A call for a spiritual elite

The formerly white nationalist site Occidental Dissent, now much closer to a conservative blog, got it all wrong. The nationalists are not to be blamed that the masses of whites are not supporting their own interests. It is the fault of the masses and the conservatives. The following article by Dr. William Pierce (photo below), “A Call for a Spiritual Elite: Conservatism or Radicalism?” was originally published in Attack! (no. 51, 1977):

Conservative and right-wing political groups are concerned with a number of problems these days: forced school busing, taxes, gun control, street crime, inflation. They oppose these things in various ways: through public demonstrations; through propaganda efforts with leaflets, magazines, or newspapers; through lobbying; and through election campaigns. And they gain members and supporters from those elements of the population who are also opposed to these things.

In general, the more concrete, specific, and immediate a problem is, the larger and more enthusiastic will be the public response to right-wing efforts. Some of the ad hoc organizations opposed to forced school busing claimed more than a million members at one time. The National Rifle Association, which is certainly the principal group opposed to gun control, has more than a million members now, I believe.

The people who joined the anti-busing groups did so, generally, because they felt immediately threatened by a specific and concrete menace. The people who support the NRA because of its opposition to gun-registration and gun-confiscation laws feel—and rightly so—that their fundamental right of self-defense is in immediate danger of being taken away from them.

When the issue becomes less immediate or more abstract, right-wing groups can still gain support—but not so much. American foreign policy in the Middle East and in Rhodesia is horrendous, but there is far less organized opposition to it than to busing or gun control.

Even more abstract issues, such as miscegenation and non-White immigration, still bring forth a good bit of right-wing rhetoric, but there is almost no public response to this rhetoric.

Now, everyone has observed this, and the consequence is that people or groups who want to win public support for themselves, for whatever reason, honest or dishonest, concentrate their propaganda on immediate, concrete, specific problems. That wins elections. And it brings the contributions rolling in to the money-hungry, “conservative,” fundraising outfits.

But, interestingly enough, the immediate, concrete, specific problems remain with us and continue to grow worse. Why is that?

Why is it that with so many people belonging to or supporting organizations opposed to forced busing, we have every year more and more school districts being ordered by the Federal courts to bus White children into Black schools?

Why, with all the rhetoric against taxes and with so many conservatives and right wingers supporting anti-tax organizations, do income taxes and social security taxes and property taxes become worse practically every year?

Actually, there are two ways of approaching the question. We can say we have more and more busing every year, despite all the opposition to it, because the enemies of White America want to mongrelize the country, and they are stronger, with all their money and their control of the media, than the busing opponents, and they have slipped their allies into the Federal judiciary over the years, and they have brainwashed the public, and conservatives won’t work together, and so on. And we can answer the questions about taxes and gun control the same way.

But answers of that sort, about the mechanics of the struggle, are not what I’m interested in tonight. We have a general and fundamental question before us, which is: Why do the enemies of White America keep on winning? Why are they stronger than their opponents? How is it that they have been able to slip the sack over our heads so easily? Why does the White majority always lose?

The answer we want to understand tonight is this: Right wingers, and conservatives, and the White majority generally, have been losing battle after battle—and are obviously losing the whole war as well—simply because all they are really willing to fight for are immediate, concrete, and specific things—and, in particular, things which affect them personally. That is the answer we must understand.

I was talking to our guest, Ed Fields, after our last meeting, and he told me about a speech he gave at an anti-busing rally in Louisville, Kentucky, last year. He had been talking for about 10 minutes, he said, about the importance of preserving the White race and saving White culture and stopping non-White immigration and halting intermarriage, when he was interrupted by a shout from someone in the crowd who yelled, “We don’t care about all that crap! Tell us how to stop this busing!”

Now, I believe that was an extreme case. Most opponents of busing and certainly most ordinary, decent White people do care about the things Ed Fields was talking about. They just don’t care enough about them to leave their TV sets and go to rallies and risk being labeled “racists” by a yapping pack of Jewish media hounds and their liberal camp followers. They’ll only put out that effort and take that risk to oppose something which they see as an immediate and personal threat.

So, the big conservative and right-wing groups concentrate on those things—the immediate, concrete, and personal things—and the White race keeps losing the war.

The problem is a matter of motivation, of priorities, of values.

The great majority of our people who are not liberals—that is, who have not joined the enemy—are not really concerned with winning the war. They just want to avoid becoming personal casualties. No army in history with that sort of motivation has ever won a war. And we won’t either.

When a man has a personal problem to solve—a truly personal problem—then self-interest is a proper motivation. But when a whole race is faced with a major problem, self-interest is no longer a proper motivation, and it will no more solve the problem for the race than an attitude of “every man for himself” will win a war—or even a battle—for an army.

And yet self-interest is what the conservative and right-wing organizations keep appealing to, because that is what gets an immediate response.

The essence of the problem is this: The man who is against busing is generally a man who is fairly well satisfied with the other things around him. Let’s solve this busing problem, he thinks, and then I can go back to my TV. Or let’s defeat this gun-control law, and then I can go back to what I was doing before.

If you read conservative publications, you are overcome by the stench of this attitude. American Opinion, the magazine of the John Birch Society, reeks of it. And so does the weekly tabloid published by Liberty Lobby.

They are outraged about the Federal bureaucracy because of the way it interferes in their lives. They don’t want the government meddling with their property rights. They want to be left alone so they can continue making money and spending money the way they want and doing what they want without interference.

And about the last thing they want to do is have a revolution. Why, that would be even more of a nuisance than busing, gun control, and all the Federal meddlers put together. That would really keep them away from their TV.

Remember, there are literally tens of millions of people out there, a substantial portion of them conservative, patriotic Americans, who really care whether Liz will leave John and go back to Dick again and whether the Dodgers will win the World Series.

I said it’s a problem of values. Let me give you a couple of specific examples. In American Opinion a few months back there was an article complaining about Federal forced-housing efforts. The author didn’t want anyone to think he was a racist, and he said that no true conservative has any objection to Black neighbors, so long as they are good, quiet, middle-class Blacks. He said conservatives would rather have hardworking, middle-class Blacks for neighbors than poor Whites, or, as he put it, welfare-class Whites.

The conservative objection to forced housing, he said, is only that it is forced, that conservatives don’t want to be told they have to have Blacks for neighbors, especially dirty, disorderly, welfare-class Blacks, whom they regard in exactly the same light as poor Whites.

Well, we certainly must admit that there are some Blacks who would make quieter, cleaner, more orderly neighbors than some Whites. And if that’s all we care about—that and not having the government tell us what to do—then we have to agree with the Birch Society.

But we believe—all of us here believe, I hope—that there is much, much more at stake in the forced-housing issue than property values and freedom from government interference. We have a set of values and a motivation which are fundamentally different from those of the Birch Society. And yet so many people can see only the superficial resemblance between us and the Birchers that comes from our having similar stands on certain issues.

Let me give you another example. In this week’s issue of Newsweek magazine there is a guest editorial by a White conservative complaining about the ridiculous extent to which the courts and the Federal bureaucracy—especially the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—have gone to assure minorities a better-than-even break. Reverse discrimination, he says, is un-American.

Of course, we’ve all heard the Jews yelling the same thing, as soon as Blacks started demanding their share of jobs in those occupations in which Jews are overrepresented, such as journalism and university teaching. With the Jews it’s clearly selfishness, pure and simple, because they’re all for reverse discrimination when it’s the White plumber or electrician or sheet-metal worker who has to give up his job to a Black or a Chicano or an Asiatic.

But I don’t believe the White conservative writing for Newsweek is worried that some Negro is going to get his job. His worry is simply that the Jews and the guilt-ridden liberals and the corrupt politicians who cater to the minority vote are overdoing the “equality” racket and are generating a backlash among Whites which is undoing what the Federal equality laws were supposed to do, namely, to create a society without discrimination of any kind, a color-blind society.

He sees the EEOC fanatics stirring up a hornet’s nest of hostility, of racial conflict, of divisiveness. Forcing equality on people, he says, is disuniting the United States and unmelting the melting pot. And that means trouble and unrest ahead. And, like conservatives in general, he doesn’t want trouble. He wants unity and prosperity and peace at any price.

Now, perhaps we should try to be charitable and not accuse such conservatives of being motivated by nothing but egoism and materialism. Perhaps the fellow writing in Newsweek is basically a patriot who simply wants a strong and peaceful and united United States above all else, completely aside from what these things will mean to his own income and safety and living standard. And perhaps he really believes that a truly color-blind government, which discriminates neither in favor of Blacks nor Whites, will make America strong and peaceful. Maybe he really believes that. I am sure a lot of conservatives do.

But even if they were right—and, in the long run, they certainly cannot be—their values and their priorities are totally wrong.

Prosperity and harmony are nice. Peace is nice—but not peace at any price, certainly not peace at the price of racial mongrelization.

And, in fact, our values are so totally different from conservative values that I say we would not even be interested in peace if we could be guaranteed that it would not lead to mongrelization. Not even if the country or the world could be divided up into little enclaves for Blacks and Whites and Chicanos and Jews and so on, every one respecting the rights of his neighbors and staying inside his own boundaries. That, again, is the dream of a conservative soul, and it is a false dream.

Our dream is a progressive dream, a dream of unlimited progress over the centuries and the millennia and the eons which lie ahead of us. It is no conservative dream of peace, no sheeplike dream of ease and consumption and safety, but a dream of the achievement of our Destiny, which is Godhood. It is the only dream fitting for men and women of our race; it is the spirit of the Creator, it is the Universal Urge within us, expressing itself through our race-soul.

You know that is true; you know that is the only dream for us, that what I am telling you is right. Yet, when you leave here tonight it will be all too easy, I am afraid, for you to slip back into old ways of thinking, into wrong ways.

I’m afraid of that because I receive letters all the time from our members, who’ve been paying their dues and receiving their bulletins regularly, who apparently do not understand what is written in those bulletins. They are teachers and policemen and lawyers—people for whom our message certainly should not be too abstract or too complicated to grasp—but they are also people thoroughly enmeshed in contemporary society, thoroughly involved, every day, with other people whose values and ideas all come from their TV sets.

And because our values are so different from the TV values, it may be hard for some of our people to make the transition, to clear the conservative cobwebs out of their minds, so that our dream, the dream of the White race-soul, comes through loud and clear.

It is easier for us, here in our little community, to understand our Truth, and it may be necessary for many of our other members, scattered all across the continent—all across the world now, in fact—to also have the moral reinforcement which comes from living and working together with others who have the same dream before they can achieve the same degree of understanding we have.

I am sure that will be necessary for some, but not for all. For some the dream is strong enough so that it is sufficient for them to receive our publications and listen to our meeting tapes—that is, to be members of our community in spirit, even if they cannot be here in the flesh.

But the problem that remains for us is this: our dream is a radical dream, and the dream of the masses is a conservative dream.

We want a revolution which brings about a permanent transformation of the values and priorities and goals of our society and lays the groundwork for the building of a whole new world. They want a quick and easy end to certain concrete and specific annoyances, so that they can go back to their TV.

Even the least selfish and most thoughtful of the conservatives base their programs entirely on the TV values, the TV philosophy, the TV religion. At most, they want to annul the social and racial changes of the last few decades and restore what existed before the last war.

So this great gulf lies between us and them, between our Truth and the materialist-conservative view of life. And yet, they are our people. It is from them, from the great masses, that we must recruit the new members upon which the growth and even the continued existence of our community depend.

We certainly have not reached the point where we can afford to wall ourselves and our families off from the rest of society, where we can isolate our community from the Jewish Babylon around us and depend upon our own reproductive powers to continue building our community. We may never reach that point. So we must bridge the gulf.

How? Do we put on a conservative mask and continue putting out leaflets and publishing a newspaper which talk about busing and gun control and racial job quotas and the media monopolies and the other things conservatives are interested in—as we have been doing—but without the radical overtones which frighten or confuse or bore them?

That is, do we deradicalize our public image? Do we become a sort of conservative front group?

Remember, we talked a couple of meetings ago about making it easier and less frightening for prospective recruits to join us. We talked about the necessity of growing faster than we are growing now.

But there is also something else to remember. And that is that there are dozens of conservative groups already out there, experienced, well-financed, well-organized conservative groups. And at least some of them are run by real conservatives, men who think and feel the same way those do they are trying to recruit.

Should we imagine that we, outsiders who think and feel on an entirely different wavelength, can be more successful at that game? I think not.

And even if we were more successful, by being cleverer or more energetic or more ruthless than the others, would we have a real success?

We would have a structure without a foundation, a structure held together by pretense. Is that what we want for the long haul ahead? I think not.

Now, I am certainly not ruling out the use of front groups and ad hoc organizations. They are perfectly good and useful tools, and we expect to use them at a certain stage of our development.

But for the achievement of our long-range goals, for the principal vehicle for our revolution, for the organization which embodies the fundamental Truth expressed in our Affirmation, we must have a foundation of the hardest stone, not of sand. And that stone must be cemented together with truth, not pretense.

We do not bridge the gulf between our community and the masses of our people by pretending to be something we are not. If we have made a mistake in the past, it has been trying to sit on two stools at the same time, trying to be both conservative and radical. And if we are to correct that mistake in the future, it must be to abandon conservative pretenses. It must be to become completely truthful in our recruiting efforts.

So, let us light a beacon of truth and let us always hold out a friendly hand of understanding to the masses of our people who do not yet share our outlook. But let us make no compromises with the falsehoods which now govern their lives. Let us make no pretense that we believe that busing or taxes or racial quotas are really fundamental issues. Let us make it clear to everyone that these things are only symptoms of the disease, and one does not cure a disease by treating its symptoms.

What this means for us now and in the near future—that is, as long as we are working through one organization and are not yet ready to use fronts—is this: We will concentrate our resources on fundamentals and will be obliged to a very large extent to let other groups attack the symptoms. We will concentrate on reaching the masses of our people with our Truth in its most fundamental form, and we will let the National Rifle Association fight gun control and the National States Rights Party fight busing, and we wish them well.

Another way of saying this is that we will be uncompromisingly radical rather than conservative. Of course, if the word “radical” still frightens you, you may substitute “fundamental”—which means exactly the same thing—for it.

And does this make sense when we so desperately need to grow faster than we have been? Does it make sense to try to reach people ruled by materialism with a message which is essentially spiritual? Does it make sense to be more radical when some of our own members even now are still thinking in conservative terms?

Well, let’s concede first that, although we will be preaching to the masses, we understand that only a minority, only a spiritual elite, will be capable of responding to our message. We want to light a beacon and we want to make it burn as brightly as we can, so that it will cast its rays over all our people, but we know that only a few will actually see our light, will actually understand and respond to our Truth. We concede that.

But this is the way it has always been. Every great and positive revolution of human history, every conscious step upward on the never-ending Path of Life symbolized by our Rune, has been the work of a minority, of an elite. Masses don’t make revolutions—determined and committed minorities do.

We don’t hope to make revolutionary idealists out of the egoistic and materialistic masses, but we do hope to awaken and inspire and recruit that minority of our people in which the Divine Spark already burns brightly enough to illuminate their souls and their minds so that they can grasp our Truth. And the way to do that is to present our Truth to them as purely and as plainly and as clearly as we possibly can—not to dress it in a conservative disguise, which leads only to confusion.

We want everyone to know that we understand that what’s really important is not whether we can elect a government which won’t try to impose racial quotas on us or whether we can achieve domestic tranquility but whether the Truth that is in the race-soul of our people shall overcome the alien falsehoods which rule us now, so that that Truth can guide us once again to the upward Path, to the Path of the Creator’s Self-Realization, and so that we can once again become agents of the Universal Will—except this time fully conscious agents—and resume our never-ending ascent toward our ordained Destiny.

That’s what’s important, and that is what must be achieved. Then everything else—all the conservative goals—will either have been taken care of automatically or they will have become irrelevant.

So, once again, the immediate question before us is not whether to be more radical or more conservative in order to grow faster, but how to present our radicalism—our Truth—in the best, in the clearest, in the most appealing way, how to avoid confusion, how to minimize negativism, how to reassure those who are timid and hesitant.

We understand that we are casting our net very wide and expecting to catch only a few. But we want to be sure that we do catch all those who are fit for catching. And the way to catch those who are fit is with the pure and unadulterated Truth.

Trainspotter’s lesson

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.

Two metaphors

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.

Hitler

Hitler’s defeat
was the defeat of Europe.
And of America.
How could we have been so blind?

– Edmund Connelly








Last February represented a milestone in the development of my thought. Even though I had read The Gulag Archipelago in Manchester ten years ago, I was unaware that the Jews were over-represented in the crimes committed by Stalin’s willing executioners. Nor did I know that the Jews were over-represented too in the strenuously lobbying through more than a century to open the gates for massive, non-Aryan immigration into the United States: something far more devastating for the American soul than what the Muslims did on 11 September of 2001 (Tanstaafl’s appropiation of Auster’s First Law applies here, something that will be more evident in the next decades).

My awakening to the realities of the Jewish Question (JQ) was such that I am no longer on speaking terms with some conservative bloggers who are willfully blind to acknowledge that such JQ does indeed exist. The paradigm shift was so cataclysmic that in those February days I did not dare to tell the whole story of what was going on in my mind. Now that I have purchased some books and read what is perhaps the best on the JQ, Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique, I must confess a soliloquy I had in my private diaries. On my copy of Mein Kampf, on 27 February 2010 I wrote:

After the lightning bolt that pissed off Taksei so much, I realized that—oh irony of ironies!—Hitler was right about his “anti-Semitism” (though I still believe he was wrong about accepting the genocide of Jews in 1942). The irony is that in a very recent post [now removed from this blog] I say exactly the opposite, that anti-Semitism is wrong. Now I must settle the score with Hitler. Let’s see how much I can stand reading this book...

It was the same copy of Mein Kampf that I had started to read in 1996, when I was a staunch philo-Semite. In 1996 I was living in Houston and annotated that copy with many longhand footnotes about Hitler’s purported “paranoia” on the JQ (as I have said, most of my life I was unaware about what the Jews had done in Russia and in America). The “irony” I referred to above was my realization that, just as I had a lightning experience, young Adolf had experienced something quite similar before my grandma was born. Since in my second reading of Mein Kampf I no longer held that pondering around the JQ was by itself paranoia, the experience was like leafing through the book for the first time in my life. There’s a world of difference between reading it while one is sleeping in the Matrix and after one is violently unplugged from the Matrix. I don’t claim having read it all (it’s boring). But what struck me in my second try is what Arthur Koestler used to call “The angel of the library.” Right after the lightning that split my intellectual life in twain, the angel conducted me right to the page where young Adolf describes... his own lightning experience! Starting on page 55 of the translation by Ralph Manheim that I had acquired in Houston, Hitler wrote:

My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all. It cost me the greatest inner soul struggles, and only after months of battle between my reason and my sentiments did my reason begin to emerge victorious. Two years later, my sentiment had followed my reason, and from then on became its most loyal guardian and sentinel.

Just compare it with the quotation of Mein Kampf I liked before the lighting struck me. It describes the mind of a teenage Adolf before the lighting struck him:

For the Jew was still characterized for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation. I was oppressed by the memory of certain occurrences in the Middle Ages [pogroms], which I should not have liked to see repeated. (p. 52)

Last month Occidental Dissent published a short article on Hitler open for discussion. I was fascinated by the exchanges between Greg Johnson, the former editor of The Occidental Quarterly, and another nationalist. As I have done in my previous posts, I will not include ellipsis or most of the exchanges from other nationalists. The following debate exactly responds to what I had in mind when, back in February, I wrote that I needed to settle the scores with someone whom the politically correct world has turned into the archetype of evil. (Take note that, in one of his responses, Johnson included an article by Irmin that summarizes my current views, “Some Thoughts on Hitler” that I repost way below:)


Some responses to the article Open Thread — Adolf Hitler:

Jackson says: The continuing fetish of Hitler-love of some in the WN [white nationalist] movement is a huge impediment to any sort of racial solidarity today. How could you expect Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, French and all the other people’s of Europe, and their descendents, to “Sieg Heil” this beast? The sooner we leave him behind the better. It is most unfortunate that this otherwise interesting website is disgraced by his picture and a posting saluting him. Please let us be done with Hitler. We don’t need him.

Andrew says: 
I will repeat Jackson’s plea, “Please let us be done with Hitler. We don’t need him.” He is poison to our movement. Our founding fathers, who were committed White Nationalists, should be our guides to the awakening of the WN movement. They were superior to Hitler in almost every way.

Greg Johnson says: Hitler did not start the Second World War. He started a war with Poland, over German territory stolen at the end of the First World War. He started that war in exasperation, having exhausted diplomacy. 
The German-Polish war grew into a world war when the British declared war on Germany and others followed suit. Nothing compelled the British to make that decision. They had their reasons, mostly ignoble and spurious, but nothing compelled them. Their world position was safe; Hitler admired them and their empire. The world was big enough for the British Empire and a reunited Germany. But the British started a World War over a German-Polish border conflict, and tens of millions died, the British Empire collapsed, and half of Europe fell to Stalin. It is amazing that people still conduct discussions of a war that began in 1939 in terms of blatantly false propaganda clichés like “Hitler started the Second World War” and “Hitler wanted to conquer the world.”


Andrew says: Greg, With all due respect, Hitler must receive credit for starting the war. Britain and France had an alliance with Poland. Hitler knew this and attacked anyway. They should instead have let the invasion happen without response? Come on. His Ardennes gambit could have very well failed. If he truly loved Germany or his race, was another devastating war an acceptable risk? I would argue these were maniacal gambles, and it was completely irresponsible for Hitler to roll the dice with the fate of his supposedly beloved folk. 


Greg Johnson says: Britain allied herself with Poland, and stoked Polish intransigence, because they wanted to encourage a war. The elegant proof that the alliance with Poland was merely a pretext for the British to start a war with Germany is that Britain did not declare war on the USSR and Stalin, who also invaded Poland after the Germans had done the lion’s share of the work. And of course while Perfidious Albion was simulating moral outrage over German “aggression” (liberating Germans from foreign oppressors), they were rather less in a lather about Soviet aggression against Finland, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.


If the Germans had defeated the USSR, a vast, German-dominated, high-tech, racially unified blonde empire would have emerged stretching from the Rhine to the Urals. And a lot of us, I imagine, would prefer living there to what we have to endure today.


Daybreaker and the like: You can condemn Hitler till you are blue in the face, and that will still not alter your status as goyim slated for extinction. Do you really imagine that the only thing standing in our way is abominable Adolf? You remind me of the people who promote the spurious Ben Franklin quote to the effect that America would be perfect, were it not for the one small problem of the Jews, when the truth is that the system Ben Franklin helped create was systematically flawed, hence the rise of the Jews. These sorts of attitudes are appealing, because they spare us the need to reflect on broader, deeper, systemic problems that might implicate us as well.


Why do 99.99% of Whites in the post-war era reject explicit White Nationalism? Because they in no way want to be associated with the mass-murder carried out by the Nazis.

Do you really think that if we changed just one little thing—if Hitler had decided to stay a painter, for instance—that White Nationalism would be enjoying a good press today? Once whites allowed a Jewish take-over of the press, academia, etc., our days were numbered, no matter who became Chancellor of Germany in 1933.


Andrew says: Greg, The aftermath of World War 2 did see a massive shift in the Western public’s perception of Jews, from the widespread anti-Semitism of the 1930s to the widespread sympathy of the 1950s. While Jewish media is an important factor, the Holocaust storyline and Hitler’s swath of destruction are also very important contributors to that shift in public opinion. Without the Holocaust hype and Hitler’s horrors, White Nationalism would be in a much better position today.

Greg Johnson says: 
Andrew: That is a far cry from blaming Hitler for our problems. If Hitler had not existed, we would still be under attack. As long as we allow Jews to determine which leaders are positive and which are negative, all white nationalist leaders will be deemed negative except Jewish tools. The only “respectable” opposition is an ineffectual one. Today, that means one that is controlled by Jews or their tools.


“Some Thoughts on Hitler” by Irmin

1. Hitler as Multiracialist Propaganda

The argument advanced by some racial nationalists that any defense of Adolf Hitler, in light of the hostility and even revulsion that his name now evokes, risks alienating mainstream Whites is plausible on its surface and should receive a respectful hearing. But it is still on balance mistaken.

Although most nationalists in the United States and even in Germany do not consider themselves national socialists, multiracialists and anti-White Jewish advocacy groups call each and every one of us a “Nazi.” It is an undeniable fact that in our contemporary political climate any white nationalism, as recent events in the Balkans amply demonstrate, will be labeled Hitlerian and will summon, in breathless media presentations, “the specter of the Holocaust” and anguished fears that “it” might just happen again, if the goyim get too restless. That, after all, is the central lesson taught by the countless Holocaust Museums sprouting up, like noxious toadstools, throughout most of the West: that White racial consciousness is literally lethal and must therefore be actively combated, a lesson which we have now enshrined, in deference to Jewry, at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, a national memorial to our White wickedness.

We are thus obliged, like it or not, to live under Hitler’s shadow. Our enemies have ensured that any expression of White racial consciousness, however innocuous, will be officially pronounced hatefully Hitlerian and “Nazi,” whether we admire Hitler or despise him. It is therefore incumbent on us, as a simple matter of self-defense, to arrive at a balanced view of Hitler and the movement he founded.

Anyone who doubts all this should recall the abuse that Pat Buchanan received at the hands of the controlled media and the organized Jewish community during his campaigns for the Republican nomination. Buchanan is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a national socialist, nor even a conscious racialist. He is, instead, a traditional Christian conservative, with all the virtues and liabilities that entails. But he was persistently labeled a “Nazi” nevertheless. [After] his 1992 speech at the Republican National Convention, Jewish columnist Molly Ivins opined, “probably sounded better in the original German.” Her meaning was clear: She was identifying Buchanan as a “Nazi,” delegitimizing his nationalism and social conservatism with the most potent weapon in the Left’s rhetorical arsenal.

So as racial nationalists we can either manufacture false “anti-racist” credentials by claiming to hate Hitler just as much as Abe Foxman does, a subterfuge that I very much doubt will convince anyone, least of all Abe, or we can tell the truth.

The truth is that the maniacal Hitler of popular demonology is a World War II propaganda fiction, and the principal purpose of the fiction’s incessant repetition more than fifty years after the war is to stigmatize any nationalist movement, NS or otherwise. Hitler now represents not a specific historical figure and the political party he led, but nationalism of any variety, from timid anti-immigration conservatives to angry White-power skinheads. The System’s anti-Hitler orthodoxy, invoked almost daily, is in effect tacit propaganda for multiracialism and a potent device to keep all nationalists perpetually hiding in closets, too afraid of labels like “racist” and “Nazi” to openly say what we sincerely believe. We have, therefore, a real interest in demythologizing Hitler, and we have no hope of escaping our association with what he now represents. We can’t run away from Hitler, however much some of us want to.

2. Let’s Notice the Obvious

The crucial facts about World War II are uncomplicated and readily available in mainstream sources. NS Germany had limited war aims: the recovery of territory taken from Germany at Versailles, the acquisition of living space for the German people in the East, and the destruction of the Marxist Soviet Union, history’s most brutal regime. Insofar as the United States had any stake at all in the outcome of the war, it would have been to help Germany and her Axis allies, including thousands of Russian patriots, accomplish the latter. Absent the campaign conducted by the Western democracies to save Stalinism by defeating Hitler, the Soviet Union would have collapsed.

Since America had no national interests in the conflict in Europe, our government deliberately lied about German war aims in order to manufacture the perception that we did, claiming that Hitler had global territorial ambitions, a plan for “world domination.” Over fifty years later most Americans still accept the lies.

The predictable result of the Allied victory and the German defeat was Stalin’s occupation of half of Europe. A war that ostensibly began to restore Polish sovereignty ended with Poland, along with the rest of Eastern Europe, being handed over to the Communists. And in quite concrete terms no American would have died in Vietnam if Hitler had destroyed Soviet Communism, arguably the central objective of his political career; American soldiers fought in Europe so that their sons could die in Southeast Asia.

None of this should be the least controversial. It is a symptom of the effect of persistent propaganda that so many of us fail to notice the obvious.

It is only a slight exaggeration to say that multiracialism itself, along with our servile deference to Jewry, is founded on the mythical image of Hitler as evil incarnate, Satan’s secular counterpart in modern history. Remove the false, childishly simplistic Hitler myth, and a significant ideological justification for multiracialism would collapse. The simple question, “Were Hitler and NS Germany really as evil as everyone says?,” therefore has huge repercussions, and an entire machinery of propaganda—ranging from Hollywood films and “Holocaust education” in the public schools to off-hand comments in the controlled media (“better in the original German”)—has been designed to discourage anyone from even contemplating the obvious but heretical answer.

3. National Socialism

Hitler defined his own national socialism as a uniquely German movement:

The National Socialist doctrine, as I have always proclaimed, is not for export. It was conceived for the German people. (Hitler-Bormann Documents, Feb. 21, 1945)

In other words, German National Socialism arose at a specific time in a specific place under the pressure of a unique set of historical circumstances, none of which could ever be precisely replicated elsewhere. In particular, the autocratic Führer state, central to NS Germany, would never be acceptable to Americans; our republican political culture and belief in individual rights are, thankfully, far too strong. Hitler was a dictator and his government authoritarian; Americans prefer their political and civil liberties.

Which doesn’t mean that NS Germany was a police state. It had in fact fewer policemen per capita, and far fewer secret police, than either modern Germany or the United States, despite the misleading image most of us have of legions of sinister Gestapo agents kicking down doors in the middle of the night.

The basic principles of national socialism are, nevertheless, universal: that God (or Nature) has assigned each of us to a racial group and has endowed each group with distinct qualities; that a nation is not simply a geographical concept, a set of lines arbitrarily drawn on a map irrespective of the people living within them, but instead derives (or should derive) its political institutions and national objectives from the character of the people themselves; that a nation organized to preserve a race and develop its distinctive character is therefore “natural”; that the strength and social cohesion of a nation derives from its sense of a common identity, of which race is the most important determinant; that in addition to our individual rights we have larger social obligations, not only to the present generation of our nation but to its past and future generations as well; that the primary purpose of a nation is not economic, but the preservation and advancement of its people, economics being subordinate to the volkisch (racial/national) objectives that should be a nation’s core reason for existing.

“The [Nation-] State in itself,” Hitler wrote, “has nothing whatsoever to do with any definite economic concept or a definite economic development. It does not arise from a compact made between contracting parties, within a certain delimited territory, for the purpose of serving economic ends. The State is a community of living beings who have kindred physical and spiritual natures, organized for the purpose of assuring the conservation of their own kind and to help towards fulfilling those ends which Providence has assigned to that particular race or racial branch” (Mein Kampf, I, iv). [Image: NS propaganda poster: “The NSDAP Protects the Racial Community.”]

In the generic sense of the term national socialism is (arguably) not inconsistent with democratic institutions, despite Hitler’s own view of the matter; its true antonyms are multiracialism and capitalist, one-world globalism. Nor is national socialism inconsistent with an American “melting pot” view of ethnicity, provided that the various ethnic groups that comprise the nation are sufficiently similar that each can see a common identity and common destiny in the others—that is, insofar as they, despite their ethnic differences, are branches of the same race and can, therefore, be effectively acculturated to a common set of national ideals.

I consider Hitler less a model to be followed than an avalanche of propaganda we must dig ourselves out from under. Never in human history has a single man received such sustained vilification, the basic effect and purpose of which has been to inhibit Whites from thinking racially and from acting in their own racial self-interest, as all other racial/ethnic groups do. Learning the truth about Hitler is a liberating experience. By the truth I mean not an idealized counter-myth to the pervasive myth of Hitler as evil incarnate, but the man himself, faults and virtues, strengths and weaknesses. Once you’ve done it, once you’ve discovered the real Hitler beneath the lies and distortions that have buried his legacy, you’ll be permanently immunized against anti-White propaganda, because you will have seen through the best/worst the System has to offer.

__________________________
The above article by Irmin
was originally posted in Racial Nationalist Library.
It represents the food for thought I'd been looking for - Chechar
__________________________

That said, costume Nazi groups, uncritical Hitler-worship, debating the minutiae of the Second World War, etc. are easily parodied by the enemy and usually do not help our cause.

Andrew says: Greg [wrote]:

The argument advanced by some racial nationalists that any defense of Adolf Hitler... risks alienating mainstream Whites... is still on balance mistaken... It is an undeniable fact that in our contemporary political climate any white nationalism... will be labeled Hitlerian... We are thus obliged, like it or not, to live under Hitler’s shadow.

This line of reasoning is not logical. If White Nationalists will be labelled by opponents as Satanic, does that mean we need to find a way to defend and apologize for Satan and live under Satan’s shadow? Defending Hitler, Genghis Khan or Ivan the Terrible, or having anything whatsoever to do with those historical figures, is completely unnecessary. It is true that in the debate, WNs will be labelled with any handy disparaging epithet and compared to any negative stereotype that has the potential to smear. But in a debate, the best tactic is to completely reject those labels and comparisons.

American White Nationalism should have its roots in the writings and designs of the founding fathers. Benjamin Franklin wanted “lovely White” people to populate the nation, not the “tawny” ones. Jefferson wrote quite a bit about race realism, he and Madison wrote about the impossibility of Blacks living in the same government as Whites. Lincoln was a WN as well, and his successor Andrew Johnson talked about America as a “White Man’s Nation” as did most major public figures of the time. Truman’s quote from his diary about America being meant for the White Man is also useful. We have a vast arsenal of immigration law, government policy and writing by the greatest Americans in history that all defines, supports and defends the WN position. Hitler has absolutely nothing to do with American White Nationalism, and I would argue he should be rejected completely as a foreign leader of an enemy nation in an old war fought by our grandfathers.


Greg Johnson says: Andrew, what will you say when someone replies to your all-American version of White Nationalism: “But if Jefferson, Franklin, and the rest were racists, then they were just like Hitler!”? Evading the issue will not help.


Andrew says: While on this topic, Greg, a massive opportunity that lies before the WN movement right now is the Tea Party movement, which is almost all White, politically active, patriotic and angry, under continual verbal attack as “racists.”

Euro says: Whatever the merits or demerits of the Nazi regime this much is clear: it wasn’t any variation of the “respectable right” that put up any meaningful resistance to Leninist-Stalinist designs on Western Civilization. Far from it. Parliamentarism, Capitalism and various Christian ecclesiastical outfits were almost invariably on the Leninist-Stalinist side. This is the crux of the whole matter. That’s the point. Whatever failures the Nazi/Fascists are responsible for, without their enormous efforts we today would be utterly doomed. We should celebrate them for that.

Junghans says: Greg, you’ve tested the waters here with a very hot topic. I’ve refrained from entering this thread until now. No White person, and especially a WN, can escape the shadow of Hitler, and that should be obvious to any sentient person. This is an issue that will not go away, and will eventually have to be dealt with by Whites. In this vein, I think that the article by Irmin that you quoted in post #67 is basically balanced and explains the “Hitler ghost” dilemma about as well as anybody can. The destruction of nationalist Europe in 1945 was a severe blow to White ethnic interests, and a watershed event of disastrous proportions. We are all still stunned by the fratricide, and are trying to dig out of the moral and intellectual rubble. We wish it hadn’t happened, but it did.
Stormfront has a sub-forum on the Second World War that discusses these issues, and that’s where passions of the subject are regularly vented.


Greg Johnson says: 
Andrew writes:

If the opposition claims that the founders were racists, they grant WNs a significant victory. If Jefferson is a racist, the opposition grants that the Constitution and founding document of the U.S. (written largely by Jefferson) is a White Nationalist document for a WN nation. Most White Americans, or at least a very large number, regard the founders as intellectual and moral giants. If they are “racists” and thus associated with the WN movement, it greatly legitimizes us. It would be pretty hard to convince Whites that Benjamin Franklin, the kindhearted inventor and postman, and the other founders are “Hitlerites,” or evil.

Andrew, I don’t think that you are right about this. As long as the establishment has the power to demonize the founders as racists, and demonize racists as “like Hitler,” then people will stop thinking of the founders as intellectual and moral giants and start thinking of them as monsters. Indeed, that process has been underway for a long time, chipping away at their reputations.

Jared Taylor made the point in his essay in Race and the American Prospect that the creation of an anti-racist, multiculturalist America means the repudiation of the Founders, the constitution, and most of American history, and he is right. But as long as people are so cowed by charges of “racism” and “Nazism” that they are giving away the future of their country, their race, their progeny, what makes you think that they are going to rally to save their past from obliteration as well? “Racism” and “Nazism” are only verbal sticks to beat us with. If those sticks don’t work, they will just be replaced. The deep underlying problem is the squishiness at the core of Americans and whites in general that make us feel like we need to apologize for ourselves, our ancestors, etc.–apologize to our inferiors and enemies, I might add–and to no avail, because these people will never like us anyway.

“I’m not racist, but...”

You don’t need to complete the sentence, because everything you say is negated by communicating the need to apologize according to a moral code created by our enemies to destroy us. You are playing against the house, and you are going to lose in the long run, because they get to make the rules.

“I’m not a Nazi, but...”

Same problem. The cure is not merely to rehabilitate racism or Hitler (although those things would help some). The cure is to rehabilitate the white character, to get back to the sheer will to live, the self-assertiveness that characterizes every healthy animal.


Andrew says: Greg, You make a valid and insightful point that we cannot simply run away from certain figures because they are considered “racists.” It is also very true that the Left is busily critiquing the founders, and will attempt to make all pro-White symbols, historical figures and spokesmen radioactive through criticism and labelling them as “racists,” etc. However, there is a very important distinction here. Hitler’s legacy is indefensible for a White Nationalist. The Germans did liquidate millions, such as the Slav prisoners of war. Whatever the truth of the Holocaust, many Jews did die, and everyone has seen countless depictions of the horrible piles of bodies being bulldozed into pits. This is ground that we cannot defend, and no amount of pro-White media could rehabilitate Hitler. Even if Hitler was in fact a true hero, another Charles Martel, responsible for saving Western Civilization, he is irretrievably radioactive, his image is toxic death when attempting to persuade someone.

On the other hand, the founders were a “raging festival of awesome” if I may borrow a quote. They are the high ground, a thoroughly defensible fortress of ideas and imagery. In America Besieged! we talk about bulletproof George, surviving horses shot from beneath him, his hat shot off and bulletholes in his coat. Attacking him as a racist plays into our WN hands. His image is everywhere, sternly looking at us from the dollar bill, his name blazoned on streets and schools. It’s one thing to demonize Hitler, but quite another to brand the founders as evil. There is no horrible footage, but rather a vast literature about liberty and morality, as well as paintings and other imagery showing them in heroic poses. They are in some ways like our Greek gods, mythical beings we rightly revere. When the Left attacks them as racists, they offend the very people we want to persuade, patriotic traditional Americans. In spite of the Left’s influence, the ability to demonize the founders is substantially limited.

“Racism” and “Nazism” are only verbal sticks to beat us with. If those sticks don’t work, they will just be replaced. The deep underlying problem is the squishiness at the core of Americans and whites in general that make us feel like we need to apologize for ourselves, our ancestors, etc.


I agree that words such as “Nazi” and “Racist” are simply tools of intimidation, and it is imperative that we develop an immunity to such (this is discussed in America Besieged!, I hope I am making you curious enough to read it). The correct method to deal with smears is to reject them, not defend them. It helps us immensely to be standing on the shoulders of giants such as the founders, where we are in a very strong ideological position that is very attractive to other Whites. That said, you make a strong point that we must hold our ground with the founders, we cannot retreat from them when they are assaulted as slave-owners, racists and Indian-annihilators. The difference is that the founders, who are now legends, can be defended (as opposed to Adolf, who has become the personification of evil incarnate). The fact of the matter is that Adolf really has nothing to do with America or the WN movement here, there is no convincing connection that can be made between men like Franklin and Hitler that is persuasive for traditional Whites.

The cure is not merely to rehabilitate racism or Hitler (although those things would help some). The cure is to rehabilitate the white character, to get back to the sheer will to live, the self-assertiveness that characterizes every healthy animal.

A big part of winning the debate is to point out that every ethnic group has ethnic interests, and that it is absolutely moral and right to protect and assert those interests. I do not think we can rehabilitate racism or Hitler, or that it would be productive to even try. Instead, we reframe the debate, pointing out that it’s all about ethnocentrism, ethnic interests and ethnic conflict, which is completely normal and universal, with deep roots in our human brains and behavior patterns. Ethnic conflict is inevitable, and ethnic separation is the only reasonable solution (of course this is all discussed in America Besieged!).


Svigor says: Whites Unite [wrote]:

Why do 99.99% of Whites in the post-war era reject explicit White Nationalism? Because they in no way want to be associated with the mass-murder carried out by the Nazis. As long as you persist in Hitler admiring, you will be rejected by the vast majority of your own people—not because of “Jewish propaganda,” but because the vast majority of our people embrace universalistic concepts of right and wrong, as they have since the days of the Stoics and especially since the advent of Christianity.

That’s horseshit. Most whites, like most people, are sheep. The bleat how they’re told. Nowadays that means how their media-government-academic complex tell them to. It has nothing to do with a considered, thoughtful opinion on anything for the sheep.

- end of excerpts from the Occidental Dissent exchange -


My present take on the subject is that because the U.K. and the U.S. literally sided with Stalin to crush Germany (photo), whites are now literally threatened with extinction. If unlike Hitler and the Nazis—cf. the NS propaganda poster above—we persist to ignore the Talmudic admonition that “the best of the goyim must be destroyed,” we’ll go extinct. I believe that Johnson was right way above when he said that the system that the mythical founders helped to create was systematically flawed, hence the rise of the Jews. Read this trilogy to see what do I mean.

I know, I know... This does not justify the atrocities committed by the Germans with the Polish Slavs, the people of Belarus and the Jews in the heat of the Second World War. But I must end this entry paraphrasing Nietzsche: “He who fights monsters —‘the best of the non-Jews must be destroyed...’— should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.”