that they were shaken to pieces by the wartime propaganda against the Third Reich. In stark contrast, Southerners emerged from the Second World War even more committed to segregation and white supremacy than they had been before. Northern WASPs were so crippled by their own effete liberalism that they allowed Jews to take over institution after institution rather than be impolite and “make a fuss” about their own precipitous dispossession. A revolution was effected without so much as a shot being fired.

In the end, Northern WASPs didn’t put up a fight. Unlike Germans under the Third Reich, they rolled over and died. It wasn’t exactly suicide, but it might as well have been. Like generations of Yankees before them, they were so used to worshiping money and conforming to public opinion that they allowed their culture to be stolen right out from under them once a new elite was thrown up by capitalism. Their tragic unraveling is an understudied subject. It is full of lessons for those of us who don’t want to see history repeat itself.

Hervé Ryssen’s The Jewish Mafia

2011-02-27T01:18:00.000Z

Excerpted
from a longer article
from Counter-Currents Publishing:

Réfléchir et Agir: You have published a fourth book on Judaism, a volume of 400 pages. Why another? Haven’t you said all there is to say?

Hervé Ryssen: I thought so too! But Judaism is a very closed world, very secret, thus after all these years of study, one still learns new things. This time, I explored the criminal world operating within the international Jewish community, and what one discovers there is, strictly speaking, incredible. The fact is that the Jewish Mafia is the main Mafia that exists today on this planet: racketeering, prostitution, drug trafficking, arms trading, contraband diamond smuggling, traffic in works of art, murder for hire, organized swindles, armed robberies, etc. Pornography, casinos, and discotheques are also largely held by Jewish gangsters.

R&A: You claim that international drug trafficking is mainly in the hands of the Jewish Mafia. Are you quite certain you are not overstating your case?

H. R.: I do not claim that the Jewish mafia controls most of the international illegal drug trade, since there are no statistics on the subject, but it does not appear incredible to me, judging by all information I could gather. The fact is that from the Chinese opium traffic of the nineteenth century to the present day, this mafia has been quite active in this field.

In the traffic of ecstasy, one can say for certain that the Jewish mafia holds a monopoly. Today, ecstasy is the drug that is most harmful to European young people. A pill of ecstasy gives a feeling of strength and well-being for a few hours, but it is above all a veritable chemical garbage bin. Its long-term effects are alarming because irreversible: memory loss; behavioral, sleep, and concentration problems; brain lesions in the children of druggie mother. The premier producer is Holland, but the big traffickers who were arrested ten years ago in France, Belgium, the United States, or Australia, all have Israeli passports. The business of ecstasy is 100% in the hands of Jewish gangsters, not all of whom come from Russia, since there are Sephardic traffickers as well. If you buy a pill of ecstasy, in every instance, you can be certain you are financing the Jewish mafia. Certain big ecstasy traffickers are also deeply involved in the heroin and cocaine trade.

R&A: You go back to the “American” gangsters of the Thirties...

H. R.: Yes, I was also interested in these mythical gangsters who had worked with the Sicilian mafia. The Jewish gangsters were particularly involved in “Murder Incorporated,” a kind of mutual insurance company of assassination thanks to which a local leader could profit from the services of killers coming from another locality and thus avoid blame. Murder Incorporated was a gang made up of mainly Jewish gangsters, who took care of the crime syndicate’s dirty work. It is estimated that from 1933 to 1940 the organization was responsible of more than 700 assassinations, but some speak of 2000. Because firearms are too easily traceable, they preferred to kill their victims with drowning, knives, bats, piano wire, and especially ice picks. All this is also part of the history of the Jewish people.

R&A: Why don’t people talk about this?

H. R.: It is always the famous reflex of “projection” about which I spoke in my two preceding books. Jewish intellectuals always project on others that about which they feel guilty. They say they were victims of Communism, for example, when in fact they were the main instigators. In the same way, Freud projected a problem specific to the Jewish people—rampant incest—on a universal level, and everyone fell into the trap.

In the 1990s, the media spoke about the terrible “Russian Mafia.” But truth to tell, all the “Russian” gangsters who were arrested had Israeli passports. The biggest one, Semion Mogilevitch, a major trafficker of weapons who also prostituted hundreds of Russian and Ukrainian girls in Prague and Budapest, was stopped in Moscow in January 2008. In France, the Courrierinternational was the only newspaper that reported it, but obviously his Jewishness was not mentioned: he was “Russian”!

Likewise, in Hollywood cinema, the drug traffickers, gangsters, “bad guys,” if they are not Sicilian, are very often Nordic white men: never Jews! The cosmopolitan directors undoubtedly have something to do with this sleight of hand.

Toward the White Republic, essay 2

2011-02-25T05:30:00.005Z

I dedicated the last decades of my life to what may be called intuitive psychology. It’s only since the last year when I became concerned about the possibility of racial extinction. The insights I developed as an intuitive psychologist tell me that Michael O’Meara’s essays are among the profoundest I have encountered in white nationalist literature. The following article, “The Myth of our Rebirth,” is the second essay in his book Toward the White Republic (Counter-Currents Publ., 2010, available here):

My talk this evening is about what might be called “the power of myth.”

I refer here not to the Bill Moyers’ program of the same name, but rather to the politics of white racial preservation and specifically to what preservation entails at the deepest level of the human psyche, at that level of primordial symbolical activity, which is the realm of myth and epic poetry.

In approaching this subject, let me start with a few words about The Occidental Quarterly, for that’s where the subject begins.

The Quarterly’s project is not about myth per se, but about “metapolitics,” which, though it has a mythic dimension, deals mainly with rationally-examined ideas and values.

What is “metapolitics”?

This is a term you won’t find in the dictionary, and when it enters political discourse its meaning is often unclear.

I understand the term “metapolitics” mainly by analogy. Metapolitics is to politics as metaphysics is to physics.

What, then, is the relationship of metaphysics to physics?

According to my dictionary, physics is “the science of matter and energy and of the interaction between the two.”

“Metaphysics,” by contrast, is about that which is beyond physics—that is, it’s about the ultimate reality (assuming there is one) upon which the world of energy and matter rests.

Metaphysics, then, studies that which is the basis for the study of physics (whatever that may be).

Now if metapolitics is to politics as metaphysics is to physics, then metapolitics might be defined as that which addresses all those things that make politics possible.

Like the broad sense of metaphysics, metapolitics refers to a number of possible subjects. For example: It can refer to ideology, to culture, to the prevailing conceptual paradigms, to the social hegemonies shaping the political field and framing the way we approach them. It can even refer to the irrational and subliminal forces affecting public behavior.

I can’t give you a precise definition of “metapolitics” (I think none exists), but I can explain something of what metapolitics means to The Occidental Quarterly.

The Quarterly’s subtitle is: “Western Perspectives on Man, Culture, and Politics.”

“Western Perspectives” here means “white” or “European-American” perspectives on man, culture, and politics.

Accordingly, the Quarterly’s metapolitical project examines and entertains ideas of man, culture, and politics from the perspective of what they mean for white men—and by implication what they mean in terms of their fitness, suitability, and adaptability to the politics of white racial preservation.

This metapolitical project is important not simply because ideas, as our conservatives tell us, “have consequences.” But also because we live in an age of inversion, where all the traditional ideas, along with all the traditional values and beliefs, have been subverted and turned against whites.

The Quarterly’s metapolitical project, it follows, is about intellectually arming whites so that, at one level, horizontally, they can collectively resist the inverted forces threatening them as a people—and that, vertically, they can affirm and assert those ideas and values which are distinct to the European-American spirit.

Yet, despite all this and despite the fact that its metapolitical project addresses the most elemental aspects of our existence, the Quarterly’s focus on ideas, and sometimes high ideas, is of interest, alas, to but a few.

The “people” as a mass lack any interest in what they see as the unreal, impractical, and often inaccessible realm of ideas.

Whenever they enter the historical arena under the banner of the great social and nationalist movements, they are, for this reason, moved not by ideas, not even by self-interest, but by something else entirely—which has to do with (let’s call it) the mythic core of metapolitics.

Before getting to this, let me just quickly finish what I started to say about The Occidental Quarterly. The writers, activists, and sponsors who support its metapolitical project are not merely interested in understanding and interpreting the inverted world that seeks the destruction of their kind. They want also to change this world.

The Quarterly’s metapolitical project aims, thus, at putting in motion a movement—in thought, to start—that will lead to the eventual founding of a white ethnostate and, with it, a restoration of the white man’s rightful place in the world—and I don’t mean this in any Hollywood Nazi sense, but rather in terms of a people’s national right to retain the ownership and control of their own lands

If history is any guide, the great transformative movements of the past depended on a variety of subjective and objective factors. Objectively, some sort of crisis of regime has usually been a precondition for setting an oppositional movement in motion; this could entail a crisis of legitimacy or a social or economic breakdown.

Such a crisis will not, however, culminate in a revolutionary transformation unless certain subjective forces—in the form of a revolutionary movement—are prepared to exploit the crisis for the movement’s sake. Generally, this entails that a movement possesses both a cadre (capable of leading the movement) and a mass following (that gives the movement’s leadership the social leverage to carry out a revolutionary transformation of the existing system).

The cadre are the active minorities, the militants and intellectuals, who possess the communication and bargaining skills to articulate and define the movement’s cause, who establish the organizations that represent their cause in the real world, and who lay the groundwork that—ideally—will eventually intersect the mobilized masses, whose leadership they aspire to win.

These active minorities are the movement’s brains and hands, for their cultural and organizational activities prepare the way for the movement’s history-changing role.

The Quarterly’s metapolitical project falls within the domain of such activity, which is why it has an important role to play in this period.

But if every great movement is articulated and organized by its active minorities, who constitute, in effect, a potential counter-elite, challenging the ruling elites, its success in the end depends less on the quality of their ideas or even the viability of their organization than on the masses who identify with their struggle and willingly make the sacrifices necessary to realize its goals.

Indeed, without significant mass support, no revolutionary movement has ever reached its end.

As one German nationalist put it: “The history of the world is made by [active] minorities only if they embody the will and aspirations of the majority.”

Given that the heroism and self-sacrifice of the masses have been pivotal to virtually every revolutionary transformation of the modern era—and that these same masses are moved not by ideas or self-interest—how, then, are they to be rallied to the cause of white racial preservation?

One of the great revolutionaries who started us thinking about this question is Georges Sorel, who, not coincidentally, had a major influence on the revolutionary anti-liberal wing of the labor movement, as well as on the revolutionary anti-liberal wing of the nationalist movement (and it’s worth mentioning that the historical synthesis of these two movements—of the revolutionary labor and nationalist movements—in the interwar period [1918–1939] led directly to the emergence of Fascism, National Socialism, and other anti-liberal Third Way tendencies representing the historical high-water mark of revolutionary nationalism).

The motive force behind mass movements, Sorel saw, cannot be explained, as liberals and Marxists do, in terms of rationalist, pragmatic, materialist, or self-interested factors—for the masses making up a social movement do not behave like liberalism’s Economic Man. Sorel, in fact, saw excessive rationalism as both a source and a symptom of contemporary decadence.

The bonds that tie men to reality and compel them to act are rarely based on cold reason or calculation. The human intellect, especially its rationalist mode, is simply part of a larger human consciousness—a consciousness synonymous not just with man’s reasoning mind, but more fundamentally with his life as a social, moral being rooted in families and the tribal affiliations that make his communities resilient. At this level, the consciousness motivating the collective behavior of mass movements is “irrational,” for it is dictated not by self-interest and calculation, but by more elemental passions.

Reason, self-interest, and other such factors may, of course, bring about reform and self-improvement and every modern social system depends on them, but these factors never propel men into battle at the risk of life and limb. They never cause a people to go beyond the bounds of reasonable considerations, to shun their narrow egoism, and take risks that challenge the prevailing state of things.

Something more primordial is always at work whenever the masses enter the historical arena.

For Sorel, a people assumes a historical role only when they are seized by an enthralling myth, whose symbols embody both their conscious and unconscious worldview and accord with their moral and ethical judgments about what’s fair or just. Myth, as such, forms communities of like-minded people and thus a sense of solidarity, just as the heroic sensibility it fosters makes possible the social and moral renewal that’s part of every revolutionary transformation.

“As long as there are no myths accepted by the masses,” Sorel writes, “one may go on talking of revolt indefinitely, without provoking any revolutionary movement.”

In Sorel’s view, myth is that “body of images which, by intuition alone,” is “capable of evoking... the sentiments which correspond to the different manifestations” of a people’s distinct spirit, as this people struggles to assert itself as a specific life form. Myth thus translates a people’s hopes and needs into their own idiom and feeds these hopes and needs back to them in ways that render them plausible and attractive.

Myth, in this Sorelian sense, grows out of not just the struggle itself, but the unmediated life of those who come to believe it.

Born, thus, from a people’s sense of itself, myth creates not just a sense of mission, but the courage to act—as a self-conscious, self-asserting force of life.

In this way, it serves as an assertion of a people’s will, the projection or the imagining of an alternative life that appeals to what is best in the spirit of their kind.

The myth can be about the Second Coming of Christ or about the General Strike of the syndicalists. What’s important is that the myth condenses and amalgamates the beliefs of its believers into a single compelling image to overwhelm every category opposing it.

As an unconscious but compelling force, myth as such justifies a people, it explains why they differ from other people, it affirms them in their right to assert themselves as who they are, it defines them and their friends, just as it distinguishes them from their enemies. One might even follow Schelling in believing that myth is what founds a people as a community of consciousness.

Because it arises from a people’s conviction and experience (some of which go back to Homer), it has nothing to do with Utopian or ideological plans for what should be or can be.

Myth is indeed not a description of things or a rational alternative to the present, but an expression of a determination to act.

To use a religious term (though it is not necessarily about religion), myth has an eschatological role to play, for it refers to the Final Days, to “ultimate and last things,” to that coming catastrophic collision between the forces of good and evil. This makes it a matter of faith—the faith of those who believe that no matter how grim or disappointing the present may be, their cause and their kind are bound to triumph once the moment of decision strikes—because their cause and their kind await a higher destiny than the negative one their enemies would have them follow.

This faith is what imbues the myth’s believers with the willingness to make great sacrifices, even to die, for their beliefs—these same people who would normally never go out of their way for an idea, a political project, or a theory.

Those in the grip of a great myth—Irish nationalists in communion with Pearse’s Blood Sacrifice, 16th-century Calvinists convinced of their Predestination—such peoples, through the force that myth exerts on their character, acquire the power to make history.

But lacking such a captivating myth, there can be no history-changing movement.

In this context, The Occidental Quarterly may play a role in educating active minorities in the tradition they inherit, which is crucial to any future organization or tendency representing the white nationalist movement, but without a myth that grips the white masses and instills in them a sense of historical meaning, there will be no National Revolution.

At this point, the question inevitably arises: What myth could possibly capture the imagination of the white masses and instill in them the enthusiasm for a white homeland?

Unfortunately, there’s no way to know. A myth cannot be rationally constructed and imposed on a people.

It cannot even become self-conscious, for once it is seen as a myth it ceases to work.

By nature, a myth grows out of a people’s life, speaks to the sense they have of themselves, and becomes their movement’s rationale.

But after saying this, I nevertheless think it’s safe to claim that the white nationalist myth will have little to do with IQ scores, black crime rates, Jewish malfeasance, or the superiority of European culture (though it will likely have much to do with the anti-white practices that have come with the colored invasion of the white homelands). To the degree any of these issues have the capacity to move the white masses, I suspect it will be in conjunction with whatever myth ends up capturing their imagination. For however important, these things in themselves are not the stuff of myth.

No one can predict, then, what the founding myth of a white nationalist movement will be.

But speaking personally, I know that I myself am already in the grips of a powerful myth—the myth of what I call the White Republic.

Other possible myths probably exist or will come to exist.

But for me it’s the White Republic that evokes the total captivating image of what we are about as a movement.

I recently wrote: “The prospect of an independent white homeland in North America, free of the Jew-ridden US government, with its colored multitudes and parasitic institutions: This one image says everything, explains everything, promises everything.”

Why? Because the myth of a White Republic means secession from the United States. As such, it implies an all-white national community, which, in turn, would mean a total rejection of the existing blood-sucking system of cultural-racial chaos that shames us and causes us to hate the world in which we have to live.

At the same time, the myth of a White Republic implies an end to miscegenation, to affirmative action, to the rising tide of color. But above all, the image of the White Republic implies a regeneration of our people, reborn from principles of self-assertion, self-interest, self-determination, and sovereignty.

I believe all these implications, which the image of a White Republic awakens in us, are the stuff of myth, for, in my mind at least, its image says everything, explains everything, promises everything.

The Occidental Quarterly will, of course, continue to validate the demonstrated truths that inspire the white nationalist project, the truths whose criterion is life, not bloodless reason. But what we white nationalists await most impatiently is the moment when our people begin to take inspiration from their own myths.

For if the white man should ever believe in his myths, in his self, again, then, at that point, all the diseased and contemptible human offshoots of late 20th-century American degradation, whose culminating abomination is the existing System, will at last be forced, as the wheel of history turns, to flee the wrath of the reborn people.

It’s images of this sort, I believe, that will shape the white nationalist myth.

____________________

The text of a talk delivered on June 19, 2009 at a TOQ Editor’s Dinner in San Francisco.

TOQ Online, June 20, 2009
Counter-Currents Publ., September 21, 2010

Exactly one year ago…

2011-02-24T00:18:00.004Z

…I revaluated my values on the Jewish Question (also known as the Jewish Problem). Previously I was kept in the dark not only by the mainstream media, but by the academia, the regular bookstores and even in casual conversations with friends and acquaintances. In the totalitarian world in which we inhabit very few, if any, seemed to have the slightest clue about the Jewish Problem.

Tanstaafl, who blogs at Age of Treason, is one of the bloggers who helped me to make the scales fall from my eyes. A few days ago he wrote about my February 2010 transformation:

The letter writer, using the pen name Takuan Seiyo, admits that Jews played a prominent role not only in our disastrous immigration policy but also in our disastrous civil rights legislation and “the dysfunctional minoritarian tyranny that has resulted from it.” Funny then that he would attack Kevin MacDonald as an anti-Semite when they’re making similar arguments.

“Takuan Seiyo” is the misleading pen-name of a pro-Western poseur who claims to be half-Slav and half-jew. When push comes to shove Seiyo cares more for jews than he does for Whites.

If you’re curious why Seiyo attacked MacDonald, consult the exchange at Chechar’s A lightning in the middle of the night! The exchange continued with Chechar’s Tanstaafl on Auster and culminated with Tanstaafl et al on Takuan Seiyo.

At the time of his Lightning post Chechar was just becoming conscious of jewish influence. He had previously developed a rapport with Takuan and others at Gates of Vienna, a “counter-jihad” blog whose comentariat is dominated by jews, crypto-jews, and deracinated, jew-blind, pro-Israel “whites”. Takuan and others didn’t like Chechar’s change, and in the process of making their disapproval clear they laid bare the jew-first premises behind most if not all of the “counter-jihad” movement.

Pro-Western jews like Seiyo, or like pro-”white” Eugene Girin (whom Seiyo links in the quoted comment to Sailer), or like pro-Western/pro-“white” Lawrence Auster, are dissembling and dissimulating. They want Whites to stand up strong, but only in order to better defend jews. They detest Whites like MacDonald for educating and motivating us to stand up strong in opposition to jewish aggression against us.

(Links in the original post.)

Feminized western males

2011-02-23T23:36:00.023Z

Earlier this day I wrote in a previous post: “I confess I’ve just re-watched Pride and Prejudice for the Nth time. There’s no question about it. Mores must be forcefully reverted back to the Austen world, where women were kept in their place. Only the feminized western males cannot get it. Women belong to us; not to themselves. They’re Nature’s most precious gift.”

This is a brief exchange between a typical liberal, the atheist Richard Dawkins (doctored photo, above) and a religious conservative, a smart Palestinian Muslim:

Muslim: Fix your women.

Dawkins. Fix your women! That’s not my business; that’s my women’s business.

Muslim: No, no! It is your business. When you take your women and dress them like whores in…

Dawkins: I don’t dress women! They dress themselves!

Muslim: I know but you allow it as a norm to let women on the street dressed like this. What’s wrong on with your society? What’s wrong with the…?

Dawkins could not tolerate more cognitive dissonance and in his video he simply faded out the audio of what the Muslim was trying to tell him.

Fortunately, in an Islamized Europe the Muslims will teach the feminized male how to grow their gonads again…

Hate movement or survival movement?

2011-02-23T19:25:00.008Z

The axial year of the 20th century was not 1989. In fact, there were two axial years: 1919 and 1945.

After 1919 most European nationalisms were discredited. And after 1945 all ethnic self-esteem among the white people has been considered anathema in the West.

Occidentals tried thus to revaluate all traditional European values after the First and Second World Wars. White Nationalism can be understood as a reaction against a suicidal reaction. The “white” element in WN is a reaction against the westerners’ reaction to do everything in reverse from Hitler’s Germany (even if with that reversal the train headed by Europeans speeds up right into the precipice). And the “nationalist” element in WN is a reaction against the westerners’ reaction to do everything in reverse from the European nationalisms (even if with such reversal we are welcoming, into our lands, those Muslims who this very day are enmeshed in civil wars at the Middle East).

Just how far have the forces that reacted against the World Wars gone? In the blogosphere I found an hilarious thought-experiment by Sam Dickson:

Our race is longing, our American people is longing, for a home of their own. Is it extreme for us to ask for a homeland for our own people? Is this a hateful proposal, as those who desire our genocide tell us? We need to understand that as far as the establishment that misrules our people all over the world is concerned, the only acceptable position on the future of the white people is genocide.

To those who think this is a nutty comment, I would suggest that you attend the next town hall meeting of your local Congressman or Senator. He need not be a liberal, not some crazed Methodist on Marx or a Marxist on meth, like Hillary Clinton. He could be a white Christian Southern conservative Republican Congressman. During the question and answer period, go to the microphone and say: “Congressman, I am concerned about the tide of non-white immigration, and the low white birthrate in this country and around the world. I’m concerned that our race will become extinct.”

And just see the reaction of that Christian, Southern, conservative member of the establishment. See how you will be shouted down by his followers. See how the guard will be instructed to come and take you out of the room, because you have committed an act of hate by suggesting that your race should be anything other than exterminated.

It is considered per se immoral to advocate the survival of our race. We need to think about that when weighing the claims of our enemies to be the voices of love and tolerance.

That the enemies of our people have managed to sell white nationalism as a “hate movement” speaks volumes about the inversion of reality the westerners suffer in modern day.

Why I write

2011-02-23T17:24:00.018Z

I am not an intellectual. I am a warrior. If I am typing these words instead of firing a gun it’s because today there is not a single sane state left in the Western world. Nobel laureate Octavio Paz, the poet who lived in my neighborhood when he died, once stated that he preferred to be Homer than Alexander. I was fascinated by his words since it’s all too obvious for me that the sword is more powerful than the pen.

Revolution is a state of mind. So I’ll talk as if other people are tuned with my need for immediate action.

There’s a new literary genre that William Pierce started. Harold Covington has published a saga in four novels that tell the story of the creation of an ethno-state. In this futuristic state there’s something that I have previously fantasized in the solitude of my room. They managed to turn the clock back to Victorian fashions (as we have seen in the fashions of, say, Harry Potter’s godfather, Sirius Black, in the films). But what I really love about Covington is that he abhors exactly what I abhor: that there’s almost no face-to-face community in the white nationalist movement. “No revolution will be made by people who are not within driving distance of one another.” Simply joining an organization by mailing a check or merely working in the cyber world, instead of getting one’s hands dirty, won’t do it.

What is exasperating for me is that, while the political dissident of the former Soviet bloc could only escape from his nation to enter the free world, today there’s no place to go. That’s why we write. Blogging is the industry for all those who want serious action in a soft-totalitarian system that wouldn’t allow even a lone voice to express himself in the mainstream media.

Really, I don’t have the temper for much more blogging even though I’ll likely remain stuck in the trenches for a decade or two before civil wars start in the West as they already started in the Middle East.

* * *
The following is an exchange at The Occidental Observer earlier today. The first one is my reply to a commenter who, like me, uses a penname in the blogosphere:

Anglo Saxon:

I agree with much of what you say about Amurrica. Have you read O’Meara’s Toward the White Republic? On page 94 he says: “Our people will survive only if white men learn again, in struggle, to stand […] free from everything associated with the monstrous Leviathan that the United States has become.”

I confess I’ve just re-watched Pride and Prejudice for the Nth time. There’s no question about it. Mores must be forcefully reverted back to the Austen world, where women were kept in their place. As I said above, only the feminized western “males” cannot get it. Women belong to us; not to themselves. They’re Nature’s most precious gift.

And yes: like you I would prefer Europe to lead the West. But first Britain must be punished for Winston Churchill’s astronomical blunder. Perhaps only after she becomes visually like the deracinated UK in the film Children of Men will Britons revive?

As to secession at the other side of the Atlantic, again you are absolutely right. I favor the Northwest idea. But some intuition I’ve never fully understood tells me that revolution in Europe won’t be as nasty as it will be in the Amurrican Leviathan ruled by die Juden. This continent will turn hellish after showtime starts.

I wish I could join the battle on European soil. Unfortunately, with the exception of Covington (in America) I don’t see any other lone voice seriously calling for arms in the Western world. Feel free to contact me thru my blog’s email if you know otherwise.

* * *
Dear Chechar:

 I and others like me want Churchill’s statue in Parliament Square, one that I have myself stood before, long before I knew of his true history... taken down and smashed. I want all Churchillian symbolism destroyed and a national apology issued to the German People.

Everytime I meet or communicate with a German national I feel an urge to issue a pathetic apology for belonging to such a foolish and easily deceived people. I think, when I die I shall request to have my ashes spread somewhere in Germany. Sounds dramatic, but I am seriously thinking about it. The only issue is overcoming the practicalities of how it could be done.

Meanwhile, thank you for your kind invite to contact you, Chechar. Right now, I am busy working on a manuscript. Sometimes I get annoyed with myself for spending so much time commenting online. I hope and expect to have more free time to exchange on a personal level, later in this year. Stay well. May the air you breath fill you with strength and vitality!

“Modern day Left and Right are the exact same”

2011-02-21T04:29:00.029Z

Excerpted from a longer, 14-17 February exchange from The Political Cesspool (TPC), “Jamie Kelso gets run out of CPAC”. James Edwards, who hosts the TPC, wrote:

You’re in favor of two men being allowed to get married? CPAC thinks you’re just swell, and will even let you be an official sponsor of the event. But don’t you dare suggest that it’s best if white people marry other whites, or that white people have interests just like blacks and Hispanics do, or you’ll be treated like a pariah.

Notice the Ron Paul supporters who grow increasingly hostile because Jamie is wearing a Campaign for Liberty button. At the end several of them physically confront him and make it clear that if he doesn’t remove the button, they will. At which point Jamie decided it would be best to leave.

Jamie gets an A for effort, but this video makes it clear that the “let’s just infiltrate the GOP and conservative organizations” approach isn’t viable. These days, “conservatives” are even more anti-White than liberals are. And more and more of them actually believe the nonsense they spout about Equality and there’s only one race, the human race, blah blah blah. So I don’t think we’ll be “taking over” the Republican party in this lifetime.

Still don’t think the CPAC attendees embarrassed themselves enough? Read the stories below.

Selected responses to “Jamie Kelso gets run out of CPAC”:

JB says: Look at all the young whites here who are completely eaten up with guilt and self-hate. How embarrassing! God help us if these dweebs represent the modern-day “conservative” movement. They’re about as conservative as Tim Wise.

Jim says: LOL. That valley girl accent is hilarious! You can tell that chick spends a great deal of time wrapped up in serious thought.

Kievsky says: JB, My thoughts exactly. What’s the difference between them and Tim Wise? None. These are establishment types who plan to make comfy careers out of politics. They don’t represent the conservatism of the man on the street.

Had enough yet? says: White people don’t need enemies when our own people have learned through self-hate, white guilt and false history being taught to them by the media establishment blessed by the “Gods” in Government. The enemy is within. And until that is corrected we are all doomed to a slow painful extinction and not just within America either.

Jerry says: These are privileged whites who have never lived in mixed communities opining about how great diversity is. I once had a conversation with a fellow who claimed that he “loved” diversity. When I pointed out to him that he lived in a town that was 98% white and upper-middle class, he claimed that he and his wife had “always wanted” to move to a more diverse area, but the “schools” prevented this. Yeah, right.

Vic says: Just reconfirms my opinion that it’s too late in the game for this. It’s like trying to patchwork a ship with its bow completely submerged and stern straight up towards the sky. Do whatever you can to save yourselves and stay out of the way of these fools and their folly. They won’t learn until it’s too late… just like the Rhodesians and South Africans.

Joe says: Watching this video is the equivalent of having your teeth pulled out. Unfortunately, it’s not these kids who get bussed to gang-ridden schools. It’s not these kids who have to watch their once thriving neighborhoods self-destruct right in front of them. And it’s not these kids who will be future polar-bear victims. Hey CPAC, for your next convention, why don’t you hold it in downtown Detroit? Or even better, why not make it an international affair and host it in South Africa? Seeing these little punks get a taste of their own medicine would be sweet poetic justice.

Jerry says: Couple more points: The facial expressions of the airhead blonde to the left are priceless. It simply drips of self-hatred and self-righteousness. Also, the tall, thin, effeminate fellow is your standard, run-of-the-mill president of his college’s Young Republican Club. These people wouldn’t be caught dead on “Martin Luther King Blvd” at night, and when they get married and live in D.C., they will send their kids to private, mostly white/yellow schools. They are zombies, the walking dead. Thankfully, they will probably have only 0-1 kids. If we can’t convert them, we need to outbreed them.

Shocked says: The Frankfurt School has certainly worked on the young White mind in this country.

Ken says: Wow, that was painful to watch! That should be preserved for future generations because that is a prime example of how completely and totally brainwashed and defeated many whites have become. Just the slightest hint that whites might have something worth preserving and it’s time to burn the heretic at the stake! Unbelievable!

Clint says: Jamie did a great job debating with that hostile crowd. It just shows how dear the sheeple hold onto the “diversity” mantra. I highly doubt they would be so animated on any other topic of conversation. I agree with the other fellow that Jamie’s message would have been better heard had he a few more supporters chiming in. However, he has a very non-threatening style and did great in my opinion; anyone else would have been thrown out much earlier. Could you see the smoke coming out of the pretty brunette’s head, forced to think for a few nano-seconds?
The side-burned guy was playing tough in front of the cameras, dropping r-bombs on everyone. How lame.

Junghans says: These young White “conservative” wimps are pathetic victims of their inculcated intellectual illusions. A Negro racial reality check may eventually make them a little more explicitly aware, we hope. Talk about being their own worst enemies, these White bunnies certainly are…

Greg says: OMG, these people are supposed to be “conservatives”? Yikes, they sound more like liberals, and in fact I can respect the liberals more so because at least they don’t take one thing and call it another.

Louise says: This completely turned my stomach. For we older folks, this is the generation that is going to be taking care of us. That is downright scary.

Jeff says: Ever notice how effeminate young white men are these days? If they are not gay, they are metro-sexual. Or maybe masculine white men are too preoccupied with sports and don’t attend these types of conferences. Let me know what you all think.

Randall says: It’s really hard to believe that our young Americans are that stupid.

johnson says: We are witnessing the largest genocide in the history of the world, the genocide of white people through control of the financial systems, the media, and learning institutions. Time to turn the tide.

Political Optimist says: Okay, after watching that video, I’ve now reconsidered my previous comment [not included in this collection—Chechar]. I still believe we must work within the mainstream. But man, are you sure he wasn’t at a Daily Kos gathering?

Von Riemann says: This is why the right-wing are losers, and always have-been and will be and fail…

I have always been against that Jewish Freemason, Ron Paul, and exposed him from day one since Stormfront was promoting this bastard, and predicted what Ron Paul is doing today against Whites who supported him—was going to happening, and it is. This is only further proof, how Ron Paul acted against Jamie Kelso, why he is our worst enemy.

icr says: The masses follow elites—that’s always been the case and always will be the case. Read Sam Francis and James Burnham. Trying to destroy the hegemony of Cultural Marxism by recruiting typical white American conformists at bars and football games (or even Ron Paul rallies) is strictly the stuff of satire. Before you can get anywhere you need roughly a hundred or so guys like Jared Taylor and James Edwards. Try to remember that 99+% of media, academia, business and government (including the military) is either hostile or cowed into silence.

Jeff says: I actually commend those kids for listening and engaging with Kelso. It was the Campaign for Liberty guys who kept pestering him about being a racist. I thought those people were for freedom.

Yankee born Southerner says: Here’s a perfect example of public education at its finest. We have guilt because of slavery. Let’s review: nobody alive today was a slave. Likewise, nobody alive today was a slave owner. We fought an unjust war supposedly to end slavery. Which is a blatant lie. But the truth wasn’t taught when I attended high school and that’s over 40 years ago. So, it doesn’t matter as much if you’re Republican or Democrat. What matters is you know your own history. And don’t be afraid to take a little heat when somebody tells you to take your button off. Mr. Kelso, thank you for your example!

icr says: “I still believe we must work within the mainstream” [wrote above another commenter]. The USG is currently fanatically devoted to a world-view that can best be described in shorthand as a mix between the Wall St Journal pro-global business and open borders stance, and the ideology one would find in the Office for Multi-Cultural Affairs at a major liberal arts university. This view has hardened into an ideology and has intertwined itself so thoroughly in the popular mind with what it means to be “American” that nothing short of an intense crisis or a complete breakdown will bring about any change. Certainly, electing this or that Republican makes no difference.

Duane says: Is this country completely finished? Did you notice how wimpy and faggy these white males were? Do you really feel bad when reading in the newspaper when this type meets a brutal bloody end at the hands of the savages they are insanely defending? Would any normal White male with any normal attitudes feel any normal protective instincts toward these female psychos? The USA and the West are completely finished…

Von Riemann says: I knew it was just a matter of time before the Republicans exposed themselves, not just against the whites who put them into power from day 1, but against our very unalienable rights/constitution that they toted as their foundation—and show their true Orwellian tyrannical faces. In these peoples minds, the only ones who are Americans and can have a voice are the (PC).

It’s time to build our race into a political machine, and not an economic one like the two Kosher parties. The mainstream parties are not about our preservation, but our genocide and money/getting-rich—which is why they are selling us out bit-by-bit to the one-world-order.

Jamie Kelso, in my opinion wasn’t defeated and ran-off like these Capital-Marxist right-wing thugs claim with glee happened. Rather Jamie Kelso brought forth invaluable information to our struggle and proved the points visually of what we are trying to make to our people about the system.

Edgardus de la Vega says: Yes indeed folks: undoing their deracinated mindsets will be quite a challenge for us. Nevertheless, our communication on the issue of white preservation will make gains as our race continues to shrink. The apparent evidence of our gradual demise will itself do much of the talking.

Adam FreeMan says: These sheltered brain-washed children need our patience and understanding even though we all want to take them to the woodshed and beat the crap out of them. They have been taught that if they want to succeed and get ahead, they must walk the multicultural line. Many of them have eaten the poisoned apple and really believe what they are saying. We must be ready when reality opens their eyes (muggings, rapes, no jobs for whites) to get them to see that we are their friends. So teach them what they are ready to learn when they are ready to learn it and don’t get personal.

Dedalus says: Great comments. In fact, they are the perfect tonic to this depressing video. At the very beginning, when that blonde guy sitting down asked “What if she wanted to reproduce with a Black guy…”

Blockheads with just enough brains to know how to make money and that’s enough for them.

Von Riemann says: Anyone who continues with the failed right-wing supports these people and what they stand-for against us and our country, and supports/agrees-with our white-genocide and as corrupt as they are... You are not going to infiltrate the Republican party—Jamie Kelso just tried respectfully and legally and look what they did to him the first minute he didn’t tote the party lines and defended his people and told the truth about what is going on.

John St.C. says: First off, we need to recognize the exact nature of that whole CPAC/Human Events/neocon/YAF/Buckleyite crowd. As was pointed out, these are nothing but yuppies whose “conservatism” centers solely around their worries over daddy’s money. Secondly, their embarrassing ignorance concerning all matters racial defines their overall mentality. After all, if you don’t care about the survival of your own race, who gives the tiniest particle of a damn about tax programs?

2ndAmdMan says: This just goes to prove how hard (if not impossible) it is to have a conversation with liberal minded people. Those rich snobby (never worked a day in their lives) “conservative brats” really seem to just be “liberals” at heart. If they have any muscle—they bought it at a gym. If they have any brains—they got it from their ancestors who they are now “throwing under the bus”. They more afraid of being called a “racist” than they are of the “boogie man”.

Denise says: Jamie did a really good job—but he did not answer the most glaring error: the Ottoman Empire [actually] created nothing.

wn girl says: Good job, Jamie! It is sad to see young whites who are so ignorant about their issues and history, but Jamie did a great job with the conversation.

JB says: Did y’all notice the older guy who made the silly “Harry Truman was a Klansman” comment?

Bruce in Vancouver says: That was very bad. Some of the comments from these people are incredible. Did you hear that guy saying that the blacks arrived here the same time Whites did and then they went about building the country with their bare hands? LOL. What an idiot. Where do they get this from? I already knew we’re in trouble, but that was just depressing to hear.

Larry says: Trying to “infiltrate” the GOP in hopes of using it to advance the causes of white people is ridiculous [Larry responds to an Occidental Dissent fan]. It’s time to abandon all notions of conventional “right” and “left.” They are essentially the same ideology wrapped in a different package. Both want universal democracy, both support multiculturalism, both believe it is wrong for the government to step in and promote traditional values, both are completely worthless. The interests of our people rise above all else. Everything else pales in comparison.

The way I see it, we are so far gone as a nation that only outright white nationalism/traditionalism can save us. Therefore, any attempt at infiltrating a decaying political party in order to get it to be slightly less degenerate is insufficient and a waste of time.

Go ahead and keep reading the nonsense at Occidental Dissent and donating your hard-earned money to libertarian organizations and GOP candidates, you might as well be pissing it down a toilet. Here is my New Year’s resolution in regards to politics: If a group or cause or candidate is not 100% pro-white, I will not donate my time or money to it. A candidate who agrees with us on most issues but who states publicly that he abhors “racism” does more harm to our cause than good.

Vick says: Kelso did an excellent job, and even though those kids all appeared to reject his message, they were listening, and they were probably hearing what he had to say for the first time. As they get older they will remember their encounter with him and start to see the truth of what he’s saying. I do have to criticize Kelso for not having a good answer to the tall kid who kept saying that “America was also built by blacks and hispanics” and so on. (And by the way, it’s far too easy to criticize someone for how they do in live, personal debates like this—doing well in these situations is a talent, really.)

My response to the tall kid would have been to point out that up until recently (1964), this country was over 80% white. Yes, blacks and hispanics etc. can lay a certain claim to having built America, but the truth is that this country historically was predominantly a white country, and the white majority, such as it still exists, still has the right to democratically determine its future in a racially conscious way, if they so desire.

Tom says: Ron Paul owes Kelso an apology. It was Paul’s man who had Kelso thrown out.

Horace Blossom says: If there is anyone so deluded as to think that the Republican types have a genuine interest in defending and advancing Western Civilization and the racial group responsible for it, this video should disabuse him of that piece of brain-sick lunacy. Perhaps most alarmingly revealed in this video is that these “right-thinking” young people have only thread-bare, outworn arguments to support their lunatic, self-annihilating vagaries. It apparently has never occurred to them that their empty slogans and vapid catch-phrases need examining. Usually, I find myself lamenting that my life has extended into its seventh decade, but this exhibition at least enables me to feel some gratitude that I made it without having been infected with such lunacy as theirs.

Larry says: [Responding to an Occidental Observer fan whose post I omitted in this collection]: Modern day “left” and “right” are the exact same. They have the same end goal in mind. Both envision an America with universal democracy, “equality,” no racial identity, etc. They only disagree on how to get there and whether that America will be ruled by bureaucrats or corporations. A new law that will serve as a minor headache to illegals here and a symbolic ban against Affirmative Action there are not anywhere close to what it will take to restore this nation.

If all immigration—legal and illegal—were to end tomorrow, this would only delay America’s descent into a third-world, majority non-white nation. You will never, not in a million years, see the GOP advocate what is needed to turn back the tide. If you want to pursue conventional party politics, go for it. I admire your efforts. I just think it is a hopeless waste of time and think our efforts are best directed at building up explicitly white nationalist organizations.

The real path to power is to put together networks that can step in to fill the void that will be left when the current system inevitably collapses.

By the way, defeating amnesty is another non-issue. Amnesty will have virtually no long-term demographic impact. The children of illegals are already citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status. If anything, amnesty will be a good thing because it will instantly flood the voting booths with millions of Hispanics rather than spreading out the inevitable over the next several decades. It might be the shock that mainstream conservatives need to wake them to the reality that they cannot maintain their way of life if they become a demographic minority.

Charles says: I have enormous respect for Jamie Kelso for going down to CPAC to advance a racial awareness. This is probably the very first time these people have been exposed to ideas like the ones Jamie is espousing.

At best all they have read or heard are vulgar caricatures about Klansmen and neo-Nazis trying to exterminate other races. The fact that these people listened to Jamie so long is the only encouraging thing in this video. Let’s hope as they grow older and these people will grow wiser they will learn to seek political opinions that didn’t come to them from talk radio, their television set, NPR, or any other MSM outlet.

Until the internet came along there were no real dissenting opinions available to most people. That’s changing thanks to blogs and radio shows like this one and the one Jamie Kelso has.

Matt says: Oh my God! These young people! Take a look at them—they all look like punch drunk boxers as they reel off their PC mantras! How tragic! How terribly tragic! Perhaps T. S. Eliot was quite right after all: “This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.”

Eurobeing says: I will admit that he didn’t exactly have them out of his hand. However, if you look at them closing in you will notice that they were actually listening to Jamie. The young fellow who listened to Michael Savage said that he is aware of white fear and suppression.

When the big goon jumped in and took Jamie’s badges he was doing what he was told. Which tells me that someone is paying a lot of money to keep a lid on all of the truth tellers.

I bet a lot of these people went home and really thought about what Kelso said. My guess his comments have their own half life and will exist in the minds of these young dweebs for quite some time.

Also Kelso was just beginning to address the issue of white guilt for slavery when he was so rudely interrupted. If he would have had a few more minutes I think he would have made some real progress. He may have already.

more of same says: I sent money a few times to C4L. I’m glad I stopped. The mailers I get from them will go right into the recycling bin after this. I’ll send my money to TPC instead.

Joanne Dee says: The first message is: Jamie is a brave and honorable man. The second message is: liberty, with this crowd, is as much about free speech as Stalin’s Russia. The third message is: trying to persuade this group that white self-interests should be paramount is an unwinnable battle. They truly never experienced the real White America and they believe everything they’ve been told. My final thought is: wow, these kids are brainwashed! The only thing positive I found is: they will realize, one day too late, what Jamie was saying. As for the comment about Michael Savage, he sure is right. White men (especially the younger ones) are totally emasculated.

Steve Elkin says: These kids need to spend some time in the “Homeboys turf”, at night and see how they feel then!

mike says: O my gosh, James, these brainwashed youths make conservatives look bad, i.e. “we all came from Africa”. These are your typical republican brats, they truly don’t respect the paleo-cons. Like Buchanan, Edwards, Duke, and the rest.

Joanne Dee says: The more I watch this clip, the more entertaining it becomes. I went from nausea to hysterics in the blink of an eye. My favorite line by Jamie responding to one of these idiots: “We went from free speech to free land.” Priceless. They don’t have a clue about primal “blood and soil.” Not one iota. They truly are clueless. Attention Wal-Mart shoppers: this man does not represent the Campaign for Liberty.

Good. And the Campaign for Liberty does not represent me nor liberty! Fake conservatives and fake libertarians.

Anonymous says: Did you catch what the brunette said in response to Jamie discussing how whites are indifferent toward protecting their homelands in comparison to other races? She stated, “That’s why we’re superior to the rest of them.” She is a genuine white supremacist. Why does she want to import people into the country who she believes are “inferior” to her? The answer, of course, is because she is one of those whites who loves to use nonwhites as pawns in a pathetic contest to prove who is the ultimate “antiracist” person alive. This is truly a mental pathology that must be cured. I hope that she and rest of the group will soon come around.

Bryan says: Are we surprised? Considering the twisted history that has been taught to people in the last forty years, really, are we surprised? I felt this way as a twelve year-old child but when I was about fourteen I started getting information from a lot of different sources to correct the history. Today, I don’t believe the nonsense and clearly recognize the threat against White America.

One big difference for me is that I have not watched a lot of TV nor have I done so since I was about thirteen (almost twenty-three years ago, so I miss out on the media indoctrination through music, TV and movies: and that makes a big difference let me assure you). The more your news and ideas about the world are derived from TV and movies the more you seem to fall for this nonsense.

I work in an office in a liberal city for a fortune 500 corporation. All around me daily I hear how important it is for us to celebrate diversity. I know people in the U.S. seem to think that everyone with our “Neanderthal” views are uneducated poor white trash who live in Southern neighborhoods or in Nazi Idaho. However, this is clearly not the case.

That's Not My Name says: Note how these privileged youngsters lack the mental acuity to identify the logical fallacies inherent in their “politically correct” positions. For example, one expresses the view that it does not matter if a person race-mixes.

In reality, a white reproducing with a black will yield, with overwhelming likelihood, offspring with lower IQs than those of children conceived by two whites. Clearly, the future state of humanity does matter, and human success is strongly linked to IQ. Thus, race-mixing and the associated likelihood of a lower IQ citizenry is to be avoided.

anon says: Of course they were outraged, they’ve been lied to their whole lives. These young people are probably either college students or recent grads. Every day of their lives they’ve been subjected to the most sadistic “scientific” brainwashing devised. Of course they’re not going to calmly sit there and nod in passive agreement when a prophet of truth, Jamie Kelso, unexpectedly stands before them and challenges their sacred cows. This video of Kelso just strengthens my admiration of him.

Wild Bill says: Perhaps Mr. Kelso could have opened the conversation like this: How do you people feel about the genocide of the white people in South Africa and the former Rhodesia? Does CPAC have a position on this?

Big Ugly, Wyoming says: We are truly lost—the government indoctrination in schools has had more effect than I had ever imagined.

Joanne Dee says: Courtney, We vote to make a difference. We all value our votes (at least the intelligent ones). But if the vote will never—ever—get the intended consequences, whether it is third party or main party, the vote is wasted. However, if we continue to eat away at the corrupt parties by deflecting our votes to Third Party candidates whom we agree with (are there any)? The main thing which is so elusive to us patriots, yet seldom mentioned, is that we basically have crap to vote for. We need a new government, not just another political party. We’re in a horrible dilemma with no clear way out.

Paul Hausser says: Notice how they never let Jamie finish. As soon he was ready to make the point about stuffing the USA with 1.5 billion Chinese and 300 million Mexicans they all jumped in. These kids sense that what they say is not really true but they can’t allow it to be said to their faces in such a straightforward logical way.

Reality says: Political Optimist writes: “I still believe we must work within the mainstream.” That’s like saying Christians need become porn stars to reach out to the porn industry. You’re just going to make a fool out of yourself.

_______________

My comment:

Wasn’t Srđa Trifković right in the video I embedded last week, that he was “less free in the US than in Tito’s Yugoslavia”?

Metapolitics: the only viable way

2011-02-20T02:44:00.002Z

Excerpted from a longer article by Greg Johnson from Counter-Currents Publishing:

Yes, politics is about power, and power reduces to violence or the threat thereof. But what if it is too early for politics? Specifically, what if it is too late to reform the system and too early to replace it?

Then White Nationalists need to focus on metapolitics, specifically (1) the intellectual development and cultural propagation of our worldview and (2) building a White Nationalist community—a community that is wealthy, powerful, resilient, and dedicated to the perfection and empowerment of its members; a community that can aspire to be the foundation of a future White Republic.

This approach is valid even if the present system could be expected to remain strong for the foreseeable future. In that case, our community would simply have to become very big and very strong to mount a political challenge to the system.

But fortunately there is every reason to believe that the system is in steep and irreversible decline. Honestly, is there anything that White Nationalists could do to destroy the system better than its currents masters?

Well, I am sure that someone out there could think of something. But I am not sure I want to hasten the end of the United States. My greatest fear is that the system will collapse too soon, long before our community is powerful enough to create a white homeland.

We are few, scattered, voiceless, and powerless. The system is vast and powerful, but it is destroying itself. Time may be short, e.g., we may have only a few decades. So we need to focus our time, energy, and resources not on destroying the system but on creating an alternative.

“What would you say if someone asks...

2011-02-19T01:58:00.005Z

...with some concern over a cup of coffee, “Hey, Tom. What made you go all Nazi? You have a PhD in political science, come from a respectable family, your father was a lawyer—and you... you turned out racist. What happened?”

Tom Sunić responds:

The usage of this type of negative epithet is pretty current in Western media and to some extent in the Western judiciary. The advantage of living in post-communist countries is that words such as “Nazis,” “fascists,” “racists,” no longer have such a bad resonance, despite the fact the new political class all over Eastern Europe is trying again legally to resurrect them with its original criminogenic meaning. Of course, this all happens under pressure from the West, where these qualifiers are in constant usage today. Where communism left off, modern liberalism continued.

I need to remind you that the usage of these value-loaded qualifiers was standard practice in the communist vernacular and the media against any dissident, aired on all wavelengths 24 hours a day. Towards the end of the communist rule there was an enormous amount of psycholinguistic saturation amidst the populace, so that everybody got sick of that language—even the communist scribes who had made these words “fashionable” in the first place.

Distorted political verbiage was the main cause of the collapse of communism. Hence, the paradox is that these words—used today as shut-up words in the West—no longer have such an oppressive weight in Eastern Europe. In fact, they often serve as a badge of honor for some people!

______________________

Excerpted from a longer interview of Tom Sunić from Counter-Currents Publishing.

“I’m less free in the US than in Tito’s Yugoslavia”

2011-02-19T00:42:00.005Z

Update of February 25:

Trifkovic was barred from entering Canada. Robert Spencer explains: “The ‘hate speech’ weapon is increasingly used by the thuggish Leftist/Islamic supremacist axis to silence its opponents” (here).

O’Meara on Covington’s novels

2011-02-18T22:20:00.017Z

This review was originally published in The Occidental Quarterly Online under the watch of Greg Johnson, and later in the Counter-Currents Publishing blogsite.

Johnson’s note: This essay is taken from Dr. Michael O’Meara’s new book Toward the White Republic, available here.

“Those who want to live, let them fight, and
those who do not want to fight in this world
of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.”
…........................................................................—Adolf Hitler

H. A. Covington’s Northwest Trilogy of novels—Hill of the Ravens (2003), A Distant Thunder (2004), and A Mighty Fortress (2005) [A fourth novel, The Brigade (2007) appeared after this essay was written—Greg Johnson]—now represents the most authoritative treatment of white separatism in the English language. Both as popular fiction and political tract, it is a remarkable work. But most remarkable of all is the utter silence that surrounds it. If not for a VNN “commentator” (the wise and judicious “New America”), I might never have heard of it.

I’m not quite certain why this is. Covington’s Trilogy is infinitely more readable and convincing than William Pierce’s Turner Diaries (now one of our classics), but has probably sold only a fraction as many copies. Part of the problem with its reception might lie in the fact that Covington, a veteran of the NS movement, has made not a few enemies within “the racially conscious community,” evident in his numerous critical references to William Pierce, as well as to Matt Koehl, Ben Klassen, Tom Metzger, David Duke, Martin Webster, John Tyndall, and others.

Without any actual knowledge of Covington’s personal history or of the sectarian squabbles that have alienated him from other racial nationalists, there may be, for this reason, a subtext to his Trilogy that eludes me.

I only know the Trilogy as a work of political fiction.

On this basis, though, I can categorically say that Covington is a great talent and that his work speaks, as no other does, to the burning question of our age.

Political fiction has one overriding purpose: to reach those who can’t be reached through rational discourse. In this, Covington’s Trilogy is superb. It is full of memorable characters—classic American types (daring, two-fisted white men) who remind us of our ancestors and not the ridiculous creatures we see on nightly television. It abounds with actions and adventures that evoke our earliest racial memories and reveal what we can be once free of the Jews’ lunar spirit. It conveys the ideals of our movement in a language and style accessible to those who might otherwise ignore them. It tells an exciting story that is both entertaining and didactic. But above all it imagines a course of action—perhaps the one possible course of action—that will ensure our existence as a people. Whatever one may say of Covington the activist, it has to be acknowledged that he’s made a work of art of his separatist vision, and it deserves a hearing.

It is not, though, his art that I want to address in this essay, but rather certain of his ideas, three of which I think are fundamental to the politics of white racial survival in this period. To put these ideas in their proper context, something, though, needs first to be said of the story Covington tells.

As a separatist, he believes the present situation is such that any hope of reversing America’s “de-Europeanization” or replacing the Judeo-globalist regime in Washington responsible for it is no longer feasible. The sole option left to whites seeking to ensure their existence in North America is to break off a portion of the lands their ancestors possessed and establish a white homeland. To this end he proposes the “migration” of racially aware whites to the Pacific Northwest—the whitest section of the United States—to create there the critical mass that will be needed once the time comes to wage an anti-colonial war against the Washington regime.

Premised on this migration, his three novels revolve around events that occur sometime in the second or third decade of the 21st century, when all the tendencies presently in place have been taken to their horrific and ethnocidal extension.

For reasons almost providential, whites in Coeur d’Alene Idaho finally rebel, when they spontaneously resist federal agents attempting to carry off the children of a politically incorrect but well-regarded family. Locally based members of the “party” created by the migration then intervene. They help arm, organize, and lead several hundred Coeur d’Alene whites against the troops sent in to crush them. Their rebellion is quickly quashed, but, like Ireland’s Easter Uprising, it ignites a war for national independence.

From three different perspectives Covington tells the story of the Northwest Volunteer Army (NVA), as it leads an IRA-style terror campaign against the Judeo-globalist forces in control of the United States. The NVA’s struggle is greatly facilitated by the fact that in this future period American society and the US government have become even more incompetent than they are today. The US military is bogged down in endless Mideastern wars fought on Israel’s behalf; its social system is increasingly dysfunctional, balkanized into rival racial-ethnic interest groups; an ever-growing part of the white population, unable to compete with coolie labor, is condemned to unemployment or conscription; and the material prosperity that has long served as a race-obliterating opiate has given way to the growing impoverishment and alienation of the white masses.

For five bitter years, the NVA wages the “war of the flea,” blowing up key infrastructure, sabotaging databases, attacking the regime’s tax-collecting and judiciary agents, intimidating employers of non-white labor—even sending Volunteers to disrupt the vulnerable lifelines that allow New York and Washington to function as the regime’s central nervous system.

Unable to sustain the damages and disruptions of these assaults, the federal government, mainly for financial reasons, is eventually forced to negotiate a peace settlement with the insurgents, negotiations which end up sanctioning the secession of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho (along with parts of Northern California, Wyoming, and Montana) from the United States and the establishment of a white homeland under the political auspices of a Northwest American Republic.

1. The Jewnited States

Unlike racial conservatives and not a few white nationalists, Covington sees the United States—not just the current Administration, but the “System” itself—as the enemy. He calls it “the fount and wellspring of all that [is] evil” in our time. For at least two generations this state has carried out a systemic assault on European America, forcing it to congregate with hostile races; promoting integration, miscegenation, and the destruction of the white family; adopting policies that siphon off its wealth, pollute its culture, and corrupt its children; but above all, legitimating its self-destruction through the imposition of dysgenic behaviors and values.

With “only the most remote and tenuous historical connection with the country and system of government which was originally established and envisioned by the Founding Fathers,” the United States today has become a Jew-led corporate plutocracy that denies whites their birthright. But it’s not just its state, with its race-destroying policies, that wars on them. The entire American social system—the reigning civilizational forms—have become no less noxious to their existence. Covington describes early 21st-century America (and this is a projection of current trends) as a world of unspeakably vile sexual perversions... a kleptocracy, quite literally ruled by criminals, some of whom were so bad and so blatant that they were even indicted under the Americans’ own laws... a world based on no other foundation than sheer greed, wallowing in the most gross and despicable material gluttony... a wasteland of spiritual emptiness, moral corruption, and cultural pollution... an entire society based on a bizarre and grotesque moral inversion: the utterly ridiculous and thoroughly evil idea that all humanoid creatures are in some manner equal.

This world born of the Jews’ materialistic metaphysics—this world in which man is viewed primarily as “an economic animal rather than as a spiritual being with a soul” —turns everyone into either a consumer or a commodity and everything that has traditionally made life worth living—family, community, religion—into an economic calculation. Whether rich or poor, the “citizens” of this Jewified enterprise live “all doped up, dumbed down, zoned out... confused, hostile, paranoid... looking out for nobody but Number One.” America’s traditional European life forms become not only unsustainable under such a system, they are demonized and rendered criminal.

No self-respecting white man, Covington assumes, would want to preserve, reform, or redeem such an abomination. As one of his Volunteers says: “I didn’t want to be an American any more. I wanted to be a man instead, a white man.”

2. A War of White Liberation

Despite the passivity and conservatism that mark much of the racially conscious community, it is not difficult to understand why our nobler spirits would want to wash their hands of the American experiment.

With some justice, Covington argues that a half century of peaceful, legal methods to reverse the racial policies of the United States have been totally ineffective. “Petitions have been ignored... The electoral and political process has been undermined... The judiciary has become an instrument of racial and social tyranny.” All the while, the reigning powers continue their de-Europeanization, using all their vast powers to re-engineer the American population and eviscerate its racial heritage.

Covington’s work rests on the rather unchallengeable contention that nothing so far has had the slightest effect in stemming the enveloping tide of mud. Efforts to create an alternative media, raise white consciousness, mobilize voters around racial issues, or post another illuminating exposé on the internet have had virtually no effect in halting our advance toward the abyss. Those among us who continue to emphasize the need to educate or awaken people, he argues, usually end up doing “nothing more than hide behind an email address while playing with the computer in one’s basement rec room, with a bowl of nachos and a cold brewski beside the mouse.” Relatedly, most actual efforts by racialists and right-wingers to act in the real world continue to aim at influencing the Judeo-corporate system, rather than getting free of it.

Given that all the forces of indoctrination, socialization, and influence are in enemy hands and that all the principal institutions and social-economic structures are arrayed against us, the thought of using the system’s established forms to bring down the anti-white regime in Washington, repatriate the 100 million muds occupying our lands, or reverse the present ethnocidal course of American developments is nothing short of fantastic. Given also that every effort to reverse American racial policy has failed and that this policy threatens the survival of the European race in North America, the sole remaining recourse, Covington insists, is the “right” to take up arms against the system threatening us.

As he imagines it, the struggle to establish an independent white homeland in the American Northwest will resemble an anti-colonial war, waged in ways not unlike the campaign the Provisional IRA carried out against the British government in Northern Ireland after 1969. Sustained by a migration of racially aware whites to the region (Covington mentions 50,000 migrants), the NVA that is to arise from some future effort to acquire a “small piece of territory” will challenge Washington’s monopoly of armed force and undermine its revenue producing sources, making it impossible for the federal government to maintain its authority over the Pacific Northwest.

But how realistic is such a prospective struggle? To many it will seem even more fantastic than the alternatives that Covington criticizes. And to those who know something about the physical-force wing of Irish Republicanism, it will seem no less fantastic to imagine that American white nationalists (whose struggles are waged almost entirely in cyberspace) could emulate the IRA gunmen, street fighters, and terrorists who forced Her Majesty’s Government to the negotiating tables.

These objections, however, are not actually an argument against Covington’s notion of a white liberation struggle—only an obstacle to be overcome. History, moreover, is full of improbable undertakings. Who would have thought that 10,000 lightly-armed Sunni insurgents would check the conquests of America’s imperial legions? Great historical transformations are almost always implausible until they happen. Part of this is due to the fact that it is rarely the size of one’s armed divisions or the quality of one’s military technology that matters most, but rather certain qualities of the human spirit. As Victor Hugo put it: “Mightier than the tread of marching armies is the power of an idea whose time has come.” If American whites, especially their racially conscious vanguard, should ever imbue the NW migration with the force of a Sorelian myth (that is, with the force to act), there is simply no telling what might happen. “Nothing is impossible”—not even the thought of white men marching to the sound of the guns.

To those who would dismiss this as wishful thinking, it might be added that not only does the survival of the white race depend upon such a mythic transformation of white consciousness, but that our age has turned such transformations into something of a Zeitgeist. With the advent of globalization and the fourth-generation war it provokes, traditional state systems have everywhere gone into crisis, as anti-national elites endeavor to impose a one-world superstate that reduces everything to the market demands of the Jew-led Yankee money men cashing in on the extermination of the white race.

The idea of a white liberation struggle is not, then, entirely implausible. Nor would there be any lack of potential Volunteers. Sections of the middle class, deprived by globalization of the lifestyles which ensured their former passivity, are already feeling embittered and by-passed. A sharp economic downturn, the collapse of the dollar, a humiliating military retreat from the Middle East, an energy crisis that undermines our automotive civilization, a protracted governmental paralysis—the conditions could suddenly arise when elements among the complacent, TV-programmed white masses are forced to the conclusion that their allegiances are misplaced. In any case, conditions for whites are almost certain to continue to deteriorate.

Echoing the theorists of partisan, guerrilla, or asymmetrical warfare of the last half century, Covington contends that the bigger and more complex the Jewnited States becomes, the more vulnerable it is to “a few brave men with weapons in their hands and the courage to use them.” American society, he notes, is “so complex, everything so interactive and interlocking and dependent on everything else, that when you cut one link in the chain the whole works just grounds to a halt.”

The struggle for white liberation would also benefit from the fact that the US government is already a corrupt, mismanaged institution and that American society, premised on purely economic criteria, lacks real cohesion. The whole system, in fact, rests on a foundation of sand. All the powers of corruption, incompetence, cowardice, and short-term thinking conspire against it. (Think of Katrina New Orleans.) Its declining revenues and budget constraints are even now making it difficult to fund its repressive apparatus. At the same time, the system is more and more served by inept Negroes, and the Jews who manage the system’s decision-making centers are beginning to overreach themselves, pushing their host people in ways that formerly ended in pogroms. Is it so inconceivable, then, to think that an armed white opposition could force it out of the Northwest?

3. A Homeland

Once it is accepted that the United States constitutes the principal threat to white existence and that whites will be free of its perverse, ethnocidal policies only through force of arms, then the third, most crucial facet of Covington’s vision comes into focus: The imperative of creating a white homeland.

Terre et Peuple, Blut und Boden: The notion that every people needs its own land is as old as Europe itself. In the postmodern, transnational, and global order favored by our one-world elites such a notion, of course, is deemed obsolete, as if the quantitative monetary principles of the world market are a better way of organizing social life than traditional ones based on healthy families, organic communities, and ethnoracial identities.

In the last generation, this ancient notion has assumed a new urgency: For the rising tide of color has everywhere begun to seep into the former white homelands, threatening the integrity of white life. One more generation of Third World immigration and the great race passes away forever.

A racially exclusive homeland, the antithesis of the New World Order, would in Covington’s view be our “ark to weather the great flood of mud.” “It is absolutely essential,” he argues, “that the white race acquire a Homeland of its own, some place on earth where white children can be born and raised in physical and spiritual safety, and where our numbers may be restored and the threat of racial extinction overcome.”

Based on blood, not creed or economics, such a home-land would guarantee the perpetuity of our people. It would also solve a great many of the social, political, and cultural problems that presently ail us. For once free of the Jews who have pathologized white existence and who have set the colored hordes on us, we could begin dealing honestly and forthrightly with the problems besetting our civilization. Indeed, once free of the Jews and their multiracial legions, many of these problems would simply vanish. The result would almost certainly be a renaissance of European life in North America. As one of Covington’s characters observes: “When you have stability and unity in a racially homogenous society, you’d be amazed what a small country like ours can accomplish.”

This vision of a sovereign Aryan Republic is, of course, merely a figment of Covington’s imagination, but then again imagination, as Shakespeare reminds us, “Bodies forth the things unknown.”

Bibliographical Note:

The novels of the Northwest Quartet are:

1. The Hill of the Ravens Lincoln, Nebr.: 1stBooks Library, 2003

2. A Distant Thunder Bloomington, Ind.: Authorhouse, 2004

3. A Mighty Fortress Bloomington, Ind.: Authorhouse, 2005

4. The Brigade Philadelphia: Xlibris, 2008

“The fullest flourishing of the Western Soul ever seen”

2011-02-18T07:14:00.007Z

As I said in a previous entry I just posted a few hours ago, sometimes the most interesting ideas appear in the comments section of the blogsites. For example, the following comment at Counter-Currents about the notorious cancellation of the American Renaissance conference this month reminded me the article “Why conservatives still can’t win”:

[Lincoln] Rockwell was already complaining in 1965 that conservatives were hostile to their own vanguard, while the moderate left, by contrast, always makes apologies for the far left. You have solidarity and de facto support for extremism on the left, and paranoid concern about staying “respectable” on the right.

In other words, while for Leftists “There are no enemies to the Left,” for conservatives even a centimeter to one’s Right is considered beyond the pale: the perfect losing formula for those wishing to preserve Western civilization. But even more interesting was the response to the above-quoted commenter by a fan of the Northwest Front vision (no ellipsis added):

Conservatism is a fraud; it is intellectually dishonest, a confidence game to bluff the fools; worse, in practice, it always loses.

Hitler was the last real revolutionary of our Race. He tried to do a hundred years of cultural development in ten, and a thousand years of cultural development in twenty. Above all, the NSDAP Cultural Moment [National Socialism] is a phrase that describes the last metapolitical project of our race, for the time being.

That is why it was so threatening to the status quo.

It worked, and shone so bright a light that the enemies of Mankind fled in horror, regrouped, and went on the attack against the fullest flourishing of the Western Soul ever seen.

See also the entry of this blog about rehabilitating National Socialism and Hitler that, to date, has got more than 40,000 hits (here).

"How I Saw the Light"

2011-02-18T01:06:00.004Z

Sherwood Smith on the One Ring

2011-02-18T00:34:00.005Z

Sometimes the commentariat section of the blogs contains even more interesting posts that the original article. Here I repost a slightly edited comment from a TOQ thread. The author, Sherwood Smith, called this specific section of his comment a “super point.” It resonates strongly with a featured article republished in this blog: a Jew-led corporate plutocracy, the One Ring of greed and power, as the root cause of Western malaise. Smith wrote:

Another reason for all the immigration legal and illegal is one not mentioned too often: Our whole corporate tax structure, government financing, etc is built on one principle: continued growth. Social Security, all government pensions, our tax structure, government programs are a giant Ponzi Scheme that can only exist as long as there is continued growth in population, tax revenue, additional government employees, continued expansion of government programs, etc. Well, the supporters of this ever-expanding, parasitic, scheme are the white Americans. But... white Americans have declining birth rates just like Japan, Germany, Russia, England and all other white cultures. That means the end of growing government programs, growing and expanding religious activities, growing and expanding infrastructure, or in other words, anything that is expanding from white revenue is threatened.

What is the white ruling elite’s solution? Smart people have known about these things for years! The solution is simple, flood the white countries with foreigners, any foreigners, and attempt to manage, assimilate, and train the new citizens to replace the declining white citizens. It is a race-replace—the declining white race with warm bodies from anywhere in the word so giant public corporations, giant Christian monopolies, and giant government programs can continue to exist and expand. The Black and the Mexican is being used by the White Ruling Elite to fuel the future growth and expansion.

White America is under attack from all sides. Everything that has represented white America is under attack: white man’s religion; white man’s history; white man’s accomplishments; white man’s creativity; white man’s family, etc. Consider these final thoughts:

Of lately the vast majority of the white population is constantly feed a great deal of propaganda about the threat of Islam to America. But has anyone asking these questions:

• What is the name of the organization that has removed more symbols of White Christianity from public schools, the Boy Scouts, and corporate America?

• Even though the vast majority of white Americans are opposed to making homosexual marriages legal, why are public corporations and elected officials, both controlled by the White Ruling Elite, allowing, promoting, assisting, and propping up homosexual activists?

• Why are politicians (powerful white men) refusing to enforce existing immigration laws?

• Why has Protestant Christian leadership (influential and powerful white men) abandoned what were core Christian values just 40 years ago?

• Why was the Jew considered the “son of Satan” for nearly 1960 years, but now they are a part of the “Judea-Christian” culture of America.

• Why is “holocaust denial” a crime in most Western Countries? Why is a porno, scum bag like Larry Flynt held up as a hero of freedom of speech, but Zundel and Toben are silently swept to the side and sitting in prison for exercising their freedom of speech?

• Where is the white leadership that in the past has always risen to the occasion?

• When was the last time you saw a movie, TV show, or news cast that portrayed the White Man in a positive, noble, and inspiring role?

No Revolution can come before its time, and no revolution can take place outside of a revolutionary party or organization. Lone wolfs and cell terrorists only destroy existing empires and organizations. Only a Revolutionary Party or Organization can build an empire or country.

The origins of racial nationalism in America (excerpts)

2011-02-17T21:35:00.000Z

Excerpted from a longer piece by Michael O’Meara from The Occidental Quarterly Online, originally published on May 4, 2009: “Klansmen, Irishmen, & Nativists: The Origins of Racial Nationalism in America”.

As European immigrants, native Americans, and the first Chinese made their way to California in this period [middle 1880s], so too did racial conflict—though conflict here would not be between natives and immigrants, but between Occidentals and Orientals, White against Yellow.

Standing together against the first Chinese arrivals—and to the swarming millions threatening to follow in their wake—native Americans and Irish Catholics discovered their common racial identity. In such a situation, white solidarity was paramount—which meant that, in face of the Yellow Hordes, religious differences dividing Protestant natives and Catholic immigrants in the antebellum period had to be superseded.

Accused of cheapening labor and introducing foreign elements in the East, the Irish were now welcomed into California nativist ranks—as whites facing a common threat.

Then, in the late 1870s, in a period of economic crisis, a Workingmen’s Party, led by an Irish demagogue, Denis Kearney, was formed in San Francisco. Its principal slogan was “The Chinese must go.”

The movement’s achievements were momentous.
For the first time in modern history, national legislation (to supplant the less effective immigration law of 1790) was passed to prevent non-whites from entering the United States and preventing those already within its borders from setting down roots.

Racially consciousness, populist, and at times anti-capitalist, the anti-Chinese movement of the 1870s (whose spirit, incidentally, lived on in the national-socialist novels of Jack London) succeeded in preserving the American West as a white Lebensraum. As I see it (and I see it from both from an Irish and American perspective), it represents the single greatest movement of White America.

***
The third great formative influence affecting the shape of American racial nationalism—though a step back from the anti-Chinese movement—came during the First World War. The Ku Klux Klan, which had emerged after Appomattox to defend Southern whites from Negro aggression and the Yankee military occupation, was re-organized in 1915 to address certain changes in American life. Like the European fascist movements of the interwar period, this “Second Klan” constituted a mass populist reaction to the war’s radical cultural/social dislocations. In the same period, the middle-class family came under attack. Suffragettes carried the day with the 19th Amendment, a “new women,” promoted by advertisers and by Hollywood, questioned conventional “gender” relations, divorce rates suddenly shot up, and children were increasingly exposed to anti-traditionalist influences.

On every front, then, it seemed as if small-town, rural, and middle-class White America was in retreat. But not before making a last—and, for a generation, successful—stand in its defense, for within a decade of its founding, the Klan had rallied 5 million members to its ranks, penetrating local and national power-structures as few other anti-liberal movements in US history.

To the degree the Klan was more sectarian than racial, favoring the conformist, materialist, and philistine elements in American life, it was a step back from the white consciousness of the anti-Chinese movement. In this capacity, it forced the government to close the border to immigration, it beat back the black assault on white hegemony, it let the wheeler-dealers in Washington and New York know that their “progressive policies” would not go unchallenged in the Heartland, and it acted as a moral bulwark against the permissive forces of Hollywood and Madison Avenue.

Above all, it upheld a racial standard for American existence.

***
The history of American racial nationalism, as exemplified by the Second Klan, the Chinese exclusion movement, and the early nativists, is a history whose legacy has, in the last half century, been squandered and suppressed by the elites now controlling American destinies.

Yet this is the legacy that the heirs of European-America today, if they are to survive, need to reclaim. For this history confirms them in their belief that the popular classes in America have always rejected the creedal definition of the nation; that they refused to allow their society and territory to be overrun by non-whites; and that divisive sectarian issues (between Protestants and Catholics, leftists and rightists, modernists and traditionalists, etc.) served only the interest of their enemies.

Most of all, this heritage of American ethnonationalism calls on whites today, in this era of their dispossession, to defend the racial-cultural-civilizational “nation” to which they once belonged and which, if regained, might again distinguish them from the world’s less favored races.

Trainspotter’s lesson

2011-02-14T02:51:00.024Z

Today I deleted a rude comment that an anonymous commenter posted in my previous entry about The Butler Plan:

It’s a fucking retarded plan that will never accomplish anything. White racialists need to stop thinking about controlling territory and start thinking about controlling important social institutions.

I removed it because the anonymous commenter seems to be ignorant that (1) without an ethno-state whites will continue to mix and mix and mix until they virtually dissapear in the melting pot (as happened in Mexico half a millenium after the Spanish Conquest), and (2) ignorant also of the content of the longest entry of this blog, where the belief that “activism” or “a march through the institutions” for the purpose of controlling them was proven quixotic.

Last year Trainspotter (penname) gave us a superb lesson at the comments section of the nationalist site Occidental Dissent. Although Trainspotter had to use more than 30,000 words to convey his point to the OD commentariat, he himself boiled down the crux of his argument to a mere 390 words.

The following abstract of that long-winded entry explains why “controlling important social institutions” to form an ethno-state and thus save Caucasians goes beyond the pale for the current zeitgeist; and why, I would add, we must look for more unconventional ways to avoid extinction (such as The Butler Plan).

Trainspotter wrote:

1. There are well over 100 million non-whites in this country [the U.S.]. Expelling them would be an enormous task, requiring tremendous strife and tears. Normal, sentient human beings understand this. People do not take drastic steps unless they are convinced that they are necessary. They will exhaust other alternatives first. This is normal and natural.

2. Even if you say, “Well, fine, we won’t expel 100 millions non-whites from the country. We’ll break away and form our own country instead, where not nearly so many people will be affected” [this is the Butler Plan]. Doesn’t matter. Functionally, it’s the same as option 1. As long as ZOG is powerful, it’s not letting us go peacefully, no matter what. We aren’t allowed to have an all white pizza parlor, much less an all white nation. As long as ZOG is strong, it would take enormous suffering and pain to create an all-white homeland, even a small one. We can focus on fairness, and try to create a homeland where it will displace the fewest people. Doesn’t matter. Our opponents aren’t interested in fairness. They want us dead.

So we’re back to struggle and strife, tears and suffering. Normal whites understand this, at least implicitly. They know the System would do whatever it could to destroy us, and that this would be true no matter how reasonable our proposals. See again point number 1: People do not take drastic steps unless they are convinced that they are necessary. They will exhaust other alternatives first. This is normal and natural. In the only context that they know, any effort to save whites from destruction would be considered drastic.

3. As the result of the above, white nationalists appear to normal people to be offering a solution that will end in nothing but tears. It doesn’t even matter what the particular solution is: normal whites know that the System will oppose us no matter what. I’m shocked, shocked that more don’t sign up [doing quixotic activism — sarcasm]. Truly amazing.

In short, you can’t offer a drastic solution without first convincing significant numbers/elements that it is necessary, that more moderate solutions won’t work. So what do you advocate, Hunter? Don’t convince anybody, intellectuals are a waste of time.

Sounds like a winning formula to me. Anyone that doesn’t understand the above points is beyond hope, and should switch over to World of Warcraft post-haste.

The Butler Plan

2011-02-12T20:32:00.012Z

The late Reverend
Richard Girnt Butler

Excerpted from a longer article from the Northwest Front. The interpolation of the video was my own arbitrary inclusion to this piece authored by Harold Covington. No ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs:

Introduction

The White racial nationalist movement has completely wasted the past fifty years. It therefore is now no longer possible for the Aryan race to recapture the North American continent in its entirety. The only remaining option to secure the existence of our people and a future for White children is for the remnant of the racially conscious population of North America to relocate to the Pacific Northwest and establish our own sovereign nation.

What is at stake here is our survival as a race. There is no longer any alternative to the Northwest Migration plan. If this is not done, then the Aryan race will perish from the North American continent and most likely from the rest of the earth as well, since there will be no safe and racially homogenous haven in that our people may rest, regroup, and replenish our numbers.

It is necessary to reduce the racial survival problem to manageable proportions, shrink it to dimensions wherein we can concentrate what few remaining resources we have into a smaller area.

Once in the Pacific Northwest, the incoming White refugees must engage in a vigorous and dynamic program of political action, propaganda and educational activity. Eventually there must be direct action to remove as much of the territory of the Northwest as possible from the jurisdiction and control of the United States and subsequently create an independent Aryan republic. This Republic will be restricted to persons of unmixed European, non-Semitic, Caucasian racial ancestry, and no non-White will be allowed to reside there under any circumstances.

If this is not done, then the White race will become extinct in North America by the year 2100. The consequences of such an extinction for human civilization and for the planet upon that we live would be horrific beyond the power of the imagination to encompass. Racial survival for Aryan man must override all considerations of personal welfare, personal agenda, physical safety, legality or individual interest. We have a job to do, assigned to us by history, and we must devote the remainder of our lives to it.

The Homeland. The proposed White Homeland consists of a core territory of Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and the western part of Montana with Interstate 15 being the approximate eastern border. Like a newlywed couple with big plans for the future, we need to build our house large and with many rooms, that we may fill it with children.

Homeland Totals. Nine million White people is a lot of people, but with hard propaganda work by an active and fanatically dedicated minority, enough of them can be convinced to join us to provide local bases for incoming settlement. Contrast that to trying to work around a population of almost 300 million people, in many places the majority non-White, on a continent this size wherein we are totally and utterly powerless and scattered to the four winds.

This is the primary advantage to the Northwest concept, as opposed to the collective illusion we have harbored for half a century, that through some unfathomable means no one ever seems able to explain, we will somehow win back the whole North American continent all at once and cause millions of non-Whites simply to vanish in a puff of smoke without any effort and certainly without the mass bloodshed such a project would in fact involve. The present status quo means racial death, and things have reached the point where any effort to preserve the present status quo is tantamount to racial treason.

The Four Phase Plan

The Butler Plan consists of four broad aspects or phases involving the creation, the buildup, and the operation of the Northwest Front.

Phase One: Relocation of the better elements of the existing racially conscious White community to the Homeland

It should be emphasized that at the present time, the Party is unable to provide accommodation for Incomers, and this situation is unlikely to change at any time in the foreseeable future. People who Come Home to the Northwest must do so like the old Western pioneers, completely off their own bat and on their own dime.

The Scouting Trip. It is vitally necessary that prospective White migrants to the Northwest make at least one preliminary visit or scouting trip to the Homeland before they make the permanent move.

This project must be implemented by and for responsible adults who know what they are doing. We are not seeking to run away into the north woods and hide in a log cabin. We are seeking to build a new nation. The realities of 21st century life dictate that our movement be based where the White people are. In the Northwest that means about two dozen metropolitan areas. Eventually the Northwest racial community can establish facilities in the countryside.

Phase Two: The formation of the Northwest Front as a fighting revolutionary Party

The native-born Northwesterners genuinely do not understand what multiculturalism and diversity means. We must not engage in bizarre and dysfunctional behaviors, or display any outward physical appearance that will allow the established order to portray us to the native born as “the Other.” The shaven heads and the tattoos and the petty hooliganism of the Skinhead scene must henceforth be kept away from the Northwest. The local people where we settle must understand that we are fellow Americans and people like themselves, not the Other whom it is socially acceptable to stone. At the same time they must understand that we are here, we are here to stay, that more of us are coming, and that we will not be stopped.

Phase Three: The insertion of the Party into actual politics, and the creation of a bona fide political movement for Northwest independence

A revolution cannot succeed in the absence of the Revolutionary Tripod, the three conditions without that true change cannot take place. Let us review these three essential conditions for change again:

1. There must be a bona fide revolutionary movement, devoted to seizing state power directly from the hands of the existing power structure. Not conservative, not reformist, not willing to work within the existing system, but dedicated to its destruction. This is the Northwest Front.

2. There must be withdrawal of the consent of the governed, wherein a majority of the people in a country or territory no longer wishes to be ruled by the existing power structure and desire change. Not just any change, but specifically that power is assumed by the revolutionary movement, in this case the NF.

3. There must be loss of the credible monopoly of armed force by the state. Acts of insurrection and guerrilla warfare must take place, actual and serious physical damage must be inflicted on the enemy, and no one must be caught or punished for these acts. This condition is necessary to force the power structure into repression and acts of atrocity and retaliation against the general population in their frustration at being unable to locate and apprehend the real guerrillas.

* * *
Our long-term goal is to present the government of the United States with a situation whereby the struggle to retain the Northwest becomes politically and financially insupportable, and letting the Homeland go is the lesser of two evils from their point of view. This is the way in that all colonial wars are won, and in order to win we must reduce our racial struggle to the status of a colonial war wherein writing off X amount of territory is an option for the occupying power, should it become expedient.

It is impossible for us to imagine such a situation at this time, given the apparently ironclad, permanent grip that the federal government exerts on all aspects of our lives. But we are not talking about doing anything within the context of today. We are talking about the future, when a Soviet-style break-up of the United States into separate racial, ethnic, and interest groups is historically bound to occur. Nothing lasts forever, and the current order will not last forever either.

We must prepare for the time to come, when all of this is more than just paper fantasy, when the political and economic realities make our victory a possibility if we are ready to seize it. It will take many years and require a big assist from economic and political developments within the New World Order to create this tripod in the Pacific Northwest. But it will happen eventually. We need to have the Northwest Front slim and trim and ready to break out at a moment’s notice if needed.

Phase Four: The seizure of state power through the creation of the Northwest American Republic in the power vacuum created by the collapse of the United States

There can be little doubt that the United States will eventually undergo a Soviet-style breakdown of centralized power, and lose the ability to enforce its will throughout the continent. This will transmute into direct action to free our Homeland from the iron heel of the federal government.

We must utilize our human resources to the max. One of the things our forebears had to understand in order to survive was economic self-sufficiency. We must bring to the Northwest serious, adult men and women who are coming to build a new nation, not drink beer and scream “White Power!” and show off their tattoos. Young people especially who are contemplating the Homeland must be encouraged to stay in school and learn an economically viable trade, so that when they immigrate to the Northwest they don’t just say, “Hi, I am a White racist.” They must be able walk into a community and say, “Hello, my name is Joe, and I am a computer software designer, or a skilled auto mechanic, or a master electrician, or a nurse, or I can fix your copy machine, or I can fly your helicopter, or I can bake bread…”

The Name: The name of the state we propose to create shall be Northwest American Republic (NAR)

In politics, perception is everything. It is bad propaganda to confront people, on their initial contact, with ideas, concepts, terms and symbols that require an immediate, long and abstruse explanation. Esoteric terms like Cascadia, Arya, etc. should be avoided as well. They sound odd, and we are going to have trouble enough overcoming our image problem as things stand.

The Flag

Mr. Covington has made an arbitrary decision on the way things will be done in the matter of the NAR flag, based upon his experience in Ireland. It is a simple, dignified tricolor design with no controversial symbols, or anything requiring more than the simplest symbolic explanation.

The flag of the new nation will be our rallying point. It must be displayed, distributed, and publicized the world over until it becomes known as the modern day equivalent of the Confederate Battle Flag and the Hakenkreuzfahne as a generally recognized symbol of Aryan hope and courage in the face of racial death.

Esau’s Tears: Excerpts of chapter 12

2011-02-12T03:44:00.006Z

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 12: World War I

The Beginning of Disillusionment in the West

It was at the front, of course, that the most horrendous price was paid. Single battles saw hundreds of thousands young men massacred and large areas turned into moon landscapes. The battles of 1916, particularly at the Somme and Verdun, by far exceeded in senseless death and destruction anything known in the annals of warfare. Those clashes, which were finally indecisive in military terms, induced even some of the most patriotic to question how much longer a war of this sort could continue.

One cannot help but be impressed with the far-ranging ways in which fears and resentments were finding focus in anti-Semitism: Jews as shirkers at the front; Jews as weak-kneed parliamentarians and pacifist press lords; Jews as capitalists making money from the war; Jews as all-powerful and self-serving bureaucrats in the government; Jews as treacherous revolutionaries; even Jews as rank-and-file workers who were especially prone to destructive radicalism. The old anti-Semitic refrain—“the Jew is everywhere”—gained unparalleled plausibility in Germany and began to attract a larger part of the population than even before.

The Peace Settlement

Civilian control of the military prevailed in both France and Great Britain, and in neither country was the tendency to point an accusing finger at Jews as in Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia.

In Great Britain the Jewish World commented, in response to an anti-Semitic exchange in the columns of the London Times, that Jews faced “the beginning of a new and evil era. We cannot say any more that there is no anti-Semitism in the country that loved the Bible above everything.”

The Polish overlords and neighbors of the Jews in Galicia had hardly been free of anti-Semitism before the war, but the empire’s constitution protected Jews, and mutually beneficial political arrangements had been worked out, encouraging a degree of Polish toleration. These fell apart under the hammer blows of the war, and the non-Jewish population began to blame the Jews, natural targets given their central role in local commerce, for the shortages, high prices, and generally catastrophic economic conditions of the time.

To the east, in the chaos and moral anarchy of the Russian civil war, conditions were far worse for a longer period. The Red Army of the new Bolshevik regime faced not only the reactionary Whites but also anarchist forces and the rag-tag armies of various nationalities that hoped to gain independence. The White armies were particularly prone to anti-Semitism, since they believed the Soviet regime was ruled by Jews and assumed that Jews, even traditional ones, were sympathetic to the Bolsheviks. Such beliefs became all the stronger when a pro-Bolshevik soviet regime took over in Budapest in March 1919 led by a communist council of people’s commissars that was in fact composed entirely of Jews.

The entry of the United States, in the spring of 1917, gradually tipped the balance in favor of France and Great Britain. That victory was finally achieved in the autumn of 1918 after internal upheavals in Germany brought to the fore those who were willing to negotiate a peace.

For the anti-Semitic right in German-speaking central Europe, America’s alliance with the French and the English meshed into a by now well-established image of Jewish-controlled powers that were conspiring to destroy Germany. The prewar assertion by men like Treitschke, Langbehn, and Chamberlain that the English and the Americans were shallow, commercial minded and materialistic—Jewish in spirit—was now made even more adamantly. Chamberlain, in a letter to Wilhelm II, wrote that “England has fallen totally into the hands of the Jews and the Americans. This war is in the deepest sense the war of Jewry [Judentum] and its near relative, Americanism, for the control of the world.”

When the Germans agreed to an armistice, they thought that it could be in accordance with Wilson’s Fourteen Points. They were tragically mistaken.

The Paris Peace conference that gathered in early 1919 oversaw the redrawing of the map of most Europe and large parts of the rest of the world. The Jewish Question was on the agenda at Paris, one of a large number of nettlesome issues, seemingly impossible to resolve in a way that would be just to all concerned. The German quickly labeled it a “Jewish peace,” not only because they believed it vindictive, which it unquestionably was, but because they were persuaded that it meant even greater Jewish power in the postwar world.

Again, their fantasy world found much in the real world to nourish it. Even many of those who were not notably anti-Semitic viewed the peace settlement as part of a titanic struggle between German and Anglo-American values. Germans saw themselves as an idealist, disciplined, self-sacrificing people facing peoples devoted to shallow liberalism and egotism. Those Germans who had put faith in Wilson’s points believed themselves cynically betrayed. In their eyes, the final “dictated peace” (Diktat) was an act of unspeakable perfidy. A number of smaller adjustments favoring Germany’s neighbors only added to the sense of impotent outrage in Germany. The worst outrage on the eyes of many Germans was the huge reparation payments with which they were saddled.

Most Germans concluded that these measures were designed not only to punish but to ultimately destroy their country. Enormous debate emerged at the time and for many years afterward about the wisdom and justice of these draconian arrangements. Those Germans leaders who eventually agreed to work within the terms of the treaty did so not because they accepted them as reasonable but because they finally saw no realistic alternative.

The weakness of Hungary in defeat made possible the temporary victory of a communist takeover; no other political tendency was willing to assume responsibility. That the soon notorious communist dictator of Hungary, Bela Kun, and all the commissars of the short-lived soviet republic were Jews helped to bring about a sharp change in the climate of opinion in Hungary. From being a country whose elites recognized the usefulness of Jews, it became one in which Jews were widely seen as destroyers. The virulence of Magyar anti-Semitism soon came to rival that in other parts of east-central Europe.

Most of the new countries to emerge from the collapse of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires had sizable Jewish populations, and the new leaders of these countries were required by the Allies to accept so-called minority clauses. The clauses, attached to the various treaties establishing the new countries, not only stipulated that civil equality be given to minorities, long an issue in official relations with the state, such as courts of law. Furthermore, the state was obliged to support separate primary schools for the minorities in their own languages.

The manner in which the minority clauses were imposed lent itself to a belief in international Jewish power. The minorities in question, Jews in particular but also large numbers of Germans and Magyars, worried about their fate in the new nations. The dominant nationalities in the new countries, on the other hand, angrily objected that sovereign states could not accept or long tolerate impositions and prescriptions from outsiders. Many of the leaders of the new nations saw the minority clauses as providing a way for the Jews to be able to continue in their prewar economic prevalence—or even to exercise a behind-the-scenes domination of the new countries—whereas Jews saw the clauses as absolutely necessary protection, as did other minorities.

American and British Jews at the Peace Conference played a key role in the formulation of the terms of the minority clauses. As one author put it, “such distinguished Jewish spokesmen as Louis Marshall, Stephen Wise, and Julian Mack laid siege to Allied plenipotentiaries” and were “in continual contact with President Wilson and Colonel House.” Another scholar has observed that the British activist Lucien Wolf had established an “intimate relationship” with Jacques Bigart, the secretary of the Alliance Israelite Universalle, and “essentially fused the policies of Anglo-French Jewry during and after the First World War.”

Most of the representatives of the new nations considered the American and British Jews to be their enemies. In the eyes of those representatives, the minority clauses imposed or perpetuated autonomous enclaves of foreign peoples on them of a sort that would not have been acceptable to Wilson or other major American politician in their own country, or by the leaders of the other Allied countries.

Well-placed Jews in America, Great Britain, and France believed that they had an obligation, now even more than before the war, to defend Jews in eastern and central Europe, even if those well-placed Jews also differed vehemently among themselves about the notion of Jewish nationalism as such.

The issue was much like that already discussed in regard to Romania: The leaders of the new nations wanted to develop their own national middle class, and they did not want that class to be predominantly Jewish, especially if the Jews in question did not speak the national language or identify with the national culture. Jews also understandably tried to hold on to the social and economic positions they had established in countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia.

The Balfour Declaration and the Palestinian Mandate

The Peace Conference dealt with many issues, including carving up the defunct Turkish Empire, which had profound implications for the Jewish Question in Europe, in that it opened up a possible fulfillment of the Zionist dream, the establishment of a national home for Jews in Palestine. The story of the genesis of the Balfour Declaration, in which Great Britain officially favored the establishment of such a home under British protection, is an improbable, even astonishing one. Some have presented the Balfour Declaration and the eventual establishment of a modern Jewish state as a modern miracle; others have seen the emergence and survival of the state of Israel as evidence of how the power of Jews, operating in the corridors of power in Europe and America, has been able to achieve things that defy all probability—and justice.

Churchill and others argued that Jewish financial clout and the control of the news media by Jews were compelling reasons to have them on Great Britain’s side. Churchill was particularly concerned to rally American Jews. Other British leaders worried about the reaction of the indigenous Arab population in Palestine, and those who knew something about the population warned that British support for a Jewish national home in Palestine risked permanently alienating the Arab world, with disturbing long-term implications for British national interest.

Balfour was an enigmatic personality, impressing many of those he met as cynical and remote. In spite of his distaste for the great masses of eastern Jewry, he considered the Jews as a “gifted race,” and he spoke of an “immeasurable debt” owed to them by Christianity. Many scholars have concluded that he, more than any other British politicians, was moved by religious sentiment and a related doctrinaire attachment to Zionist ideals. However much that was the case, he was a man who, once having committed himself, pursued a project with an iron will, proving to be Weizmann’s most important Gentile convert to the Zionist cause.

In a letter published in the London Times on May 24, 1917, the presidents predicted that a Jewish homeland in Palestine would be a “calamity.” It would be a dangerous violation of the principle of equal rights if Jews in Palestine were to get special political privileges and economic preferences. Prophetically, the letter warned that the result would be endless, bitter warfare with the Arabs of the region.

The term “window of opportunity” has nowhere been more appropriate for a declaration of this sort could never have been made before a short period in 1917, and certainly at no time afterward. Wilsonian principles were ignored: The overwhelming Arab majority in Palestine at the end of the war (Jews constituted at most a quarter of the population) was simply not given the same consideration.

A declaration by the British foreign minister in favor of a Jewish national home did not automatically make such a home acceptable to the rest of the world. In 1917 most countries were distracted by more pressing issues. News of the Balfour Declaration shared headlines on November 8 with the announcement of the Bolshevik victory in Petrograd. In the midst of raging war and revolution, the declaration simply did not get the scrutiny it deserved. It was at any rate a political document of the British government, not a legal one based on international consensus, appropriate deliberation, and due process.

The vagueness of the declaration also accounts for the degree to which it was not much discussed. The French were particularly distracted at this time, in that they were losing their Russian ally and about to face another concentrated onslaught of the German army; they understandably did not devote much attention or energy to the Middle East.

What the European powers or Great Britain had to say about the future of Palestine was not considered binding by the Arabs of the region, who had not been consulted—indeed, who felt cynically misused and betrayed, not unlike the Germans in reaction to the Versailles Treaty. They soon began to mobilize in violent opposition to Jewish settlement, which they saw as a form of European imperialism.

They also began to pick up some of the baggage of modern European anti-Semitism. Already by early 1919 Arab leaflets were comparing Jews to poisonous snakes. No nation, it was asserted in them, had ever welcomed or long tolerated Jews, and the Palestinian Arabs would fight to prevent Europeans from solving their problems at the expense of the Arabs—dumping unwanted Jews from Europe into Palestine. These words uncomfortably recalled Herzl’s own searing and widely quoted remarks that “we move where we are not persecuted; our appearance then leads to persecution. This is a fact and is bound to remain a fact everywhere.”

Many in the British military administration of the region sympathized with the Arab majority. They also viewed the Jews as “refuse” from Europe, economic parasites and communist revolutionaries.

Churchill’s comments in 1919: “We are pledged to introduce the Jews into Palestine, and they take it for granted that the local population will be cleared out to suit their convenience.”

As suggested in the Preface, it would be grotesque to argue that the hostility of the Arabs, this “anti-Semitism” by “Semites,” was mysterious, having to do only with their own psychic problems and not at all with Jewish actions. One might argue that the Arabs made many mistakes, had poor leadership, and showed many moral flaws. That they picked up some of the crudest anti-Semitic myths developed in Christendom is hardly to their credit. But an irreducible reality remains: They were not treated with fairness, and their resentments were understandable, indeed predictable.

At the same time, another bold experiment, which might be described as an utterly contrasting attempt to resolve the Jewish Question, had begun in Russia.

_______________

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

Two metaphors

2011-02-10T04:29:00.031Z

Hunter Wallace (not his real name) has been harping on for months against the vanguards. But what is exactly the difference between the two competing currents in American white nationalism? In Occidental Dissent Wallace recently wrote:

“Mainstreamers” believe the White majority is sympathetic to our beliefs and that we should work through the system to connect with a mass audience and confront our enemies in a lawful manner.

“Vanguardists” believe that the White majority are “lemmings” who dance to whatever tune is played by an elite cabal of string pullers in the mass media. They believe in rejecting the system and forming a “hardcore nucleus” of true believers who will rise to power in the aftermath of the collapse.

I don’t see the white majority exactly as lemmings. I myself was a liberal as early as 2008 and did not metamorphose from lemming to vanguardist miraculously. It was the right sort of information what changed my mind.

Just one example. Before I became familiar with nationalist literature, the media and the academia had brainwashed me by omitting the fact that, in the century when I was born, the Jew Yagoda murdered more innocent civilians than Himmler himself. It goes without saying that, if the man I was before 2009 had gotten the historical facts straight, I would have never embraced liberalism in the first place. My educated guess is that the same could be said about the masses, as Hitler himself had pointed out about the treasonous press before his troops invaded Yagoda’s lands.

I must confess that, before my 2009/2010 transformation, I had written against Hitler and the Nazis in Spanish. Had a fortune-teller told the person I was that he would be posting entries of Mein Kampf my old self would surely have responded that the teller must be nuts. But if I woke up from the matrix of political correctness other Caucasians can do the same (I am no Übermensch). That’s why I don’t see every non-awakened white necessarily as a lemming. Like my previous self, they have been thoroughly brainwashed as well.

I would respond to the commenters at Occidental Dissent by means of a metaphor. The apparent failure of the American nationalist movement is not the fault of the “vanguardists,” as Wallace claims. It’s basically due to the primordial stage of the movement (well: strictly speaking, it’s not a movement yet). Like a tiny gaseous sphere already leaving the cradle of the nebulae, white nationalism is accumulating more and more mass that is forming a center of higher density to form a protostar. When enough pressure in the interior rises—when a considerable mass of whites wake up and work together—, it will increase the density and temperature until the gas turns to plasma. Only then a nuclear fusion will be initiated at the core—whether a vanguardist revolution or a legal pro-white election—and the new star of white nationalism will be born in the Occidental heavens.

Bok globules look like a placental stage previous to actual existence of the baby star. What prevents nationalists from attracting, by the sheer force of their gravity, increasingly more spiraling mass (see linked image), without which no revolution or pro-white election is possible?

Many years ago my (now late) uncle Julius gave me a gift: a translation of The Medusa and the Snail: More Notes of a Biology Watcher. The author, Lewis Thomas, shows how a particular medusa and snail in the Sea of Naples interact with each other in a pretty disturbing way. The medusa is affixed to the mouth of the snail and apparently gets a free lunch. But there is no free lunch. When the slug produces larvae, they become entrapped in the tentacles of the medusa. At first it looks like the medusa is a parasite. But no. The slug larvae eats away the medusa’s tentacles and with time the medusa shrinks and shrinks in size. The slug grows until a new equilibrium is reached, attached with what remains of the medusa: a motionless, though alive, degenerate entity.

This extremely bizarre cycle reminds me the words of the Brussels Journal’s founder in an interview about what he believes is the etiology of the Europeans’ nihilism before the Islamization and Africanization of Europe. Paul Beliën places the blame on the welfare state, which motto for the white population seems to be: “Vote for us and you’ll get free lunches.”

Are the westerners lemmings? Perhaps they’re better depicted as medusas of the Sea of Naples, both Europeans and Americans alike. They have tragically lost their awesome majesty in the sea by selling their souls and bodies to a system that provides them with an unending flow of panem et circenses like no civilization had done before. And as long as the flow of goods continues unabated, the westerners won’t wake up and save what remains of their extremities that once made them so beautifully free in the marine world.

No wonder why, in his novel, William Pierce had its revolutionary vanguardists sabotaging the flow of goods in the United States as a desperate measure to tear the degenerate men and women out of the snail’s devouring mouth.

Will white man’s sword be reforged?

2011-02-09T21:09:00.006Z

Excerpted from a longer
book-review by Michael O’Meara of
Histoire et tradition des européennes (2002)
by Dominique Venner:

In Venner’s view, the European of history is best seen as a warrior bearing a sword, symbol of his will. The virtù of this warrior is affirmed every time he imposes his cosmos (order) upon a world whose only order is that which he himself gives it. History, thus, is no immobilizing determinism, but a theater of the will, upon whose stage the great men of our people exert themselves. Both as intellectual discipline and individual act of will, it seems hardly coincidental that history is Europe’s preeminent art form.

In Defense of Who We Are

Like history, life has no beginning or end, being a process of struggle, an overcoming of obstacles, a combat, in which the actor’s will is pivotal. While it inexorably ends in death and destruction, from its challenges all our greatness flows. The Hellenes entered history by refusing to be slaves. Bearing their sword against an Asiatic foe, they won the right to be who they were. If a single theme animates Venner’s treatment of Europe’s history and tradition, it is that Europeans surmounted the endless challenges to their existence only because they faced them with sword in hand—forthrightly, with the knowledge that this was not just part of the human condition, but the way to prove that they were worthy of their fate. Thus, as classical Greece rose in struggle against the Persians, the Romans against the Carthaginians, medieval and early modern Europe against Arabic, then Turkish, Islam, we too today have to stand on our borders, with sword in hand, to earn the right to be ourselves.

Europeans, Venner concludes, must look to their history and tradition—especially to the honor, heroism, and heritage Homer immortalized—to rediscover themselves. Otherwise, all that seeks the suppression of their spirit and the extinction of their blood will sweep them aside. The question thus looms: In the ethnocidal clash between the reigning nihilism and the white men of the West, who will prevail? From Venner’s extraordinary book, in which the historian turns from the drama of the event to the scene of our longue durée, we are led to believe that this question will be answered in our favor only if we remain true to who we are, to what our forefathers have made of us, and to what Francis Parker Yockey, in the bleak years following the Second World War, called the primacy of the spirit.

__________________

First published in The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 4, no. 2, Summer 2004.

Mein Kampf: excerpted from vol. I chapter 10

2011-02-09T18:33:00.005Z

Western men have become brainless sheep. They bleat how they’re told. Even for those white nationalists who are beginning to awaken to the realities of this age of treason, the name of Adolf Hitler rings a giant Pavlovian bell. But once we defrock ourselves from the sheep Hitler’s words become more commonsensical than what we expected... This translation of the unexpurgated edition of Mein Kampf was first published on March 21st, 1939 (no ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs):

Chapter “Why the Second Reich Collapsed”

The depth of a fall is always measured by the difference between the level of the original position from which a body has fallen and that in which it is now found. The same holds good for Nations and States. The matter of greatest importance here is the height of the original level, or rather the greatest height that had been attained before the descent began. For only the profound decline or collapse of that which was capable of reaching extraordinary heights can make a striking impression on the eye of the beholder. The collapse of the Second Reich was all the more bewildering for those who could ponder over it and feel the effect of it in their hearts, because the Reich had fallen from a height which can hardly be imagined in these days of misery and humiliation.

But the downfall of the Second Empire and the German people has been so profound that they all seem to have been struck dumbfounded and rendered incapable of feeling the significance of this downfall or reflecting on it.

The symptoms of future collapse were definitely to be perceived in those earlier days, although very few made any attempt to draw a practical lesson from their significance. But this is now a greater necessity than it ever was before. For just as bodily ailments can be cured only when their origin has been diagnosed, so also political disease can be treated only when it has been diagnosed.

It is obvious of course that the external symptoms of any disease can be more readily detected than its internal causes, for these symptoms strike the eye more easily. This is also the reason why so many people recognize only external effects and mistake them for causes. Indeed they will sometimes try to deny the existence of such causes. And that is why the majority of people among us recognize the German collapse only in the prevailing economic distress and the results that have followed therefrom. Almost everyone has to carry his share of this burden, and that is why each one looks on the economic catastrophe as the cause of the present deplorable state of affairs. The broad masses of the people see little of the cultural, political, and moral background of this collapse. Many of them completely lack both the necessary feeling and powers of understanding for it. That the masses of the people should thus estimate the causes of Germany’s downfall is quite understandable. But the fact that intelligent sections of the community regard the German collapse primarily as an economic catastrophe, and consequently think that a cure for it may be found in an economic solution, seems to me to be the reason why hitherto no improvement has been brought about. No improvement can be brought about until it be understood that economics play only a second or third role, while the main part is played by political, moral and racial factors. Only when this is understood will it be possible to understand the causes of the present evil and consequently to find the ways and means of remedying them.

We may regard it as a great stroke of fortune for the German nation that its period of lingering suffering was so suddenly curtailed and transformed into such a terrible catastrophe. For if things had gone on as they were the nation would have more slowly, but more surely, gone to ruin. The disease would have become chronic; whereas, in the acute form of the disaster, it at least showed itself clearly to the eyes of a considerable number of observers. It was not by accident that man conquered the black plague more easily than he conquered tuberculosis. The first appeared in terrifying waves of death that shook the whole of mankind, the other advances insidiously; the first induces terror, the other gradual indifference. The result is, however, that men opposed the first with all the energy they were capable of, whilst they try to arrest tuberculosis by feeble means.

* * *
In proportion to the extent that commerce assumed definite control of the State, money became more and more of a God whom all had to serve and bow down to. Heavenly Gods became more and more old-fashioned and were laid away in the corners to make room for the worship of Mammon.

A serious state of economic disruption was being brought about by the slow elimination of the personal control of vested interests and the gradual transference of the whole economic structure into the hands of joint stock companies. In this way labour became degraded into an object of speculation in the hands of unscrupulous exploiters. The de-personalization of property ownership increased on a vast scale. Financial exchange circles began to triumph and made slow but sure progress in assuming control of the whole of national life. Before the War the internationalization of the German economic structure had already begun by the roundabout way of share issues. It is true that a section of the German industrialists made a determined attempt to avert the danger, but in the end they gave way before the united attacks of money-grabbing capitalism, which was assisted in this fight by its faithful henchmen in the Marxist movement.

* * *
In journalistic circles it is a pleasing custom to speak of the Press as a ‘Great Power’ within the State. As a matter of fact its importance is immense. One cannot easily overestimate it, for the Press continues the work of education even in adult life. Generally, readers of the Press can be classified into three groups: First, those who believe everything they read; Second, those who no longer believe anything; Third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments accordingly. Numerically, the first group is by far the strongest. For after all they constitute the broad masses of a nation. But, somehow they are not in a position or are not willing personally to sift what is being served up to them; so that their whole attitude towards daily problems is almost solely the result of extraneous influence. This can be advantageous when their enlightenment is provided by a serious and truth-loving party, but great harm is done when scoundrels and liars take a hand at this work.

It is an all-important interest of the State and a national duty to prevent these people from falling into the hands of false, ignorant or even evil-minded teachers. Therefore it is the duty of the State to supervise their education and prevent every form of offence in this respect. Particular attention should be paid to the Press.

What food did the German Press served up for the consumption of its readers in pre-War days? Was it not the worst virulent poison imaginable? Was not pacifism in its worst form inoculated into our people at a time when others were preparing slowly but surely to pounce upon Germany? Was it not the German Press that understood how to make all the nonsensical talk about ‘Western democracy’ palatable to our people, until an exuberant public was eventually prepared to entrust its future to the League of Nations? Was not this Press instrumental in bringing in a state of moral degradation among our people? Were not morals and public decency made to look ridiculous and classed as out-of-date and banal, until finally our people also became modernized? Did not the Press oppose with all its might every movement to give the State that which belongs to the State, and by means of constant criticism, injure the reputation of the army, sabotage general conscription and demand refusal of military credits, etc. —until the success of this campaign was assured? To them the spreading of falsehood is as much a vital necessity as the mouse is to a cat. Their sole task is to break the national backbone of the people, thus preparing the nation to become the slaves of international finance and its masters, the Jews. And what measures did the State take to counteract this wholesale poisoning of the public mind? None, absolutely nothing at all.

The reason for this ignominious failure on the part of the State lay not so much in its refusal to realize the danger as in the out-and-out cowardly way of meeting the situation by the adoption of faulty and ineffective measures. No one had the courage to employ any energetic and radical methods. Everyone temporised in some way or other; and instead of striking at its heart, the viper was only further irritated.

It must be admitted that all this was partly the result of extraordinary crafty tactics on the part of Jewry on the one hand, and obvious official stupidity or naïveté on the other hand. The Jews were too clever to allow a simultaneous attack to be made on the whole of their Press. No one section functioned as cover for the other. While the Marxist newspaper, in the most despicable manner possible, reviled everything that was sacred, furiously attacked the State and Government and incited certain classes of the community against each other, the bourgeois-democratic papers, also in Jewish hands, knew how to camouflage themselves as model examples of objectivity. They studiously avoided harsh language, knowing well that block-heads are capable of judging only by external appearances and never able to penetrate to the real depth and meaning of anything. They measure the worth of an object by its exterior and not by its content. This form of human frailty was carefully studied and understood by the Press. Hence the authorities are very slow indeed to take any steps against these journalistic bandits for fear of immediately alienating the sympathy of the so-called respectable Press. A fear that is only too well founded, for the moment any attempt is made to proceed against any member of the gutter press all the others rush to its assistance at once, not indeed to support its policy but simply and solely to defend the principle of freedom of the Press and liberty of public opinion.

And so this poison was allowed to enter the national bloodstream and infect public life without the Government taking any effectual measures to master the course of the disease. The ridiculous half-measures that were taken were in themselves an indication of the process of disintegration that was already threatening to break up the Empire. For an institution practically surrenders its existence when it is no longer determined to defend itself with all the weapons at its command. Certainly in days to come the Jews will raise a tremendous cry throughout their newspapers once a hand is laid on their favourite nest, once a move is made to put an end to this scandalous Press and once this instrument which shapes public opinion is brought under State control and no longer left in the hands of aliens and enemies of the people.

* * *

A further example of the weak and hesitating way in which vital national problems were dealt with in pre-War Germany is the case of syphilis, especially the attitude of the State and public bodies was one of absolute capitulation. Here again the only course to adopt is to attack the disease in its causes rather than in its symptoms. But in this case the primary cause is to be found in the manner in which love has been prostituted. Even though this did not directly bring about the fearful disease itself, the nation must still suffer serious damage thereby, for the moral havoc resulting from this prostitution would be sufficient to bring about the destruction of the nation, slowly but surely. This Judaizing of our spiritual life and Mammonizing of our natural instinct for procreation will sooner or later work havoc with our whole posterity.

Here, as elsewhere, one may defy Nature for a certain period of time; but sooner or later she will take her inexorable revenge. And when man realizes this truth it is often too late. These unpleasant truths are hastily and nonchalantly brushed aside, as if by so doing the real state of affairs could also be abolished. But no. It cannot be denied that the population of our great towns and cities is tending more and more to avail of prostitution in the exercise of its amorous instincts and is thus becoming more and more contaminated by the scourge of venereal disease.

But the important question that arises here is: Which nation will be the first to take the initiative in mastering this scourge, and which nations will succumb to it? This will be the final upshot of the whole situation. The present is a period of probation for racial values. The race that fails to come through the test will simply die out and its place will be taken by the healthier and stronger races, which will be able to endure greater hardships. As this problem primarily concerns posterity, it belongs to that category of which it is said with terrible justification that the sins of the fathers are visited on their offspring unto the tenth generation. This is a consequence which follows on an infringement of the laws of blood and race. The sin against blood and race is the hereditary sin in this world and it brings disaster on every nation that commits it. The attitude towards this one vital problem in pre-War Germany was most regrettable. What measures were undertaken to arrest the infection of our youth in the large cities? What was done to put an end to the contamination and Mammonization of sexual life among us?

Does our duty to posterity no longer play any part? Or do people not realize the nature of the curse they are inflicting on themselves and their offspring by such criminally foolish neglect of one of the primary laws of Nature? This is how civilized nations degenerate and gradually perish. Marriage is not an end in itself but must serve the greater end, which is that of increasing and maintaining the human species and the race. This is its only meaning and purpose.

There is no such thing as allowing freedom of choice to sin against posterity and thus against the race. The fight against pollution of the mind must be waged simultaneously with the training of the body.

To-day the whole of our public life may be compared to a hot-house for the forced growth of sexual notions and incitements. A glance at the bill-of-fare provided by our cinemas, playhouses, and theatres suffices to prove that this is not the right food, especially for our young people. Hoardings and advertisements kiosks combine to attract the public in the most vulgar manner. Anyone who has not altogether lost contact with adolescent yearnings will realize that all this must have very grave consequences. This seductive and sensuous atmosphere puts notions into the heads of our youth which, at their age, ought still to be unknown to them.

This process of cleansing our ‘Kultur’ will have to be applied in practically all spheres. The stage, art, literature, the cinema, the Press and advertisement posters, all must have the stains of pollution removed and be placed in the service of a national and cultural idea. The life of the people must be freed from the asphyxiating perfume of our modern eroticism and also from every unmanly and prudish form of insincerity. In all these things the aim and the method must be determined by thoughtful consideration for the preservation of our national well-being in body and soul. The right to personal freedom comes second in importance to the duty of maintaining the race.

* * *
Still another critical symptom has to be considered. In the course of the nineteenth century our towns and cities began more and more to lose their character as centres of civilization and became more and more centres of habitation. In our great modern cities the proletariat does not show much attachment to the place where it lives.

At the time of the German Wars of Liberation our German towns and cities were not only small in number but also very modest in size. Those few towns which had more than fifty thousand inhabitants were, in comparison with modern cities of the same size, rich in scientific and artistic treasures.

Nowadays almost every industrial town has a population at least as large as that, without having anything of real value to call its own. They are agglomerations of tenement houses and congested dwelling barracks, and nothing else. It would be a miracle if anybody should grow sentimentally attached to such a meaningless place. Nobody can grow attached to a place which offers only just as much or as little as any other place would offer, which has no character of its own and where obviously pains have been taken to avoid everything that might have any resemblance to an artistic appearance. But this is not all. Even the great cities become more barren of real works of art the more they increase in population. All our towns are living on the glory and the treasures of the past.

But the following is the essential thing to be noticed: Our great modern cities have no outstanding monuments that dominate the general aspect of the city and could be pointed to as the symbols of a whole epoch. Yet almost every ancient town had a monument erected to its glory. It was not in private dwellings that the characteristic art of ancient cities was displayed but in the public monuments, which were not meant to have a transitory interest but an enduring one. And this was because they did not represent the wealth of some individual citizen but the greatness and importance of the community.

Even in the pomp of Rome during the decadence it was not the villas and palaces of some citizens that filled the most prominent place but rather the temples and the baths, the stadia, the circuses, the aqueducts, the basilicas, etc., which belonged to the State and therefore to the people as a whole. In medieval Germany also the same principle held sway, although the artistic outlook was quite different. In ancient times the theme that found its expression in the Acropolis or the Pantheon was now clothed in the forms of the Gothic Cathedral.

The dimensions and quality of our public buildings to-day are in deplorable contrast to the edifices that represent private interests. If a similar fate should befall Berlin as befell Rome future generations might gaze upon the ruins of some Jewish department stores or joint-stock hotels and think that these were the characteristic expressions of the culture of our time. In Berlin itself, compare the shameful disproportion between the buildings which belong to the Reich and those which have been erected for the accommodation of trade and finance.

This is also a sign of our cultural decay and general break-up. Our era is entirely preoccupied with little things which are to no purpose, or rather it is entirely preoccupied in the service of money. Therefore it is not to be wondered at if, with the worship of such an idol, the sense of heroism should entirely disappear.

* * *
All these symptoms which preceded the final collapse of the Second Empire must be attributed to the lack of a definite and uniformly accepted Weltanschhauung and the general uncertainty of outlook consequent on that lack. This lack is also accountable for the habit of doing everything by halves, beginning with the educational system, the shilly-shally, the reluctance to undertake responsibilities and, finally, the cowardly tolerance of evils that were even admitted to be destructive. Visionary humanitarianisms became the fashion. In weakly submitting to these aberrations and sparing the feelings of the individual, the future of millions of human beings was sacrificed.

The great masses of a nation are not composed of philosophers. For the masses of the people, especially faith is absolutely the only basis of a moral outlook on life. The various substitutes [of Christianity] that have been offered have not shown any results that might warrant us in thinking that they might usefully replace the existing denominations. Accordingly the attack against dogma is comparable to an attack against the general laws on which the State is founded. And so this attack would finally lead to complete political anarchy if it were successful, just as the attack on religion would lead to a worthless religious nihilism.

* * *

During that process of disintegration which was slowly extending throughout the social order the most positive force of resistance was that offered by the army. There is only one word to express what the German people owe to this army—Everything!

The army was the school through which individual Germans were taught not to seek the salvation of their nation in the false ideology of international fraternization between negroes, Germans, Chinese, French and English, etc., but in the strength and unity of their own national being. The army imbued its members with a spirit of idealism and developed their readiness to sacrifice themselves for their country and its honour, while greed and materialism dominated in all the other branches of life. By insisting on its faith in personality, the army opposed that typically Jewish and democratic apotheosis of the power of numbers. The army trained what at that time was most surely needed: namely, real men. In a period when men were falling a prey to effeminacy and laxity, 350,000 vigorously trained young men went from the ranks of the army each year to mingle with their fellow-men. In the course of their two years’ training they had lost the softness of their young days and had developed bodies as tough as steel.

This was the great school of the German nation; and it was not without reason that it drew upon its head all the bitter hatred of those who wanted the Empire to be weak and defenceless, because they were jealous of its greatness and were themselves possessed by a spirit of rapacity and greed. The rest of the world recognized a fact which many Germans did not wish to see, either because they were blind to facts or because out of malice they did not wish to see it. This fact was that the German Army was the most powerful weapon for the defence and freedom of the German nation and the best guarantee for the livelihood of its citizens.

The wonderful might and power of the old Empire was based on the monarchical form of government, the army and the civil service. On these three foundations rested that great strength which is now entirely lacking; namely, the authority of the State. For the authority of the State cannot be based on the babbling that goes on in Parliament, or upon sentences passed by the law courts, but on the general confidence which may and can be placed in the leadership and administration of a commonwealth. In the long run, systems of government are not maintained by terrorism but on the belief of the people in the merits and sincerity of those who administer and promote the public interests.

__________________________

Hurst and Blackett Ltd.,
Publishers since 1812
London • New York • Melbourne

While most of these excerpts are taken from the translation of Mein Kampf, published in 1939, for clarification in this chapter I used three single phrases from the 1943 Ralph Menheim edition.

Call to Arms

2011-02-08T21:07:00.021Z

Below—excerpts of pages 55-59 of Harold Covington’s The Brigade: a possible future in America once the shit hits the fan in Europe and a sufficient mass of revolutionary whites reaches its explosive proportions. The strategy would be to demonstrate that the United States has no longer a credible monopoly of violence. The tactics are a kind of hybrid anatomy combining the IRA and the Cosa Nostra, two subversive movements of the 20th century. No ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs:

“Overthrow the United States government with a thousand men?” demanded Washburn in skeptical amazement. “Bullshit!”

“I didn’t say overthrow the United States government,” Morehouse corrected him. “I said effectively terminate federal control and authority in three large Northwestern states, which is not the same thing.”

“How?” asked Ekstrom.

“By hitting the enemy hard and often, in teams or crews of two to five or six people max. Let’s assume an average of five Volunteers per squad or crew. Our thousand effectives will make up two hundred such crews. Imagine each of those crews striking the enemy on an average of once per day, all across the Northwest. Let’s assume an average of a single dead enemy of one kind or another per attack. That’s 100 people per day being killed in one three-state area.”

“That’s if we can find the kind of political soldiers necessary for that kind of warfare,” Hatfield reminded them. “The guys with the cool head and the iron nerve and the ice water in their veins.”

“You got it,” agreed Morehouse with a nod. “But I cannot turn mere white males into white men once again, men that our ancestors would have recognized. We can win this, comrades,” concluded Morehouse decisively. “We can beat the God Almighty United States of America, kick their stinking rotten asses right out of here, and take this land for ourselves and our children. But only if we have the stomach for it.”

There was a long moment of silence.

“Let’s get started, then,” said Hatfield.

“Right,” said Morehouse, filling his pipe again.

“In this room you’ve already got your first Trouble Trio. You’d be amazed how much hell three men can raise in a society this complex, this racially volatile and unstable. Each company needs to be free floating, capable of conducting operations indefinitely on its own, even if it is totally cut off from the rest of the movement. Each company will be part of a larger unit called a brigade. The brigade will be the main operational combat unit of the Northwest Volunteer Army, responsible for taking on ZOG within a roughly defined operational area.”

Esau’s Tears: Excerpts of chapter 10

2011-02-08T20:20:00.002Z

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 10. The Ambiguities of “Failure” in the Belle Époque: Germany and Austria

Morality aside, the enmity against the Jews is nonsense, because it is simply impractical. Everybody I know here in Berlin, especially the military and nobility, are eminently dependent upon the Jews and are daily becoming more so. There is no other way but to hold one’s tongue. —Theodor Fontane

Enough has been said about Germany and Austria to make clear how they might be considered, already in the 1880s, failures as models of harmonious Jewish-Gentile relationships. On the other hand, millions of German-speaking Jews and Gentiles continued to live beside one another in reasonable harmony, Jewish material success continued at an impressive rate, and Jewish-Gentile interplay counted many impressive aspects. Many of those in the German-speaking world who spoke out in criticism of the Jews were not willing to go beyond mere exhortation, urging the Jew to improve manners and economic morality or encouraging them to become more whole-hearted in their national feelings. Antiliberal trends become stronger everywhere after 1890, and highlighted tensions between Jews and non-Jews could be noted in nearly all countries. But those tensions often took on curiously unfathomable forms.

The Appearance of Zionism

Gentiles earnestly believed that they and their values had been rejected by Jews, that Jews were not living up to the concessions they implicitly accepted when they gained civil emancipation.

The familiar distinction that religion was a private matter, one that was compatible with various nationalities, which satisfied many Jews in earlier years, began to appear unworkable or at least very awkward in practice. The dialogue of the deaf between Jew and non-Jew ultimately went back to the flawed assumptions, on both sides, of civil emancipation in the first place. The honeymoon was over; divorce was being contemplated. But its costs promised to be terribly high, and the decision was being avoided—perhaps something could still be worked out.

Theodore Herzl [1860-1904] wrote a friend that his book had earned him the “greatest of hatreds [from fellow Jews] while the anti-Semites treat me fairly.” That “fair treatment” constituted one of the earliest examples of what would later become fairly common, that is, open agreement, even an occasional, opportunistic kind of cooperation, between Zionists and some anti-Semites, since they both agreed that Jews should get out of Europe.

The impact of Zionism on non-Jews was also mixed: While anti-Semites pointed to it as evidence that they had been right all along, other non-Jews saw Zionism as a potentially acceptable solution to the Jewish problem.

Anti-Semitism and German Tradition

As historian Steven Beller has commented, “Jews began to see themselves as the real bearers of the Enlightenment” in Austria and Germany. The matter was stated quite openly in a speech by Solomon Ehrmann to the B’nai B’rith in Vienna in 1902. His vision of the future was not simply one in which Jews were to be an honored part; it was to be in fundamental ways a Jewish future, one in which “not only the B’nai B’rith but all Judaism will have fulfilled its task. All mankind will have been jewified [verjudet, the same term used by the anti-Semites] and joined in union with the B’nai B’rith.” In short, Verjudung meant Aufklaerung, jewfication equaled enlightenment. It was in truth a broad and humane vision, but it cannot come as a surprise that many non-Jews were wary of it.

Racism and anti-Semitism were, in the eyes of many German-speaking Jews, more accurately seen as products of reactionaries and of the mob. Hatred of Jews, they believed, was most typically to be found in eastern Europe, or in the less developed parts of the German-speaking world.

There had been a wave of anti-Semitic agitation in Germany from the mid-1870s to the early 1880s, which then receded in the mid-1880s. Another wave gathered force in the late 1880s through the first years of the 1890s, with a high point in the elections of 1893, but it, too, receded, leaving the anti-Semitic parties more discredited and weaker than ever. The next twenty years were similarly indecisive.

The “Dormant Period” of Anti-Semitism in Germany

The Wilhelmine period (1890-1914) has gone down in most histories as a relatively dormant period insofar as political anti-Semitism is concerned. [But] the decline of the anti-Semitic parties by no means necessarily indicated a decline in anti-Semitic sentiment.

Anti-Semitism of the Tivoli Program was not radical. (In it the party denounced “the multifarious and obtrusive Jewish influence that decomposes our people’s life”; a clause was voted down that said “we repudiate the excesses of anti-Semitism.”) That the latter clause was even proposed suggested that many leaders of the Conservative Party were not anti-Semitic in the radical-racial sense. A number of the party’s leading figures had Jewish wives.

The so-called “dormant” period after 1900 was only the lull before the storm.

The fact remains that the Conservative Party, the anti-Semitic pressure groups, and the anti-Semitic parties themselves were either unwilling or unable to pass a single piece of significant legislation against the Jews in Germany. The material welfare of the Jews in Germany, at the same time, continued its remarkable, seeming inexorable force.

Anti-Semitic Agitation in Austria: Karl Lueger

As we have seen, anti-Semitism in Austria had a significantly broader, more “progressive” appeal in the 1870s and 1880s than it did in the German Reich. In the generation before World War I anti-Semitism in Austria, especially Vienna, was far from politically dormant.

It will be recalled that von Schönerer’s movement suffered a sharp and humiliating decline after its initial success of the 1880s. He was arrested, thrown into jail, and stripped of his title of nobility. Within a short time, however, political anti-Semitism found a more adept practitioner in the person of Karl Lueger, far and away the most successful anti-Semitic politician of prewar Europe.

Like von Schönerer, Karl Lueger began his political career as a liberal but then turned against key liberal tenets. Mention has been made of Treitschke’s aversion to the “jewified” German culture of Austria, of Gratez’s desire to “destroy” Christianity, of Hess’s opinion that Christianity was “religion of death,” and Ehrmann’s conclusion that “jewification equals enlightenment.” Many other Enlightened Jews saw themselves as upholders of justice, as a “light unto the nations” in a modern way. The theme was endlessly manipulated, and it found expression in nearly every country, but the relevant point is that “jewification” was actually more than an absurd fantasy of the anti-Semites. Leading German Jews in Vienna did look to a jewification of the non-Jewish world. On the other hand, it does not take much imagination to understand how alien and hypocritical such an ideal may have seemed to the average citizen in Vienna at the turn of the century, especially when, in its immediately perceptible form, jewification seemed to mean financial scandals, unfair competition, and the revolver press, social exclusiveness, and capitalist exploitation.

Even while Lueger was mayor, Jews continued to move into the city at a rapid rate, Jewish upward mobility continued unabated, and Jewish wealth remained impressive. The period considered the “Golden Age of Viennese Jewry” (1897-1910) coincided with the years that Lueger was mayor. One needs to ask what the “success” of Lueger’s movement actually entailed. In truth, his anti-Semitism was mostly noise. The period of his ascendency marked an end to the honeymoon of Jewish-Gentile relations, but Lueger did not hate all Jews. He never looked forward to a Vienna that would be judenrein (free of Jews).

The “Unpolitical” Germans: Langbehn, Lagrade, Chamberlain

Houston Steward Chamberlain’s Foundations of the Twentieth Century (first published in 1900 but many editions followed, including an inexpensive one in 1906 that was distributed in Germany’s schools) became a hugely popular book by the standards of the day. Its success was all the more remarkable because, by the standards of any day, it was a lengthy tome that made large intellectual demands on its readers. And whatever may be said about the defects of the book, it grappled with many substantial issues. Emperor Wilhelm II read it avidly; he quoted it constantly and sent copies to friends and acquaintances. To be sure, Wilhelm was not an intellectually distinguished or discriminating man, but among the may others who openly and effusively admired the book were Albert Schweitzer, Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw, D.H. Lawrence, and Carl Becker. In his book Chamberlain tried to show, with richly arrayed historical examples, how racial determinism had operated from the distant past to the present. The racial element explained the rise and fall of civilizations, the particular genius of cultures throughout history. Like Gobineau, he was much concerned with racial mixing and the degeneration that he believed came from it.

Chamberlain’s biographer has persuasively argued that in spite of repeated denials, he harbored a tenacious if fluctuating animus against Jews, one that found clearest expression in private communications, especially after 1914, as his health and fortunes declined. The point made earlier about Treitschke (that he had no real program and did not support political action against Jews) holds even more for Chamberlain. He spoke of an inner, spiritual struggle against Jewish influence, not a physical battle against Jewish individuals or groups.

Nationalists in many areas feared that their identity was being overwhelmed and all urged against the forces that were undermining the true identity of their people.

_______________

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

Jared Taylor

2011-02-05T02:04:00.004Z

"Sans Jews"

2011-02-05T01:49:00.006Z

Mein Kampf: excerpted from vol. I chapter 9

2011-02-05T00:25:00.002Z

Western men have become brainless sheep. They bleat how they’re told. Even for those white nationalists who are beginning to awaken to the realities of this age of treason, the name of Adolf Hitler rings a giant Pavlovian bell. But once we defrock ourselves from the sheep Hitler’s words become more commonsensical than what we expected... This translation of the unexpurgated edition of Mein Kampf was first published on March 21st, 1939 (no ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs):

Chapter “The German Labour Party”

Not until the Centre and the Social-Democratic parties were reluctantly forced to recognize that the sympathies of the soldiers had turned away from the revolutionary parties towards the national movement and the national reawakening, did they feel obliged to withdraw from the army the right to vote and to forbid it all political activity. The fact that the Centre and Marxism had adopted this policy was instructive.

* * *
My opinion of the ‘German Labour Party’ was not very different after I had listened to their proceedings for about two hours. I was glad when Feder finally came to a close. I had observed enough and was just about to leave when it was announced that anybody who wished was free to open a discussion. Thereupon, I decided to remain.

At this juncture I felt bound to ask for permission to speak. While I was speaking the audience listened with an expression of surprise on their faces. When I was just about to say good-night to the assembly and to leave, a man came after me quickly and introduced himself. I did not grasp the name correctly; but he placed a little book in my hand, which was obviously a political pamphlet, and asked me very earnestly to read it.

Thereupon, I left the hall. At that time I was living in one of the barracks of the 2nd Infantry Regiment.

* * *

Since I usually woke up about five o’clock every morning I got into the habit of amusing myself with watching little mice which played around in my small room. I used to place a few pieces of hard bread or crust on the floor and watch the funny little beasts playing around and enjoying themselves with these delicacies. I had suffered so many privations in my own life that I well knew what hunger was and could only too well picture to myself the pleasure these little creatures were experiencing. So on the morning after the meeting I have mentioned, it happened that about five o’clock I lay fully awake in bed, watching the mice playing and vying with each other. As I was not able to go to sleep again, I suddenly remembered the pamphlet that one of the workers had given me at the meeting. It was a small pamphlet of which this worker was the author. In his little book he described how his mind had thrown off the shackles of the Marxist and trades-union phraseology, and that he had come back to the nationalist ideals. That was the reason why he had entitled his little book My Political Awakening.

When I returned to my room in the barracks that evening I had formed a definite opinion on this association and I was facing the most difficult problem of my life. Should I join this party or refuse? From the side of the intellect alone, every consideration urged me to refuse; but my feelings troubled me. Fate herself now seemed to supply the finger-post that pointed out the way. I should never have entered one of the big parties already in existence and shall explain my reasons for this later on.

This ludicrous little formation, with its handful of members, seemed to have the unique advantage of not yet being fossilized into an ‘organization’ and still offered a chance for real personal activity on the part of the individual. Here it might still be possible to do some effective work; and, as the movement was still small, one could all the easier give it the required shape. Here it was still possible to determine the character of the movement, the aims to be achieved and the road to be taken, which would have been impossible in the case of the big parties already existing. The longer I reflected on the problem, the more my opinion developed that just such a small movement would best serve as an instrument to prepare the way for the national resurgence, but that this could never be done by the political parliamentary parties which were too firmly attached to obsolete ideas or had an interest in supporting the new regime. What had to be proclaimed here was a new Weltanschhauung and not a new election cry.

The fact that I was poor and without resources could, in my opinion, be the easiest to bear. But the fact that I was utterly unknown raised a more difficult problem. Another difficulty arose from the fact that I had not gone through the regular school curriculum.

The so-called ‘intellectuals’ still look down with infinite superciliousness on anyone who has not been through the prescribed schools and allowed them to pump the necessary knowledge into him. The question of what a man can do is never asked but rather, what has he learned? ‘Educated’ people look upon any imbecile who is plastered with a number of academic certificates as superior to the ablest young fellow who lacks these precious documents. I could therefore easily imagine how this ‘educated’ world would receive me and I was wrong only in so far as I then believed men to be for the most part better than they proved to be in the cold light of reality. Because of their being as they are, the few exceptions stand out all the more conspicuously. I learned more and more to distinguish between those who will always be at school and those who will one day come to know something in reality.

After two days of careful brooding and reflection I became convinced that I must take the contemplated step. It was the most fateful decision of my life. No retreat was possible. Thus I declared myself ready to accept the membership tendered me by the German Labour Party and received a provisional certificate of membership. I was numbered seven.

Fundamental Principles of the Northwest Migration

2011-02-04T02:42:00.006Z

1. The White race in North America is in danger of literal, physical extinction.

If current destructive demographic trends continue, White people will be a minority in the United States and Canada by the year 2050, and we will have vanished completely from North America by 2100.

2. Radical dangers require radical solutions.

We as a people have wasted the past six decades on pointless, futile and impotent right-wing and kosher conservative organizations and strategies. The overwhelming majority of these past organizations and movements refused to recognize the vital central importance of race in all issues, and they refused to recognize the urgent need for state power in order to preserve the existence of our race. The result of the past sixty years of right-wing failure and impotence is that we are now out of time.

3. There is only one strategy remaining to us

Our last remaining hope to stave off extinction is the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation on the continent of North America for White people only.

Source: Northwest Front

The nefarious influence of the East in the West

2011-02-04T01:15:00.007Z

My recent reading of Michael O’Meara’s “Evola’s Anti-Semitism” brought my mind back to a book I had read fifteen years ago. In 1996 The Story of Philosophy made me think about the nefarious influence of the East in the West. Specifically, I have in mind what Will Durant says at the beginning of the chapter “From Aristotle to the Renaissance” (no ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs):

Sparta blockaded and defeated Athens towards the close of the fifth century b. c, political supremacy passed from the mother of Greek philosophy and art, and the vigor and independence of the Athenian mind decayed.

When, in 399 b. c, Socrates was put to death, the soul of Athens died with him, lingering only in his proud pupil, Plato. And when Philip of Macedon defeated the Athenians at Chaeronea in 338 b. c, and Alexander burned the great city of Thebes to the ground three years later, even the ostentatious sparing of Pindar's home could not cover up the fact that Athenian independence, in government and in thought, was irrevocably destroyed.

The domination of Greek philosophy by the Macedonian Aristotle mirrored the political subjection of Greece by the virile and younger peoples of the north. The death of Alexander (323 b. c.) quickened this process of decay. The boy-emperor, barbarian though he remained after all of Aristotle's tutoring, had yet learned to revere the rich culture of Greece, and had dreamed of spreading that culture through the Orient in the wake of his victorious armies. The development of Greek commerce, and the multiplication of Greek trading posts throughout Asia Minor, had provided an economic basis for the unification of this region as part of an Hellenic empire; and Alexander hoped that from these busy stations Greek thought, as well as Greek goods, would radiate and conquer.

But he had underrated the inertia and resistance of the Oriental mind, and the mass and depth of Oriental culture. It was only a youthful fancy, after all, to suppose that so immature and unstable a civilization as that of Greece could be imposed upon a civilization immeasurably more widespread, and rooted in the most venerable traditions.

The quantity of Asia proved too much for the quality of Greece. Alexander himself, in the hour of his triumph, was conquered by the soul of the East; he married (among several ladies) the daughter of Darius; he adopted the Persian diadem and robe of state; he introduced into Europe the Oriental notion of the divine right of kings; and at last he astonished a sceptic Greece by announcing, in magnificent Eastern style, that he was a god. Greece laughed; and Alexander drank himself to death.

This subtle infusion of an Asiatic soul into the wearied body of the master Greek was followed rapidly by the pouring of Oriental cults and faiths into Greece along those very lines of communication which the young conqueror had opened up; the broken dykes let in the ocean of Eastern thought upon the lowlands of the still adolescent European mind. The mystic and superstitious faiths which had taken root among the poorer people of Hellas were reinforced and spread about; and the Oriental spirit of apathy and resignation found a ready soil in decadent and despondent Greece.

The introduction of the Stoic philosophy into Athens by the Phoenician merchant Zeno (about 310 b. c.) was but one of a multitude of Oriental infiltrations. Both Stoicism and Epicureanism—the apathetic acceptance of defeat, and the effort to forget defeat in the arms of pleasure—were theories as to how one might yet be happy though subjugated or enslaved; precisely as the pessimistic Oriental stoicism of Schopenhauer and the despondent epicureanism of Renan were in the nineteenth century the symbols of a shattered Revolution and a broken France. Not that these natural antitheses of ethical theory were quite new to Greece. One finds them in the gloomy Heraclitus and the “laughing philosopher” Democritus; and one sees the pupils of Socrates dividing into Cynics and Cyrenaics under the lead of Antisthenes and Aristippus, and extolling, the one school apathy, the other happiness.

Yet these were even then almost exotic modes of thought: imperial Athens did not take to them. But when Greece had seen Chaeronea in blood and Thebes in ashes, it listened to Diogenes; and when the glory had departed from Athens she was ripe for Zeno and Epicurus.

Zeno built his philosophy of apatheia on a determinism which a later Stoic, Chrysippus, found it hard to distinguish from Oriental fatalism. As Schopenhauer deemed it useless for the individual will to fight the universal will, so the Stoic argued that philosophic indifference was the only reasonable attitude to a life in which the struggle for existence is so unfairly doomed to inevitable defeat. If victory is quite impossible it should be scorned. The secret of peace is not to make our achievements equal to our desires, but to lower our desires to the level of our achievements. “If what you have seems insufficient to you,” said the Roman Stoic Seneca (d. 65 a. d.), “then, though you possess the world, you will yet be miserable.” Such a principle cried out to heaven for its opposite, and Epicurus, though himself as Stoic in life as Zeno, supplied it. Epicurus, says Fenelon, “bought a fair garden, which he tilled himself. There it was he set up his school, and there he lived a gentle and agreeable life with his disciples, whom he taught as he walked and worked. He was gentle and affable to all men. He held there was nothing nobler than to apply one’s self to philosophy.” His starting point of conviction that apathy is impossible, and that pleasure—though not necessarily sensual pleasure—is the only conceivable, and quite legitimate, end of life and action.

Epicurus, then, is no epicurean; he exalts the joys of intellect rather than those of sense; he warns against pleasures that excite and disturb the soul which they should rather quiet and appease. In the end he proposes to seek not pleasure in its usual sense, but ataraxia—tranquillity, equanimity, repose of mind; all of which trembles on the verge of Zeno’s “apathy.”

The Romans, coming to despoil Hellas in 146 b. c, found these rival schools dividing the philosophic field; and having neither leisure nor subtlety for speculation themselves, brought back these philosophies with their other spoils to Rome. Great organizers, as much as inevitable slaves, tend to stoic moods: it is difficult to be either master or servant if one is sensitive. So such philosophy as Rome had was mostly of Zeno’s school, whether in Marcus Aurelius the emperor or in Epictetus the slave; and even Lucretius talked epicureanism stoically (like Heine's Englishman taking his pleasures sadly), and concluded his stern gospel of pleasure by committing suicide. His noble epic “On the Nature of Things,” follows Epicurus in damning pleasure with faint praise.

* * *
Nations, too, like individuals, slowly grow and surely die. In the face of warfare and inevitable death, there is no wisdom but in ataraxia, —“to look on all things with a mind at peace.” Here, clearly, the old pagan joy of life is gone, and an almost exotic spirit touches a broken lyre.

Imagine the exhilarating optimism of explicit Stoics like Aurelius or Epictetus. Nothing in all literature is so depressing as the Dissertations of the Slave, unless it be the Meditations of the emperor. “Seek not to have things happen as you choose them, but rather choose that they should happen as they do; and you shall live prosperously.” No doubt one can in this manner dictate the future, and play royal highness to the universe.

Story has it that Epictetus’ master, who treated him with consistent cruelty, one day took to twisting Epictetus’ leg to pass the time away. “If you go on,” said Epictetus calmly, “you will break my leg.” The master went on, and the leg was broken. “Did I not tell you,” Epictetus observed mildly, “that you would break my leg?” Yet there is a certain mystic nobility in this philosophy, as in the quiet courage of some Dostoievskian pacifist. “Never in any case say, I have lost such a thing; but, I have returned it. Is thy child dead?—it is returned. Is thy wife dead?—she is returned. Art thou deprived of thy estate?— is not this also returned?”

In such passages we feel the proximity of Christianity and its dauntless martyrs. In Epictetus the Greco-Roman soul has lost its paganism, and is ready for a new faith. His book had the distinction of being adopted as a religious manual by the early Christian Church. From these Dissertations and Aurelius’ Meditations there is but a step to The Imitation of Christ.

Meanwhile the historical background was melting into newer scenes. There is a remarkable passage in Lucretius which describes the decay of agriculture in the Roman state, and attributes it to the exhaustion of the soil. Whatever the cause, the wealth of Rome passed into poverty, the organization into disintegration, the power and pride into decadence and apathy. Cities faded back into the undistinguished hinterland; the roads fell into disrepair and no longer hummed with trade; the small families of the educated Romans were outbred by the vigorous and untutored German stocks that crept, year after year, across the frontier; pagan culture yielded to Oriental cults; and almost imperceptibly the Empire passed into the Papacy.

The Church, supported in its earlier centuries by the emperors whose powers it gradually absorbed, grew rapidly in numbers, wealth, and range of influence. By the thirteenth century it owned one-third of the soil of Europe, and its coffers bulged with donations of rich and poor. For a thousand years it united, with the magic of an unvarying creed, most of the peoples of a continent; never before or since was organization so widespread or so pacific.

But this unity demanded, as the Church thought, a common faith exalted by supernatural sanctions beyond the changes and corrosions of time; therefore dogma, definite and defined, was cast like a shell over the adolescent mind of medieval Europe. It was within this shell that Scholastic philosophy moved narrowly from faith to reason and back again, in a baffling circuit of uncriticized assumptions and pre-ordained conclusions.

In the thirteenth century all Christendom was startled and stimulated by Arabic and Jewish translations of Aristotle; but the power of the Church was still adequate to secure, through Thomas Aquinas and others, the transmogrification of Aristotle into a medieval theologian. The result was subtlety, but not wisdom. “The wit and mind of man,” as Bacon put it, “if it work upon the matter, worketh according to the stuff , and is limited thereby; but if it work upon itself, as the spider worketh his web, then it is endless, and bringeth forth indeed cobwebs of learning, admirable for the fineness of thread and work, but of no substance or profit.” Sooner or later the intellect of Europe would burst out of this shell.

* * *
After a thousand years of tillage, the soil bloomed again; goods were multiplied into a surplus that compelled trade; and trade at its cross-roads built again great cities wherein men might cooperate to nourish culture and rebuild civilization. The Crusades opened the routes to the East, and let in a stream of luxuries and heresies that doomed asceticism and dogma. Paper now came cheaply from Egypt, replacing the costly parchment that had made learning the monopoly of priests; printing, which had long awaited an inexpensive medium, broke out like a liberated explosive, and spread its destructive and clarifying influence everywhere. Brave mariners armed now with compasses, ventured out into the wilderness of the sea, and conquered man’s ignorance of the earth; patient observers, armed with telescopes, ventured out beyond the confines of dogma, and conquered man’s ignorance of the sky. Here and there, in universities and monasteries and hidden retreats, men ceased to dispute and began to search; deviously, out of the effort to change baser metal into gold, alchemy was transmuted into chemistry; out of astrology men groped their way with timid boldness to astronomy; and out of the fables of speaking animals came the science of zoology.

The awakening began with Roger Bacon (d. 1294); it grew with the limitless Leonardo (1452-1519); it reached its fullness in the astronomy of Copernicus (1473-1543) and Galileo (1564-1642), in the researches of Gilbert (1544-1603) in magnetism and electricity, of Vesalius (1514-1564) in anatomy, and of Harvey (1578-1657) on the circulation of the blood. As knowledge grew, fear decreased; men thought less of worshiping the unknown, and more of overcoming it. Every vital spirit was lifted up with a new confidence; barriers were broken down; there was no bound now to what man might do. It was an age of achievement, hope and vigor; of new beginnings and enterprises in every field; an age that waited for a voice, some synthetic soul to sum up its spirit and resolve.

It was Francis Bacon, “the most powerful mind of modern times,” who “rang the bell that called the wits together,” and announced that Europe had come of age.

Mein Kampf: excerpted from vol. I chapter 8

2011-02-03T21:26:00.007Z

Western men have become brainless sheep. They bleat how they’re told. Even for those white nationalists who are beginning to awaken to the realities of this age of treason, the name of Adolf Hitler rings a giant Pavlovian bell. But once we defrock ourselves from the sheep Hitler’s words become more commonsensical than what we expected... This translation of the unexpurgated edition of Mein Kampf was first published on March 21st, 1939 (no ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs):

Chapter “The Beginning of My Political Activities”

At that juncture innumerable plans took shape in my mind. As the new Soviet Revolution began to run its course in Munich my first activities drew upon me the ill-will of the Central Council. In the early morning of April 27th, 1919, I was to have been arrested; but the three fellows who came to arrest me did not have the courage to face my rifle and withdrew just as they had arrived.

After another few weeks I received orders to attend a course of lectures which were being given to members of the army. This course was meant to inculcate certain fundamental principles on which the soldier could base his political ideas. For me the advantage of this organization was that it gave me a chance of meeting fellow soldiers who were of the same way of thinking and with whom I could discuss the actual situation.

In our small circle we discussed the project of forming a new party. The leading ideas which we then proposed were the same as those which were carried into effect afterwards, when the German Labour Party was founded. The name of the new movement which was to be founded should be such that of itself, it would appeal to the mass of the people; for all our efforts would turn out vain and useless if this condition were lacking. And that was the reason why we chose the name ‘Social-Revolutionary Party’, particularly because the social principles of our new organization were indeed revolutionary.

But there was also a more fundamental reason. The attention which I had given to economic problems during my earlier years was more or less confined to considerations arising directly out of the social problem. The attitude of the State towards capital would be comparatively simple and clear. Its only object would be to make sure that capital remained subservient to the State and did not allocate to itself the right to dominate national interests.

* * *
The important question is whether an idea is fundamentally right or not. The question of whether or not it may be difficult to carry it out in practice is quite another matter. When a man whose task it is to lay down the principles of a programme or policy begins to busy himself with the question as to whether it is expedient and practical, instead of confining himself to the statement of the absolute truth, his work will cease to be a guiding star to those who are looking about for light and leading.

The test of greatness as applied to a political leader is the success of his plans and his enterprises, which means his ability to reach the goal for which he sets out; whereas the final goal set up by the political philosopher can never be reached; for human thought may grasp truths and picture ends which it sees like clear crystal, though such ends can never be completely fulfilled because human nature is weak and imperfect. The more an idea is correct in the abstract, and, therefore, all the more powerful, the smaller is the possibility of putting it into practice, at least as far as this latter depends on human beings. The significance of a political philosopher does not depend on the practical success of the plans he lays down but rather on their absolute truth and the influence they exert on the progress of mankind. If it were otherwise, the founders of religions could not be considered as the greatest men who have ever lived.

This very wide difference between the functions of a political philosopher and a practical political leader is the reason why the qualifications necessary for both functions are scarcely ever found associated in the same person. This applies especially to the so-called successful politician of the smaller kind, whose activity is indeed hardly more than practising the art of doing the possible, as Bismarck modestly defined the art of politics in general.

If such a politician resolutely avoids great ideas his success will be all the easier to attain; it will be attained more expeditely and frequently will be more tangible. By reason of this very fact, however, such success is doomed to futility and sometimes does not even survive the death of its author. Generally speaking, the work of politicians is without significance for the following generation, because their temporary success was based on the expediency of avoiding all really great decisive problems and ideas which would be valid also for future generations.

To pursue ideals which will still be of value and significance for the future is generally not a very profitable undertaking and he who follows such a course is only very rarely understood by the mass of the people, who find beer and milk a more persuasive index of political values than far-sighted plans for the future.

The position of the constructive political philosopher is quite different. The importance of his work must always be judged from the standpoint of the future; and he is frequently described by the word Weltfremd, or dreamer. While the ability of the politician consists in mastering the art of the possible, the founder of a political system belongs to those who are said to please the gods only because they wish for and demand the impossible. They will always have to renounce contemporary fame; but if their ideas be immortal, posterity will grant them its acknowledgment.

Within long spans of human progress it may occasionally happen that the practical politician and political philosopher are one. The more intimate this union is, the greater will be the obstacles which the activity of the politician will have to encounter. Such a man does not labour for the purpose of satisfying demands that are obvious to every philistine, but he reaches out towards ends which can be understood only by the few. For the greater the work which a man does for the future, the less will he be appreciated by his contemporaries. His struggle will accordingly be all the more severe, and his success all the rarer. Such great men are only the Marathon runners of history. The laurels of contemporary fame are only for the brow of the dying hero.

To this group belong not only the genuinely great statesmen but all the great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great we have such men as Martin Luther and Richard Wagner.

* * *
When I heard Gottfried Feder’s first lecture on ‘The Abolition of the Interest- Servitude’, I understood immediately that here was a truth of transcendental importance for the future of the German people. The absolute separation of stock-exchange capital from the economic life of the nation would make it possible to oppose the process of internationalization in German business without at the same time attacking capital as such, for to do this would jeopardize the foundations of our national independence. I clearly saw what was developing in Germany and I realized then that the stiffest fight we would have to wage would not be against the enemy nations but against international capital. In Feder’s speech I found an effective rallying-cry for our coming struggle.

The struggle against international finance capital and loan-capital has become one of the most important points in the programme on which the German nation has based its fight for economic freedom and independence. For me and for all genuine National-Socialists there is only one doctrine: People and Fatherland. What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed.

All ideas and ideals, all teaching and all knowledge, must serve these ends. It is from this standpoint that everything must be examined and turned to practical uses or else discarded.

* * *

Thus the judgment arrived at by Gottfried Feder determined me to make a fundamental study of a question with which I had hitherto not been very familiar. I began to study again and thus it was that I first came to understand perfectly what was the substance and purpose of the life-work of the Jew, Karl Marx. His Capital became intelligible to me now for the first time. And in the light of it I now exactly understood the fight of the Social-Democrats against national economics, a fight which was to prepare the ground for the hegemony of a real international and stock-exchange capital.

In another direction also this course of lectures had important consequences for me. One day I put my name down as wishing to take part in the discussion. Another of the participants thought that he would break a lance for the Jews and entered into a lengthy defence of them. This aroused my opposition. An overwhelming number of those who attended the lecture course supported my views. The consequence of it all was that, a few days later, I was assigned to a regiment then stationed at Munich and given a position there as ‘instruction officer’.

I took up my work with the greatest delight and devotion. Here I was presented with an opportunity of speaking before quite a large audience. I was now able to confirm what I had hitherto merely felt, namely, that I had a talent for public speaking.

When a crisis of the Aryan spirit brought a Negro to power...

2011-02-03T07:08:00.004Z

...the Northwest Front was founded.

The most distinguishing feature of the rest of the White racial resistance movement is its lack of any plan whatsoever for the actual assumption of state power.

If we are in fact to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children, then we must accept that the Northwest Migration is it. There simply isn’t anything else. This book [The Northwest Front Handbook—full introduction here] will be your first step toward your acceptance of the racial duty that history has imposed on you.

White man—it is time to Come Home!

Rome vs. Jerusalem

2011-02-02T07:42:00.004Z

Today I discovered “Evola’s Anti-Semitism” by Michael O’Meara originally published in April 28, 2009 at The Occidental Quarterly Online: the profoundest article I have ever read about the struggle of Jewry versus Aryanity. It is articles such as this one what makes me feel that, presently, the best minds in the nationalist movement have indeed a magnificent grasp of what has happened to our civilization.

When Julius Evola, one of the leading twentieth-century critics of Judeo-liberal civilization, worked out his racial theory during the 1930s, the principal inspiration for anti-Semitic thought was The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Purportedly stolen from an occult Lodge, the Protocols were a report of twenty-four secret meetings held by the leaders of international Jewry, as they attempted to devise a plan for world domination.

Jewish organizations quite naturally went to considerable lengths to discredit the Protocols. Their most famous effort resulted in a judicial action taken by a Berne court in 1933 against a Swiss nationalist who had distributed the document.

The court’s decision that the Protocols were a libelous forgery, Evola thought, was besides the point. For in his eyes the issue of the Protocols’ authenticity was “secondary to the far more serious and essential problem of their veracity”—for even if not actually written by the “Elders” or based on an existing plan, the document in his view was of unparalleled significance in drawing attention, first, to the Jewish Question, and, more importantly, to the subversive forces at work in recent history.

In this spirit, he claimed the Protocols shed new light on the Jews’ campaign against Europe’s traditions, aristocracies, symbols, and transcendent values, especially as this campaign promoted ideologies subverting the white man’s sense of order—ideologies such as capitalism, cosmopolitanism, egalitarianism, materialism, feminism, etc.

Inspired by the subversive import of these ideologies, the Jews allegedly “stress the negative aspects, abuses, and injustices” of traditional Europe. To this end, they “spread the germs of a critical and rationalistic mentality meant to corrupt the innermost ethical cement” of organically established hierarchies; they endeavor to dominate the principal centers of official teaching, to control public opinion through their monopoly of the media, to undermine family life, to provoke both social and moral defeatism by “stirring up mistrust and discreditable rumors regarding the clergy” and other representatives of white society. And, not least, they reduce all interests to economic-financial ones, replacing former authorities with mathematical calculations and materialist imperatives.

The course of modern European history, Evola claimed, seemed “to meet the objectives set out in the Protocols.” For once the “Elders’” campaign succeeded in reducing whites to “a mush of beings without tradition and inner strength,” “the ancient promise of the regnum of the Chosen People” became realizable.

But if Jews for Evola were one of the principal forces for subversion in the modern world, he parted company with those “vulgar anti-Semites” who saw the Jews everywhere, a sort of deus ex machina, responsible for all the world’s ills. This type of reductionism, he thought, was self-discrediting. One can acknowledge “the pernicious role the Jew has played in the history of civilization,” he writes, but this “must not prejudice a deeper investigation which can make us become aware of forces for which Judaism may have been... only the instrument.”

Thus, while the European encounter with Judah goes back more than two millennia, it was, he stressed, only in recent times, with the advent of liberal-capitalist societies and particularly with the rise of America to world power, that Jews actually began to dominate the white homelands.

Though Evola affirmed both the legitimacy and necessity of anti-Semitism, at the same time he rejected its “parochialism,” its often arbitrary principles, and its lack of “a truly general standpoint.”

The vulgar anti-Semitism that makes the Jews responsible for every form of subversion was, from his perspective, a humiliating admission of inferiority. The Jews were stronger and more capable, he argued, only when the white man degenerated. That is, only he was no longer himself and thus weakened did he become vulnerable to them, for their power came from their exploitation of the degenerate forces already assaulting white life.

For this reason, Evola thought the subversive forces empowered by liberal capitalism and exploited by the Jews were “only the last links in a chain of causes which are unthinkable without antecedents such as, for instance, [Renaissance] humanism, the [Protestant] Reformation, and the French Revolution, all of which are phenomena that no one would seriously think of ascribing to a Jewish conspiracy.”

Jewish power, in a word, followed a larger historical process of “decomposition and involution,” which had de-Aryanized the white man and prepared the way for the Jews’ regnum.

Anti-Semitism, as a consequence, not only tends to make the Jews a scapegoat for the failings of modern civilization, it also conceals a more general struggle against its de-Aryanizing forces—against its “mechanizing rationalism, secular illuminism, and world-outlook based on numbers and quantity.”

Though emphasizing that the Jews were not the sole cause for modernity’s anti-white impetus, Evola nevertheless accepted that it was easier to fight personal forces (Jews) than abstractions (modernity) and that the figure of the omnipotent Jew was an effective symbol in mobilizing resistance to the anti-Aryanizing forces.

Because Evola believed it was the destruction of “our former imperial, aristocratic, and spiritual Europe” that made Jewish domination possible, it was only in returning to the principles of this Europe that he saw any prospect of effectively resisting the demonic order born of their domination.

The struggle against the de-Aryanizing forces entails, then, not merely a racial struggle against alien domination, but also a spiritual struggle to reclaim the white man’s original identity—a spiritual struggle having nothing to do with woolly abstractions or mystic escapes, but one engaged as a heroic action faithful to the white man’s Aryan essence.

What is this essence?

Virtually every historical stage in the white man’s encounter with Judah has unleashed the forces of anti-Semitism. For the Jew this is sign of the inherently pathological character of gentile society; for Evola it suggested that everything “connected with Semitism, and, above all, with Jews, appears as peculiarly repulsive to the peoples of the white race.” This is the case not simply because Jewish interests clash with white ones, but because they, as a people defined by Talmudic Law, offend the animating spirit of that “common primordial civilization” from which all the various historical and more recent white civilizations arose.

It was this primal spiritual opposition between Jew and Aryan, Evola argued, that was at the root of anti-Semitism.

Borrowing terms taken from J. J. Bachofen, Evola characterized the Aryan spirit as solar and virile, the Jewish spirit as lunar and feminine.

“Arya,” the root of “Aryan,” Evola noted, comes from a Sanskrit word designating “noblemen,” for “out of the mass of common and mediocre beings rise men ‘of race’ in the sense of higher, ‘noble’ beings.”

The highest expression of the Aryan’s aristocratic racial spirit took the form of the warrior’s “affirmative attitude to the divine”—spirit being that “which in better times was called ‘race’ by well-born persons: that is, straightforwardness, inner unity, character, dignity, manliness, immediate sensitivity for all values that are at the core of all human greatness and which, since they are situated far above fortuitous reality, govern this same reality.”

Behind the numerous mythological and symbolic references to the bright sky found in the various Indo-European cultures, all of which upheld value systems oriented to the transcendent heavens, there prevailed a sense of the “incorporeal virility of light.”

The solar is indeed light itself, unlike the lunar which brightens only when it reflects and absorbs light outside it.

Relatedly, the Europeans’ ancient pagan cults all believed in a race of divine heroes. In this spirit, they saw themselves as the “eminent bearers” of the universal forces associated with these heroes’ “solar glory”—as expressed in principles of freedom and personality, loyalty and honor.

Similarly, the Aryan spirit was realized not in the works of monks and rabbis—but in action, preeminently in the struggles the warrior waged against the enemies he had to fight, in himself and in his world.

From this, Evola claimed the Aryan’s “characteristic ideal was more royal than sacerdotal, more the ideal of a transfiguring affirmation than the priestly idea of religious abandon.”

Unlike the “devout and imploring servility” characteristic of the Abrahamic religions, the Aryan relation to the divine was active and affirmative.

“It was the heroes, more than the saints” that the Aryan saw as reaching “the highest and the most privileged places of immortality.” His quest for knowledge and understanding, it followed, was engaged as a virile, heroic conquest—not something “sinful” like the biblical Adam’s attempt to eat from the divine tree.

In contrast to Aryan solarity, Evola claimed the Jews’ lunar spirit negates the synthesis of spirituality and virility, emphasizing both that which is coarsely materialist and sensualist on the one side, and escapist and contemplative on the other. Mammonism and rationalism accordingly dominate their relationship to the world, just as the body for them is not an instrument of the spirit, but simply flesh and matter, something to be stimulated and pleased.

The dualistic conception of body and soul born of the Jewish spirit, whose abstract and fatalistic contemplativeness is “devoid of any interest in the heroic and supranatural affirmation of the personality,” cannot, as a result, but level the higher values associated with the Aryan’s Olympian spirituality.

In the cultural realm this leads the Jews “to falsify, make ridiculous, render illusory and unjust” that which is distinct to peoples of Aryan origin and which resists the “animal, low, or dirty aspects of things.” “To degrade, to soil, and to debase all that [which the white man considers] great and noble, and to unleash at the same time obscure, instinctive, sexual, pre-personal tendencies” that undermine his values are all, in fact, second nature to them.

The Jews’ critical assault on white values is also the key to their dominion, for through the opportunistic infiltrations that enable them to control the governing institutions, they seek (usually in the name of democracy, humanity, and science) to tear down all the historically established principles and orders obstructing their designs.

Wherever, then, “the virile, heroic, triumphant assumption of the Divine vanishes, to give way to the exaltation of the pathos of a slavish, depersonalizing, turbidly and Messianic attitude toward spirit,” there Jewry inevitably triumphs over Aryanity.

To fight the forces denaturing the white man, it is not enough, therefore, to take half-measures infused with the alien Semitic spirit of the modern world.

A great many anti-Semites, though, do just this, seeing Aryanity as an inverse Semitism and not a true anti-Semitism. To be fully anti-Semitic, Evola argued, cannot be compromised by the ideas and principles against which whites struggle. They need to fight as Aryans.

[They] need to be radical. Values must be evoked once again which can be seriously called Aryan, and not merely on the basis of vague and one-sided concepts suffused with biological materialism. Values of a solar Olympian spirituality, of a classicism of clarity and controlled force, of a new love for difference and free personality, and, at the same time, for hierarchy and universality that a stock newly possessed of a virile ability to rise from “life” to “more-than-life” can create as against a world torn to shreds, without true principles and peace.

Evola’s anti-Semitism was largely an offshoot of his “Traditionalist” opposition to liberal modernity and its assault on the Aryan spirit, just as his support for racial nationalism in the Thirties and Forties was based less on his belief in its various ideological manifestations than in its resistance to the materialist and Judaifying impulses of the Third Estate.

Yet not long after 1945, once the forces of the Third Estate had crushed the last remnants of Traditional Europe, the Jews ceased to be a target of Evola’s traditionalist critique. At the very point, then, when the lunar forces became triumphant, Evola seemed to abandon his anti-Semitism.

Why?

Part of the reason had to do with the impossibility of mounting an effective political resistance to the Judeo-liberal order of the postwar period. For once Europe fell under the yoke of the extra-European powers and every vestige of its historic past fell into ruin, all that could be done in this new dark age was to make certain that those few men left standing were able to keep the dimming embers of the Aryan spirit from being entirely extinguished.

As he wrote in 1948, “I see nothing but a world of ruins, where a kind of front line is possible only in the catacombs.” To sustain this underground resistance, it was henceforth necessary to adopt a stoic—an indifferent—attitude to the frenzied antics of what had become a totally Hebraicized world.

But there was another reason for his waning interest in the Jewish Question.

In his “spiritual autobiography,” The Road of Cinnabar (1972), Evola writes that following the Second World War he thought it “absurd” to continue stressing the white man’s superiority over the Jew “because the negative behavior [traditionally] attributed to Jews had now become that of the majority of ‘Aryans.’” That is, in an age where the Jewish spirit of liberal modernity prevailed and most whites had succumbed to it, it was futile to exalt Aryan values, for whites, the Aryans’ alleged heirs, now behaved no differently than Jews.

For this reason, I think his postwar stance was less an abandonment of his earlier anti-Semitic critique than a recognition that the subversive forces (of which the Jews were the most conspicuous embodiment) had become hegemonic and that those few white men who had not succumbed had no choice but to “ride the tiger” until it dropped of exhaustion—the tiger being the perverted powers that had come to rule the world.

Insofar as the twenty-first century announces a new order of battle, Evola’s apolitical stoicism can no longer be our position today.

But it is nevertheless one that points to what is at stake in the wars we’ll have to fight if whites are to have a future—for the white man’s blood will not survive if he defiles the spirit that makes him who he is.

Bibliographical Note:

Ten of Evola’s twenty-five books have now been translated into English, though not his racialist and fascist ones (with the exception of the pamphlet “Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem”). The interested reader should probably begin not with his magnum opus, Revolt against the Modern World, which demands a good deal of familiarity with his thought, but rather with Men among the Ruins, beautifully edited by Michael Moynihan and introduced with a long biographical essay by the Austrian scholar H. T. Hanson.

There are also several English-language websites devoted to him. The one with the best collection of his articles is Evola As He Is (here).

For those who read Italian, an excellent introduction is Adriano Romualdi, Julius Evola: L’uoma e l’opera (Rome: Volpe, 1968). For those who read French, see Christophe Boutin, Politique et tradition: Julius Evola dans le siècle (Paris: Kimé, 1992). On Evola’s “problematic” metaphysics, see my “The Primordial and the Perennial: Tradition in the Thought of Martin Heidegger and Julius Evola,” Tyr: Myth—Culture—Tradition 3 (2007).

Mein Kampf: excerpted from vol. I chapter 7

2011-02-02T03:11:00.009Z

Western men have become brainless sheep. They bleat how they’re told. Even for those white nationalists who are beginning to awaken to the realities of this age of treason, the name of Adolf Hitler rings a giant Pavlovian bell. But once we defrock ourselves from the sheep Hitler’s words become more commonsensical than what we expected... This translation of the unexpurgated edition of Mein Kampf was first published on March 21st, 1939 (no ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs):

Chapter “The Revolution”

Again and again I used to become enraged and indignant as I read the latest papers and realized the nature of the mass-murder they were committing: through their influence on the minds of the people and the soldiers. More than once I was tormented by the thought that if Providence had put the conduct of German propaganda into my hands, instead of into the hands of those incompetent and even criminal ignoramuses and weaklings, the outcome of the struggle might have been different. During those months I felt for the first time that Fate was dealing adversely with me in keeping me on the fighting front and in a position where any chance bullet from some nigger or other might finish me, whereas I could have done the Fatherland a real service in another sphere. For I was then presumptuous enough to believe that I would have been successful in managing the propaganda business. But I was a nameless soldier, one among eight millions. Hence it was better for me to keep my mouth shut and do my duty as well as I could in the position to which I had been assigned.

At the end of September 1916 my division was sent into the Battle of the Somme. For us this was the first of a series of heavy engagements, and the impression created was that of a veritable inferno, rather than war.

Through weeks of incessant artillery bombardment we stood firm, at times ceding a little ground but then taking it back again, and never giving way. On October 7th, 1916, I was wounded but had the luck of being able to get back to our lines and was then ordered to be sent by ambulance train to Germany. Two years had passed since I had left home, an almost endless period in such circumstances. I could hardly imagine what Germans looked like without uniforms. In the clearing hospital at Hermies I was startled when I suddenly heard the voice of a German woman who was acting as nursing sister and talking with one of the wounded men lying near me. Two years! And then this voice for the first time! The nearer our ambulance train approached the German frontier the more restless each one of us became. En route we recognised all these places through which we passed two years before as young volunteers—Brussels, Louvain, Liège—and finally we thought we recognized the first German homestead, with its familiar high gables and picturesque window-shutters.

Home!

As soon as I was able to walk once again I obtained leave to visit Berlin.

* * *
Government offices were staffed by Jews. Almost every clerk was a Jew and every Jew was a clerk. I was amazed at this multitude of combatants who belonged to the chosen people and could not help comparing it with their slender numbers in the fighting lines.

In the business world the situation was even worse. Here the Jews had actually become ‘indispensable’. Like leeches, they were slowly sucking the blood from the pores of the national body. By means of newly floated War Companies an instrument had been discovered whereby all national trade was throttled so that no business could be carried on freely. Special emphasis was laid on the necessity for unhampered centralization. Hence as early as 1916-17 practically all production was under the control of Jewish finance.

But against whom was the anger of the people directed? It was then that I already saw the fateful day approaching which must finally bring the debacle, unless timely preventive measures were taken. While Jewry was busy despoiling the nation and tightening the screws of its despotism, the work of inciting the people against the Prussians increased. And just as nothing was done at the front to put a stop to the venomous propaganda, so here at home no official steps were taken against it.

I could not tolerate this execrable squabbling among people of the same German stock and preferred to be at the front once again. Therefore, just after my arrival in Munich I reported myself for service again. At the beginning of March 1917 I rejoined my old regiment at the front.

* * *
At the end of September my division occupied, for the third time, those positions which we had once taken by storm as young volunteers. What a memory!

Three years ago the regiment had taken this position by storm; now it was called upon to defend it in a gruelling struggle.

With an artillery bombardment that lasted three weeks the English prepared for their great offensive in Flanders. There the spirits of the dead seemed to live again.

During the night of October 13th-14th, the British opened an attack with gas on the front south of Ypres. They used the yellow gas whose effect was unknown to us, at least from personal experience. I was destined to experience it that very night. On a hill south of Werwick, in the evening of October 13th, we were subjected for several hours to a heavy bombardment with gas bombs, which continued throughout the night with more or less intensity. About midnight a number of us were put out of action, some forever. Towards morning I also began to feel pain. It increased with every quarter of an hour; and about seven o’clock my eyes were scorching as I staggered back and delivered the last dispatch I was destined to carry in this war.

A few hours later my eyes were like glowing coals and all was darkness around me. I was sent into hospital at Pasewalk in Pomerania, and there it was that I had to hear of the Revolution. I was not able to read the newspapers.

* * *
During the last few days I had begun to feel somewhat better. The burning pain in the eye-sockets had become less severe. Gradually I was able to distinguish the general outlines of my immediate surroundings. And it was permissible to hope that at least I would recover my sight sufficiently to be able to take up some profession later on. That I would ever be able to draw or design once again was naturally out of the question. Thus I was on the way to recovery when the frightful hour came.

Demonstration against
the Treaty of Versailles
(Reichstag building)

From the front came the shameful news that they wished to capitulate! What! Was such a thing possible? On November 10th the local pastor visited the hospital for the purpose of delivering a short address. And that was how we came to know the whole story. I was in a fever of excitement as I listened to the address. The reverend old gentleman seemed to be trembling when he informed us that the House of Hohenzollern should no longer wear the Imperial Crown, that the Fatherland had become a ‘Republic’, and I do not think there was a single eye that withheld its tears. As for myself, I broke down completely when the old gentleman tried to resume his story by informing us that we must now end this long war.

It was impossible for me to stay and listen any longer. Darkness surrounded me as I staggered and stumbled back to my ward and buried my aching head between the blankets and pillow. I had not cried since the day that I stood beside my mother’s grave.

"Capitalism and racial Decline"

2011-02-01T01:13:00.005Z