A final solution to the Jewish problem

In 2009 the counter-jihad movement impressed me and I posted excerpts of a remarkable article that had been published in a couple of well-known anti-Islamist sites. I titled my February 2009 excerpts: “Nuking Mecca: a truly fascinating exchange.” Since then I realized that the counter-jihad movement was dominated by intellectually coward neo-cons, half-Jews and deracinated, Jew-blind pro-Israel “whites.”

Below I simply replace reference to Islamic words in the original article as well as in the commentariat section. Islam thus becomes ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government in the U.S.), Muslims become Jews, Islamism becomes Judaism, Mecca becomes Jerusalem, Medina becomes Tel Aviv, etcetera.

Have you ever wondered how similar Judaism and Islam are? They are almost mirror images of each other, except one is particularist and the other is universalist. —Euromike

Westerner wrote [excerpt]:

In recent years, several knowledgeable writers—including Kevin MacDonald (The Culture of Critique) and Hervé Ryssen (e.g., La Mafia juive, Le Miroir du judaïsme and Histoire de l’antisémitisme, here)—have described what the Jews actually do in Gentile society, both in theory and in practice. Judaism is not “just another religion,” but rather an intrinsically subversive movement, and serious Jews wish to establish the rule of Israel over the entire globe (see e.g., the top quotation of an issue of Israel magazine here). However, although the writers mentioned above correctly state the nature of the Jewish threat to our country and our way of life, they do not say how we can counter that threat. Harold Covington is somewhat better, because he not only takes the ZOG threat seriously, but has a plan of action for defending our society. He and William Pierce suggest (quite sensibly) that we should defend ourselves against the Judaization of America by refusing to accept Jews from other countries, and sending home those who are already here. In their novels they also suggests that we must destroy the Israeli nuclear facilities, and should prevent any other Jew from acquiring nuclear weapons.

However, although Covington’s plan is advisable, it is still inadequate—the world would still contain a sizable number of Jews. We cannot be safe unless Judah is crushed; that is, so reduced in strength that it can no longer threaten the free world. Our overall strategy for doing so should include the following steps: (1) The only way in which we can quickly break both the financial power of the Jews and their grip on our society is to freeze the Jews’ assets. (2) Totally destroying several Jewish holy or political sites, including Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. We should announce in advance the dates when those places will be destroyed, and that Yahweh (Hebrew: יהוה‎) is either unwilling or unable to protect them. We should then, using nuclear weapons, proceed to vaporize each of those sites in sequence.

It may be objected that this program involves the killing of a large number of people, many of them innocent. So do all wars. We did not choose this war; it has been forced on us. Of course, this program cannot be carried out by the United States—or any coalition of Western nations—until there is sufficient popular support for it. The purpose of this article is not to cause the immediate adoption of this program, but rather to create an understanding of what needs to be done.


Comments [excerpts]
Commenter 1 said:

The people who implement such steps will not appeal to ordinary folk like you and me. Along with nuking Jerusalem and occupying Israel, they will remove what’s left of our civil liberties, militarize our societies, imprison and execute those who disagree with them, increase the power of the state, nationalize our economies, and enact powerful controls over the entire populace via the media, the schools, and all public institutions. Because that’s what happens when drastic emergency situations arise, when an entire civilization is at stake. The people who undertake actions that kill or impoverish millions of people are the same kind of people who do all those other nasty things. Men who are that ruthless will act just as ruthlessly to preserve and extend their own power. You can’t avoid it; it’s a package deal.

Commenter 2 said:

I don’t really think the ideas presented in Westerner’s essay are really that bad. Honestly, I’ve had pretty much of those ideas for a little while because I don’t really see any alternative in dealing with ZOG. Therefore the only solution left is to fight back against ZOG with the same ferocity with which they fight us. Sure, the death of millions upon millions of people doesn’t sound like the best thing to moral people, but what choice do we have? We could be morally superior, so to speak, and not take such drastic action, but in that case we would be dead, or in the best situation, living as slaves for the Jewish people. Sorry, but I am certain of one thing: I personally will do absolutely anything to avoid having the world go Judaized.

Commenter 3 said:

Regarding the nuking of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Judaism has been around for 3,000 years. Nukes have only been around for a little more than 60 years. ZOG is seriously begging for having these sites nuked. So it’s just a matter of time before it happens. If it doesn’t happen early, nuclear proliferation will make sure that eventually an Islamic nuke will hit Israel. So there is no stopping this. The only open question is how much destruction, death and mayhem the world will suffer from before that event takes place.

Commenter 4 said:

Actually we will reach a point when this sort of drastic measures will be simply unavoidable. Maybe not in our lifetime, but the next generations will witness such a society. It’s the fault of our irresponsible, blind, spineless, dumb leaders and elite, because they are unable and unwilling to stop the Judaization of the West right now. When the Turks besieged Constantinople, the priests and theologians were debating about the sex of angels. This is what our politicians are doing now. If we don’t remove the idiotic political elite which is leading the West nowadays, our grandchildren will pay bitterly for the mistakes and weakness of their ancestors.

Commenter 5 said:

It may well be that such a development would be inevitable during an all out confrontation with the Jews, and that’s the reason why I favor a quick and dirty solution, rather than a corrosive stalemate eating our democracy and civil liberties from within.

Commenter 3 said:

ZOG must be eradicated. And this is the reason why Jerusalem has to be completely destroyed; burned to the ground. This is the decisive blow against ZOG. Praying to Yahweh, when its holy city is just rubble will not strengthen your faith: it will eat you up from the inside. And you cannot go on pilgrimage to a place that doesn’t exist. Two of the most important cities of Judaism effectively eliminated. Tel Aviv should be destroyed in the same way, of course, so they won’t start turning there for prayer. All in all it has to be a massive power demonstration showing beyond any doubt that it’s not Yahweh that rules this planet but the civilization with the greatest means to apply violence and destruction, i.e., us.

Put ZOG and nukes together in a laboratory environment, and the outcome will always be a destroyed Jerusalem. So the ways things are setup can only eventually lead to a giant showdown.

Commenter 6 said:

Most regulars here know quite well that my preferred first course of action is for Western militaries to begin targeted assassinations of ZOG’s clerical, financial and scholastic aristocracy. To quote an old Danish saying: “Go to the horse’s head, not it’s tail”. Decapitating ZOG should be our first priority. The damage done through a few hundred or thousand killings could quite possibly change the entire course of history. Rest assured that not killing ZOG’s aristocracy will most definitely lead to a holocaust of one sort or the other. A great first step is to kill any Jew on earth that openly talks of exterminating whites, starting with Noel Ignatiev.

Bearing in mind my unshaken opposition to first-use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, I can only go on to agree that obliterating Jerusalem with an atomic bomb is one of the few ways to adequately conveying both the West’s displeasure with ZOG and the total fallibility of Yahweh. As with Machiavelli’s observation, the blow we land should be one that does not heal. There must be a permanent record of just how foolish Jews were to constantly provoke the West.

This is why Israel’s nuclear weapons project should be shut down and her atomic arsenal confiscated. Once proliferation occurs within the Middle East now that still more Islamist nations are joining the nuclear club, a holocaust is only a matter of time.

ZOG’s destruction is the only acceptable outcome. It will be a supreme moral challenge for the West to understand that military pre-emption costing hundreds of thousands or even more than a million lives will be far more humane than allowing the inevitable holocaust that ZOG is sure to precipitate.

Commenter 7 said:

All this talk of how to deal with ZOG is pointless, because it ignores the real problem: liberals that are preventing us from doing anything. The home front is the biggest front. It would be relatively easy to defeat ZOG if we had a free hand. What’s the point of discussing whether we should nuke Jerusalem when we can’t even stop the Jews from coming to our countries because liberals and egalitarians won’t let us do that? Let’s talk about how to defeat liberals instead! That is the real problem.

Commenter 8 said:

Commenter 1 and others in this thread argue as follows: “Solution X may be what we need to do for our survival, but the support for X does not exist, therefore Solution X is not a good idea and I disagree with it.” This is to argue backward, in a way that is very common among conservatives, and shows a failure to grasp the radical nature of the challenge before us. Obviously, any kind of solution to the Jewish Problem that is favored by serious Western patriots will be completely outside current accepted thinking. Therefore any solution offered by white nationalists is going to lack current support and seem completely out of the question—by current standards. Commenter 1 and others implicitly imagine that the solution they seek could be arrived at within the current liberal assumption that governs our world. But that is false. It is modern liberalism itself—the belief that all people and cultures are basically the same and that discrimination against and exclusion of any group or religion are the greatest sins—that is leading us to our destruction.

Therefore it is the liberal worldview that must be challenged and defeated. For Commenter 1 to say, “Solution X is no good, because the liberal orthodoxy would refuse to support it,” is to give up the battle without having even tried to fight it. What Western patriots need to grasp is that Western survival requires and assumes the defeat of liberalism. Those who are not prepared to challenge liberalism on a fundamental level will not be able to save the West. Thus any policy that the participants in this discussion favor—ranging from stopping all Jewish immigration, to designating Judaism as a political ideology and placing legal restrictions on it, to initiating Jew out-migration, to the quarantine of Jews within Israel or Madagascar, to the more radical and violent steps that Westerner and others have proposed—all these policies assume that the West will have gone beyond its current liberalism. The defeat of liberalism is the assumed starting point of all our proposed solutions. Therefore the end of liberalism should not be seen as some distant, impossible goal, but as the indispensable condition of our survival.

To believe in the West and in our own life as Westerners, is to believe in the defeat of liberalism. Those who are unwilling to challenge liberalism may offer a lot of lip service about defending the West, but they will eventually yield to its destruction. So how do we get from here to Solution X? Not by saying, “There’s no support for it.” Not by saying, “We have to wait for liberals to change.” Not by saying, “Let’s spend the next 20 years telling people that ZOG is a mortal threat to our civilization, but never telling them what they can do in order save themselves from this threat.” No. We get to Solution X by making our case, our whole case, including the diagnosis (ZOG is a mortal threat to us) and the possible cure (my own preferred cure is the removal, disempowerment, and permanent quarantine of Judaism; others have their preferred cures and we should continue discussing them). By making our whole case, we persuade people (1) of the nature of the problem, (2) of the only possible solutions to the problem, and (3) of the fact that these solutions are not possible within liberal assumptions, because liberalism is a suicidal ideology, and therefore we must renounce liberalism. It’s the whole case that will persuade people and move them to the position that will make Western survival possible. Not a quarter case, not a half case.

Commenter 1 said:

To be clear: it may someday become necessary, moral, ethical, and imperative to raze Jerusalem, pulverize the rubble, bulldoze it flat, and sow the ground with salt. We haven’t come to that pass yet, but we may reach it someday. It grows more likely with each passing day of our feckless policies towards ZOG. But we aren’t there yet, and I strive to find ways to arrive at our goal via a different route. I think laying out the whole case occasionally has value, but the effectiveness of my mission may be better achieved by concentrating most of the time on the itty-bitty baby steps.

Commenter 8 said:

As the audience sees it, it’s not clear that Judaism is bad, because (1) the liberals skillfully excuse ZOG, and (2) even the Jew critics don’t really seem to think Judaism is that bad, since they never say that we should do anything about it. The seriousness of the analysis of the ZOG threat is underscored by the seriousness of the proposals to deal with it.

Commenter 9:

The best we can do is ruthlessly manage the problem:

(1) Deport all Jews from the West; kill the Jews who resist or try to circumvent #1.

(2) Set up a new Iron Curtain around the lands to where the Jews have been deported, and kill the Jews who try to leave. Will this be possible to implement perfectly? Of course not. Even if we had the political will to do this, there would still be holes in the system, and the West would probably continue to be plagued into the indefinite future with rogue cells of underground Jews who have slipped through the net and who try to attack in various ways.

Commenter 10 said:

Sadly, the simple fact is that we have neither the will nor the stomach to undertake such a strategy that as short a time ago as 1945 was seen as a quite reasonable way to wage war against one’s sworn enemies. Look at the very first comment in this discussion [not included in this collection], which considers the rather mild military measures considered by the original poster to be “pornographic.” And that commentator is somehow officially associated with a blog whose avowed purpose seems to be to discuss how to fight the Jews!

No, I fear we are in for a great many disappointments in the years ahead as the West continues to quiver fearfully and retreat from the aggressive assault of ZOG, and the first comment in this thread is part and parcel of exactly why: when even folks who pretend to understand the threat of modern Jews on the march express squeamish reservations about actually fighting them, we are indeed on the losing side. And if the West were truly serious about its “war” with the Jews it would make war the way it did when it was last serious about actually winning (as opposed to simply not losing, which is a different thing), and which is within the memory of some still living, the events of which occurred scarcely two generations ago. But, alas, it is not, and there we are.

Commenter 6 said:

The West has only a decade or two, at most, to dismantle ZOG before we come under an Orwellian world.

Commenter 9 said:

You are ignoring an approximately 1,700-year-period when the West was both globally powerful and not corrupted by the ideas of the French Revolution on egalitarianism so that the West was uninhibited in horning in on the Third World through Colonialism and in doing so interfered massively all over most parts of the Middle East. As a consequence, do you think it was mere coincidence that the Jews were more docile during that period, relatively speaking?

All we need, and even this is a tall order, given the mainstream dominance of politically correctness and multiculturalism throughout the West, is to regain our former rationality and apply it to the threat of ZOG, and over time the Jews will hunker down again. Additionally, a Judaism that is internationally isolated (under the kind of geographical quarantine I proposed above, echoed by Commenter 6) will of itself become quickly weak. Under such a geographical quarantine, will the Jews cease to be a threat to the West? Of course not. Will that threat become considerably—and therefore sufficiently—reduced, rolled back to the levels of the way it was during Western Colonialism or even better? There is no good reason to think why not.

Commenter 3 said:

The holy sites should not just be pulverized and named after Hitler and Himmler: they should be forever occupied. Thusly it will make Judaism impossible, and even the prospect of being able to do it any time in the future inconceivable. In fact, I think that probably one should just destroy Jerusalem first. And only after that, when the Jews have redirected their hopes and prayers towards the Tel Aviv government, should that city be destroyed in a similar manner.

Finally Commenter 6, your suggestion of targeted assassinations against ZOG’s aristocracy also belongs to the category of age-old wisdom, and yes such a suggestion belongs on the table for a problem of this magnitude. But also here I will say that because it’s Judaism it won’t work. Your suggestion amounts to cutting off all the heads of a hydra. While it will hurt them severely, the heads will eventually grow back. No, we need to go for the body for the kill, i.e., we need to attack their faith. All in all, I think it will be fairly easy to destroy Judaism once we have collectively understood that this is what we need to do.

The day this total war turns hot we need more than such a half-hearted stance against ZOG, because this is what would be truly insane. In the face of such a formidable enemy we must muster all our mental focus against him. A half-hearted approach only aiming for limited war and treating the monsters with respect, is a sure formula for failure. Limited war has been the paradigm of the United States since World War II and it has left the world in chaos. Most of the cases have been utter failures: China, Vietnam, Iran, Lebanon, Somalia. And even the cases that succeeded have been half-measures: Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq. The idea that war can be successfully waged with the left-hand and without the mental focus on total victory is simply bourgeoisie crap.

Commenter 9 said:

Commenter 8, you wrote: “To protect ourselves from ZOG we do not need to exterminate every single Jew on earth. We just need to destroy the Zionist Occupied Government that is the actual threat to us.” Unlike in past wars, the threat from ZOG is mostly unrelated to individual states. The predominant threat comes from an amorphously trans-national shadowy network, often seemingly harmless and ordinary Jews. This reflects the more general problem about Jews: since we cannot sufficiently tell the difference between harmless Jew and dangerous Jew, we must, in the context of our collective self-defense, rationally treat them all as dangerous.

Commenter 3 said:

Commenter 6, I cannot see why the destruction of Jerusalem couldn’t be done in addition to your Ruthless Management policy. If the Jewish world has first been rendered essentially harmless, there is little risk. But the opportunity is great. With a successful outcome we’d break the spirit of Judaism, and it won’t be necessary with a perpetual ruthless management. Judaism has never before been properly defeated. Only the Greek Antiochus IV, the Roman Titus and the pan-Germanic Hitler tried.

While many other actions would surely just lead to strengthening their fighting spirit (such as e.g. nuking Tel Aviv), this one, nuking Jerusalem, is designed to crack it. Nothing would break their faith in Yahweh like this. And without an immovable faith in Yahweh the whole Judaization of the West becomes pointless for them; meaningless. How can Yahweh guarantee a Messiah on earth if he cannot protect Jerusalem? Does he even exist? This will kill their fighting spirit, and then continue to eat up their belief in Judaism from the inside. The snake will keep rattling for some time after we have cut the head of it, so we need to keep it at a distance during that. But the snake cannot keep moving for long without its head.

Commenter 11 said:

Forget the fantasies of nuking Jerusalem until we learn to “nuke” the left-wing biased media and academia. Can anyone deny that they have managed to make the number one concern of the West the guarding against racism (and thus anti-Semitism)? Fear of racism has literally been made greater than fear of an existential threat. This is suicidal.

Commenter 12 said:

What would be far more effective than merely destroying that Wailing Wall that die Juden worship in Jerusalem would be to carve from it an enormous statue of a crowned Hitler with His foot on a prone Moses’ face, or on a cracking and crumbling Star of David, while holding up a shield with a swastika and a straight, Christian sword. Instead of being able to indulge in romanticized nostalgia for a vanished sacred object such as Muslims do for the Black Stone or Christians for the Holy Grail, Jews would then be confronted in an ongoing unavoidable way by the permanent and utter defeat, the weakness and falseness, of their religion.

Commenter 3 said:

The discussion is also essential in the way that in order to know how to destroy ZOG properly, you have to fully understand its nature. And even though the people discussing here are top tier, I would say that there are still several ones that haven’t yet taken in the full nature of it.

In a few more decades of unchecked immigration, half of the West will be lost. This is a much bigger damage than one or a couple of nukes could do.

On exterminationist anti-Semitism

I have spent the last couple of days reading the long threads about last December’s affair that moved Hunter Wallace of the Occidental Dissent blogsite to remove links from the sites of Jim Giles and Alex Linder. Wallace’s action was provoked by Giles and Linder’s views on exterminationist anti-Semitism. After the storm in several forums, Giles inexplicably removed more than a year of his recorded radio shows from his site, while Wallace had been reprimanded by one of his comrades for giving a warm Shalom hug to an apologist of Jewry (Guy White). Wallace of course didn’t see his fateful interview with Giles in Radio Free Mississippi that way. “In my entire life,” Wallace wrote, “I have rarely felt so guilty or ashamed, or embarrassed” for having promoted exterminationists like Giles and Linder in his blogsite.

Personally, I profoundly dislike the way Linder treated Greg Johnson, who taught me to think more kindly about uncle Adolf of what I previously did (see e.g., my previous post on Hitler where Johnson’s views occupy a privileged place). However, had I been in Wallace’s shoes during the radio interview I’d simply have responded to Giles’ invasive questioning thus: “Hey dude: you are to the right of Hitler himself! His original plan was not to kill the Jews but to deport them to Madagascar. Only after he felt betrayed by a world that he so much admired—his dream alliance was with the British Empire—, with some reluctance he okayed Himmler’s 1942 nefarious memo for a final solution.”

I have stolen some posts from what several commenters said in two threads about Hunter’s atonement. Pay special attention to Trainspotter’s posts: genuine gems about the White Nationalist movement in general and the radioactive Jewish Problem in particular (no ellipsis added between unquoted excerpts):



Trainspotter says:

“The main reason I am taking a break is not to have a stupid overreaction.” —Hunter Wallace

I think this is wise. Frankly, you have already overreacted to a certain extent, no need to paint yourself further into a corner. Keep your options open.

In the real world, nothing has changed. Our enemies still pursue the same old policies, knowing full well that these policies are leading to white destruction. Our people are still being raped, tortured, and murdered literally on a daily basis. They are still being degraded and undermined at every turn. They are still facing displacement, marginalization, and ultimate extinction. Those who stand up to this are still being fired, abused, and ruined. Depending on the country, even jailed or murdered outright.

People can quibble about calling this “genocide.” I have no such quibble: it most certainly is genocide. It is simply done in a more indirect, dishonest way. I don’t believe that genocide requires that an official order or memorandum be issued. I don’t believe that our enemy has to type out proclamations advocating our murder and dispossession, complete with wax seal and fancy calligraphy. That they knowingly pursue policies which have this effect is quite enough. Not only do they know this, they celebrate it. And in what must be a new low in perversity and chutzpah, they demand that we celebrate it as well. We must laud, with furious applause, our own dispossession.

Good times.

Imagine, for a moment, doing this to some other nation. What if we were in a position to do this to the Japanese? We deliberately pursued policies that would lead to the ultimate extinction of the Japanese people. We deliberately pursued policies to undermine their culture, encourage their women to bed down with Africans, and covered up the dramatic rise in rape and murders of Japanese women. And when some courageous Japanese speak out against what we are doing to their people? We get them fired, we get them jailed if possible, we ruin their lives and their ability to function in their own society.

This ain’t genocide? Really?

I think it is. Hell, I know it is. And once you understand that (and I think you do understand), and fully appreciate the magnitude of the evil being done to our people, you should also understand the great anger that is welling up in some of our more radical brethren. It is understandable. It is very understandable. I don’t agree with their solution, but I understand—and feel—their anger. [Chechar’s emphasis]

Now, if some of the hotheads on our side of the aisle advocate things that harm our cause, then of course one may choose to disassociate from them. This too is reasonable and understandable. If Alex [Linder] becomes a net liability to a given group’s mission, fine. But to be furious with Alex, to have intense anger towards Alex, is misplaced. I am amazed at the raw and righteous anger directed at something that Alex advocates (I strongly disagree with him too, for what it is worth), while being calm and dispassionate about the murder and rape of our own people which is the daily reality of our present situation. I think this is telling. Dispassionate analysis as our own innocents are raped and slaughtered, furious indignation at a hothead who merely advocates a violent reprisal.

Bottom line: the name of the game is to preserve our people. It’s self determination for whites. Obviously, pro-whites disagree on how to go about achieving this. At this point it seems obvious that we need to try different approaches. There is no reason why Linder can’t keep doing what he is doing, and [Kevin] MacDonald keep doing what he is doing, and you keep doing what you are doing. They are not mutually exclusive, they are not even inherently in conflict.

We aren’t a unified party or hierarchical organization. Rather, we are a loose constellation of individuals and groups that are, more or less, pulling in the direction of a nation for whites. Some will get along better with their neighbors than others. Some won’t be on speaking terms at all. If someone makes himself or herself radioactive, then fine. Why should this undermine one’s core beliefs? How does this change the facts on the ground? How does it change the magnitude of what is being done to our people? It doesn’t.

Captainchaos says:

“I’m not ready to accept the view that Jews are biologically programmed to undermine White nations.” —HW [Hunter Wallace]

I’m afraid the contention that the overall Jewish group dynamic when left unchecked is in its decisive impact on European peoples genocidal cannot reasonably be argued with. If as our iron standard we say that the best predictor of the future is what has happened in the past, we have our answer.

Re Giles and Linder: We do not know at this time, however strongly we may suspect, that they have gone beyond the pale in having betrayed us unforgivably in their alleged capacity as System-controlled/directed agent provocateurs. Why do I say that and formulate it thus? Well, it is self-evident to me that such men as are Linder and Giles, assuming they are not guilty of having transgressed as is alleged and described above, are an evolved type of White man whose type was and is adaptive at the decisive moment of defense of the life of the group when it is faced with total destruction of its enemies or the total destruction of the group. I will call them the Dogs of War. Yet, as Nietzsche remarked regarding scientists/scholars as relates to philosophers, the former is seen aright as, however valuable, but a tool in the hand of the philosopher. So too the Dogs of War in the hands of Leaders. It is not prudent to give them over to be unleashed. And if they are incapable of being leashed then they are Mad Dogs, do more harm than helping, and must be put down. This is perhaps the situation Adolf Hitler was faced with in the person of his friend and once comrade Ernst Rohm. I mean that, in this instance, of course only in a figurative sense. Still, if we ever regarded them as brothers, and we still can regard them as brothers in the sense that they have not betrayed us unforgivably and utterly, then I think we are honor bound to see if they can’t be rehabilitated. If they cannot, and after our most earnest effort to so do, then we may regard them as Mad Dogs (if indeed they have not betrayed us)—and do what must be done.

“In 2004/2005, I allowed Neo-Nazis at VNN Forum to push me over the edge. I became an FDR apologist and supporter of the Allied war effort. I started downplaying the Jewish Question and emphasizing other angles of White racial decline.” —HW

It is my opinion that you went too far in that direction.

“I’ve modified my view of Guy White. I can see now that a lot of what he says is a needed corrective to people like Giles and Linder.” —HW

You must come to a decisive understanding of just what your role is. You know and I know damn well that Guy White and Ian Jobling are actively engaged in a process of obfuscation to conceal what is the whole truth for whatever reason. If so, then know, your knees can never buckle, and/or be seen to buckle.

The above is perhaps harsh, perhaps hard to swallow, yet it is manifestly the truth—as I see it. I don’t envy your choice, I would not want the responsibility. May the wind be at your back in making your decision.

Hunter Wallace says:

Friedrich Braun is right in his conclusion that the White Nationalist tree needs to be pruned. A clear line in the sand needs to be drawn. The exterminationists must be shorn off and cast into the fire.

Mr. Dithers says:

Giles and Linder are independent operators and I’m still baffled that HW feels like an enabler to them so much so that he’s considering dropping the Jewish Question altogether. There’s no reason to shy away from the topic based on the words and actions of a couple of individuals.

I’ve had a little more time to digest the events of the last two days and I believe the whole interview was a set up with bad intentions from the start. I never would have expected that and obviously neither did HW. Given Giles’ “aw shucks” and semi-retarded comportment in previous interviews I would have had my guard down like HW.

But what I find most troubling is HW’s reaction. The mention of Jewish genocide struck a raw nerve with him but Susan Sontag with her “The white race is the cancer of human history” was much ado about nothing. Since cancer is usually cut out or burned the implication, at least to these ears, was that whites are villains who must be removed. Keep in mind Susan Sontag wasn’t some obscure person with a website. She was a very prominent author who rubbed elbows with America’s cultural elites. Yet, she was never rebuked or upbraided by her fellow “good” Jews or anyone else that I’m aware of.

Funny how her anti-white invective was downplayed but had a WN [white nationalist] said that Jews are the cancer of human history then it would have been time for soul searching, teeth gnashing and censorship. Guy Blight, Friedrich Flinstone and other philo-semites would have used this as evidence to assert that anyone critical of Jews wants to see them dead and denies the Holocaust. Jews are held to a much lower standard and that is total hypocrisy.

Then we have Jewish professor Noel Ignatiev whose stated objective is to “abolish the white race”. Of course he cleverly skirts around the idea of physical extermination by stating that whiteness is defined by white identity and white privilege but I think it’s safe to assume he’d like to see white people dead. At a minimum he wants to see us completely dispossessed so I guess he’s not as bad as Linder.

Unfortunately none of this seems to be a smoking gun to HW. I don’t know what else it takes to convince someone that some prominent and successful Jews have very bad intentions towards us. Go ahead and be indignant over calls for genocide but at least be consistent. Don’t get uppity when Linder says something but then be totally dispassionate, objective and stoic when non-whites or Jews slyly insinuate or suggest the outright genocide of whites. There is a glaring double standard at work here.

Luke says:

What to do about the Jewish Problem? A question that has plagued this world for how long, now: 2000 years or more? If you notice that the roof on your house has been leaking, how many times is it wise to just patch the hole or two that is causing the leaks? At what point do you decide that it is time for a new roof, so as to really solve the problem—as opposed to delaying the pursuit of the best remedy?

And, what is the proper and logically best remedy to pursue, when confronted with attempted genocide of your race and the complete destruction of the entirety of Western Civilization? Is not attempted genocide an extreme offense? Should the response be tame, mild mannered, and gentlemanly? Isn’t this the same kind of thinking that ultimately lead to the defeat of the Old South under the leadership of General Robert E. Lee?

One of Jim Giles’s best interviews, I thought, was with John de Nugent—and during that interview, de Nugent pointed out that we are not fighting a chivalrous enemy. We’re dealing with something so evil, so stupendously diabolical that, in order for us to survive in the end, we are going to have to adjust our tactics and our thinking, and understand that if we do not abandon our genetic inclination towards fairness and sportsmanship when fighting this battle, then we are going to lose. This enemy has no such restraints on their tactics; they lie, they cheat, they infiltrate, and they play dirty. They are willing to kick us in the nuts and knife or shoot us in the back—and they feel absolutely no remorse or guilt for having done so. They play to win, and winning is exactly what they will do—if we continue to use tactics that do not match up to theirs.

So, how do we fight an enemy who is “not chivalrous”? Certainly not by inviting them into our camp, as the Jared Taylors, Nick Griffins, and Arthur Kemps would do. And, the poster who pointed out that it has been the Jews who declared war upon us—and they did so by choice—and whites can either do whatever is necessary to survive, or we can roll over and let the Jews exterminate us.

Tough decisions lie ahead of us, friends. Like Braveheart said, we can either fight and possibly die, or we can run and then surely be destroyed.

What’s it going to be?

Hunter Wallace says:

Jim Giles has lost his fucking mind. There is no other way to put it. He is saying all of this shit on air… in the wake of Bill White going to prison. In this latest broadcast, I think there is a damn good chance he just broke the law.

_________________________________

Chechar comments for this blog: In one of the radio shows that he would remove later, Giles was calling to exterminate specific persons. I didn’t listen to it, but if Wallace is right perhaps I have also broken the law in this very blog.

In Alex Linder’s forum for tough guys the opposing view to Wallace’s was discussed.

Wallace continued to discuss the subject in another article. Although the Occidental Dissent commentariat went off topic after a while, I consider the next post very empathetic: a window to the tormented soul of Jim Giles:
_________________________________

White Preservationist says:

Since some of you think Giles might be a Neo-Turner informant-type, go ahead and pick him apart like a good investigative debater here in OD’s very own “School of Athens” [formerly Wallace had used Raphael's painting for Occidental Dissent]. No one is stopping you from doing so. I’ve listened to most of the last couple of Giles’ aptly named “Rebel Rants” (great choice of name, man) and we ought to review some of the info and background about him which could’ve pushed him over the edge as of late:


Jim Giles

1- He lost what was likely a very good and lucrative job at IBM, probably sleazily pushed out by a non-White affirmative-action hire or bureaucratic Jew who could’ve nepotistically lobbied upper-level IBM Jews for his Jewish job over White Giles’ job

2 - He went through a divorce, which is of course very traumatic for all involved: not sure how long ago

3- He was forced to leave NYC and elsewhere (?), places he said he much enjoyed living in, to move back home to backwater Mississippi near his parents to live in a trailer with a bunch of hound dogs and assorted other animals: surely a huge ego crushing blow to a grown man’s mind, especially a smart and driven person like Giles

4 - He says he “don’t need/want friends, he has his dogs” (“ain’t nuthin’ but a hound dog…”)—yet he stated that he is indeed pretty lonely living out in the woods… yup, take it from me, these sylvan Southern thickets during the wintertime can sometimes try a man’s soul…

5 - On air he goes over and over and over extremely graphic official crime reports of Black on White crimes, including rapes/assaults/murders of White children and women, crimes which he (mistakenly?) perceives to be genocidal against Whites—this is what seems to make him the most angry and unhinged at times; then he sees and talks with a nice young single White mother with kids who is genuinely hungry and yet you have all these Black and Mestizo welfare leeches getting all of these food stamps, welfare, etc from ZOG, meanwhile this young White single mother who was too proud to ask for welfare

6 - Though he has a thick accent and talks slowly (which I think is perfectly fine by me, in fact it shows character and an unwillingness to submit to Jewish “newspeak,” those Jewsmedia accentless cosmopolitan coastal-types who looks down upon all White “provincials”), yet despite all that he has at least two college degrees (maybe three if you count MBA?), played a very violent and high impact sport (football) amongst lots of huge and powerful people which shows definite courage, etc (SIDE NOTE: one should always distrust fast-talkin wily confusing Jews who seek to mentally befuddle you, they do this in an intentional manner… you can always better trust the slow-talking and thoughtful Whites in whatever accent they speak in)

7 - In earlier, more innocent American times Giles would’ve certainly made an excellent Southron lawyer, judge, and/or preacherman (he is indeed oratorically eloquent, you cannot deny him that), but he chased the big city livin’ corPIRATE faux Jew “Amerikwan Dream” which is pushed by the Jewsmedia of lies and illusions and was seemingly disappointing by his inability to “make it” there: he seems to take all of this personally, as possibly a personal failure on his part?

8 - He is angry, isolated living in a trailer in the woods with a pack of loud hound dogs, all hopped up on black coffee, possibly suffering from SAD due to the very short days this time of year (as many people do), and he’s lashing out a what often appears to him (and us) to be an increasingly hostile America to genuinely intelligent and insightful White Southern men like him (and some of us), especially someone of a definite Northern-Euro phenotype such as him?

9 - Some of the richer and more notable White locals in his Mississippi town/region, people like cops, judges, lawyers, etc, look down upon him sneeringly and snobbishly like some of the NYC Jews probably did despite his clear ability, drive, intelligence, brutal honesty, and so on—he sees himself languishing in a backwoods MS trailer whilst these brown-nosing Jews and corrupt White “good ol” boys’ live it up on the taxpayer’s dime, corrupt tools of The System who sympathize more with Black murderers/rapists/etc than a White man trying to make a real difference in the USA, etc.

I am not trying to be an apologist for Giles’ rather unhinged on-air behavior or possible insinuations toward “genocide” in some of his radio shows, just trying to gather some reliable evidence… Anyone else have more to add? Please by all means correct any and all of the above [if] it is incorrect. Some of it is just speculation corroborated by what Giles said in a few of his rants and interviews (the ones I have listened to anyhow, which isn’t all of them).

Friedrich Braun says:

“We don’t need yet another Guy White or Fjordman, Brussels Journal or Gates of Vienna.”

Certainly not! A successful strategy is the hobgoblin of small minds, let’s stay wedded to what we know doesn’t work and will never work: anti-Semitism, Holocaust-denial, Hitler-worship, Nazi nostalgia, genocidal fantasies, and overall thuggery and hobbyism! Now we’re talkin’!

Trainspotter says:

Braun, it would be helpful if you could address a few issues so that us skeptics could better understand your take on things.

It seems obvious to me that the Jews have done very, very well under multiracialism. They are wealthy and are vastly overrepresented in the “power” and prestige positions in our society. It’s not unfair to say that they basically control the popular media, and through it the broader culture. Along with their great wealth and cultural/institutional control, they can more or less destroy any opposition that arises. Not too shabby. Pretty good times, eh?

Some might counter that the multiracial monster will devour the Jews in time, and point to Arab immigration, or large numbers of Hispanics with anti-Semitic views. But really, can’t the Jews dodge those sorts of bullets without taking the far more risky step of supporting an all-White nation? I mean, if you were a Jew, who would you fear more? Paco the illiterate anti-Semite, or a White nation full of racially conscious men and women, determined to survive as a people? Is it any wonder that Jews fear Europeans more than a vast assortment of mongrelized third world critters? I think the question answers itself, but of course you may disagree. The point is that, when faced with the choice of managing a multiracial sewer in which they are already on top, versus dealing with a revived White population that is conscious of itself and its right to survive, which is the bigger risk from the Jewish standpoint? Again, the question answers itself.

One of the basic problems that you have is that you are asking the Jews to go against their own self-interest. Why would they do that? How stupid do you think they are?

Are they really better off supporting an all-White (plus Jews) nation, in which they would remain as a tiny minority, sticking out like a sore thumb? How is that better for them than Brazil North, with themselves on top, living in gated communities and managing the mongrelized population, a population that will happily gulp down Jewish entertainment products and media? A population that will respond perfectly to the Jewish carrot and stick. A true nation of consumer/slaves, that at most will riot once in a great while, burning down some local liquor stores and perhaps necklacing some other mongrelized, swarthy critters that get in their way. Or, better still, a few blonde Whites if any are available. Those are good for raping, too. Point is, Brazil North provides a population far too dumbed down and degenerate to offer any intelligent and determined opposition to the Jewish elite. They’ll import Chang or Apu to handle the technical jobs. No problem.

I don’t know, Braun. If I were Jewish, Brazil North is looking pretty good to me. I’d figure I could handle Carlos the child molester a lot better than Charles the determined White.

So at the end of the day, were I Jewish, would I support a revived nation of racially conscious Whites? Um…no. More like no fucking way, not in a million years. Persuade me that I’m wrong about that. More importantly, convince us that you can persuade the Jewish community. Convince us that the Jewish community would prefer to be a tiny minority in an otherwise homogenous land of racially conscious Whites, rather than the Big Dog that they clearly are today. Otherwise, you are expecting Jews to go against their own interests, something that they are manifestly not going to do. They’ve proven that much.

Now, in fairness, I’ll say that this is only one objection amongst many to your position. So it’s not like you are going settle the broader issue by addressing this particular question of self-interest. But the issue of self-interest is quite basic, and is certainly a key hurdle that you would have to overcome in order to bring people around to your position. Frankly, I don’t believe that you can do it, but I’d be interested in what you come up with.

Andrew says:

Hunter, I just listened to the interview. My take on it is that Jim Giles is overwhelmed with anger from the gruesome Newsome & Christian murder, and other crimes committed by blacks on whites (probably quite a few in Mississippi). He blames Jews for these, and I think his reasoning is that, “they are killing us, so we should kill them”. He is seething with anger, and in his “warrior mindset”, this idea, supported by Linder, seems to make sense to him. This isn’t very deep thinking though, and Giles can’t seem to comprehend that being in favor of genocide is going to make him and people associated with him radioactive, and is completely counter-productive.

There is nothing that you have written that I have seen that suggests killing anyone, and I don’t think this is a sign that you are doing anything wrong. It is probable that Alex Linder is a net negative in White Nationalism, sort of a free radical that attacks others, tries to drag the conversation into vulgarity and provides the ADL and SPLC with material to write about to increase their funding. There is no reason for you to be upset or rethink everything due to this interview. It’s unfortunate that Jim Giles was “beguiled” by Linder’s ideas, but it does not reflect badly on you.

Trainspotter says:

“It’s the ethnostate that holds you back.” —Iceman [a commenter who’s a quarter Jewish]

I don’t see it this way at all. In America, racialism was defeated even though racialists were not advocating an ethnostate. Instead, racialists focused on far more “moderate” positions such as curtailing non-white immigration, or at the most defending segregation. We want our own water fountains!

Result? Cataclysmic defeat.

Sure, there was the occasional victory, such as the immigration law in the twenties. But racialists weren’t going for the ethnostate, so they left the non-whites that were already in the country in place. This meant powerful non-white pressure groups within the nation and culture. Result? Those pressure groups worked to undermine white society and promote their own interests instead. In time, they won. Look around. Boy, did they win.

That’s what the moderates can’t accept: moderate policies have been fought for in the past, and the result has been defeat after defeat after defeat.

It reminds me of what happened in Switzerland recently with the minaret ban—an apparent victory. Don’t get me wrong, I was thrilled with the vote. I hope it is a harbinger of bigger and better things. But in and of itself, it will amount to very little. Banning minarets, while continuing to allow the Third World to flood in, will not work at all. Only if the Swiss slam shut the doors and work on repatriating the invaders will a true and sustainable solution be achieved. Otherwise, the non-white pressure groups that the Swiss leave intact within their borders, indeed allow to grow in number and strength, will over time manage to undermine the Swiss. Helped along by traitors, of course, who exist in every nation. It might take six months, or it might take twenty years. But it will happen. Those non-white pressure groups will have nothing more important to do than undermine Swiss solidarity. And the traitors will have invaluable tools—masses of Third Worlders—to work with.

Moderate policies don’t work. Having your own nation does. The ethnostate is the solution, and it is the only solution that has long term sustainability.

This is not to say that I would recommend hitting the typical Kwa with the ethnostate concept right off the bat. That would baffle and shock him. But hey, that’s true of many concepts, not just the ethnostate. And further, I question the way that you are bringing this up to people. If you said something like, “Around the world, most people have a homeland. The Japanese have a homeland, the Jews have a homeland, the blacks have numerous homelands. Isn’t it only fair that Euro-Whites have a homeland too?” I’ve said that sort of thing before, in real life, and have never gotten a hysterically negative reaction.

Our real problem is that we seek to upset the status quo. That is always the fundamental problem that revolutionary movements face—not their message per se. Upsetting the status quo will always make people leery, unless and until they no longer have faith in that status quo. Some may say that the masses are stupid. That’s not entirely true. The reality is that they know, or can at least vaguely sense, that an upset in the status quo is likely to be accompanied by a lot of suffering and risk. They are right about this, which is why they tend to be suspicious of all revolutionary movements—Right, Left, or what have you.

All this changes if and when they lose sufficient confidence in the status quo. The good news is, this seems likely to occur over the coming years. Let’s make sure that we are ready with a real solution, a sustainable solution, an appealing solution, when discontent reaches critical mass.

Read O’Meara’s article on the ethnostate again. A real vision is there, something that can compete with Leftist universalism (which also has appeal, clearly). Having our own water fountains again just ain’t gonna cut it in the vision department. Whites aren’t inclined to support policies that they see as petty or unfair. Well, the ethnostate is fair. Almost everybody has one but us. And it’s more than fair, it’s grand. It offers a thousand possibilities and a singular promise. A nation of our own!

White Preservationist says:

Trainspotter is exactly correct—Jews want to turn White North America, Europe, and other White nations throughout the world (Australia/NZ, South Africa, etc) into places which racially resemble Brazil North (or much of mongrelized Latin America in general), a place chock full of masses of miscegenated morons who have no hope to ever oppose total Jewish domination of the economy, mass-media, academia, the legal system, medicine, etc.

And Trainspotter is also correct that they will do everything they can to oppose a pro-White awakening amongst the White masses of North America, Europe, Australia, and elsewhere… Jews seek to subvert the White race so that they can eventually take over all White nations and rule over the mongrelized masses, living behind security fences, traveling from place to place removed from the miscegenated rabble in their armored vehicles and helicopters, and most importantly staying strictly separate from the racially-mixed masses by keeping important Jewish bloodlines intact—all of this whilst the rest of the racially mixed (subverted) population lives like near-animals in their mongrelized urban-slums.

To state it again: organized anti-White Jewry wants to turn all White nations into places resembling Brazil North, heavily mongrelized Latin America in general, India, Central Asia, North Africa, and everywhere else in the world which are racially-mixed cesspools of anti-culture, corruption, and decline due to the extensive miscegenation that has occurred therein. Organized anti-White Jewry seeks to mongrelize Whites out of existence so that they can rule over a world full of these moronic racially-mixed masses entirely unopposed.