Metapolitics: the only viable way

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Anti-racists are, in a real sense, mentally ill”

Excerpted from a longer article by Greg Johnson, “Implicit Whiteness and the Republicans”:

Kevin MacDonald’s work on the concept of “implicit whiteness” in his essay “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism” is a major breakthrough for White Nationalism. Ethnocentrism—usually stigmatized as “xenophobia” and “racism”—is a preference to be around genetically similar people. Anti-ethnocentrism—a preference for people unlike ourselves—is sold today as “diversity,” the secret ingredient that adds “strength” wherever it is found.

According to MacDonald, ethnocentrism is a natural phenomenon, hard-wired into the oldest and deepest levels of the brain. Anti-ethnocentrism, however, exists as a conscious moral conviction. From a psychological point of view, therefore, anti-ethnocentrism is relatively superficial, even though it currently dominates our culture and politics.

Anti-ethnocentrism is dominant because its advocates control the forces that shape our explicit consciousness: education, the arts, the news and entertainment media. But unconscious ethnocentrism persists and can never be extirpated because it is hard-wired into the brain.

Thus when leftists accuse whites of “unconscious” racism, they are correct. Unconscious white ethnocentrism manifests itself in affiliation patterns. In particular, MacDonald cites country music, NASCAR, and the Republican Party as foci of implicitly white affiliation.

But because ethnocentrism is hard-wired, anti-racists can’t really do anything about it. At best, anti-racist “consciousness raising” can only institute a permanent state of inner psychological conflict.

The leftists thought that by controlling the explicit culture, they could eliminate ethnocentrism once and for all. But they can’t. They can only create a psychologically draining conflict between our conscious convictions and our conscious instincts. And they can never rest, because if they let up on the conditioning for just a minute, they may see all their gains—and all their power—swept away.

Contrary to enemy propaganda, ethnocentrism is a perfectly normal and healthy psychological trait. A racially aware individual who consciously believes that his ethnocentric instincts are morally right, enjoys inner psychological harmony, the peace of mind that is denied to anti-racists, who exist in a constant state of inner conflict between their natural instincts and their unnatural moral convictions.

Anti-racists are, in a real sense, mentally ill, whereas those of us who are self-consciously and proudly ethnocentric are mentally healthy (at least in that respect). And, because so much of the mental energy of anti-racists is drained away in internal conflict, other things being equal, we “racists” are stronger, happier, and more capable of transforming the world.

Thus MacDonald’s research is cause for hope:

1. The left cannot win, because they can only control our conscious convictions but not our unconscious instincts.

2. Nature is on our side, because in their hearts, people want what we want.

3. Time is on our side, because anti-racism introduces internal psychological conflicts that are bound to be debilitating over the long run.

What is the path to racial salvation? Ultimately, it is a metapolitical struggle to gain control of the forces that shape people’s conscious convictions about what is right. Once we can bring people’s conscious convictions in line with their deepest instincts, the resistance to the political changes we seek will fall as a matter of course.

__________________

The complete article can be read in Counter-Currents Publishing.

Why conservatives still can’t win

by Greg Johnson

Recently I re-read William Pierce’s classic 1971 essay “Why Conservatives Can’t Win.” Like Pierce, if forced to choose between liberals and conservatives, I would side with conservatives. Conservatives have the indispensable political realism necessary for the preservation of any civilization. Liberalism, I will grant, does attract the best brains, blood, and spirit of our race. But though liberal idealism and imagination may adorn the heights of our civilization, they are undermining its foundations.

If in the next national election, everybody who voted Republican dropped dead in the voting booth, the country would be finished. You can’t have a functioning society consisting of bureaucrats, academics, welfare parasites, Jews, coloreds, feminists, fruit juice drinkers, and assorted busybodies. But if every Democratic voter dropped dead, my own family would be more than decimated, but society would go on. It would definitely be more orderly and more prosperous, although it would also be drab and hideously uptight.

Aside from politics, in which I completely reject egalitarianism and multiculturalism, I am pretty much a liberal. But one cannot deny that White Nationalism today is a phenomenon of the right. If White Nationalism is to triumph, it will have to become the common sense of the whole political spectrum. But for the time being, we are rightists, and we have to make the best of it.

But although we are Rightists, we are not conservatives. Conservatives share some of our values, but they don’t share all of them, and they certainly don’t share our goals. In fact, it is hard to speak of conservatives as goal-oriented at all. Conservatives are backwards-looking or fixated on legalism, procedure, and rights, but they do not have an image of a perfected society that is the proper goal of political activity. White Nationalists, like leftists, do have such a vision.

Conservative goals, such as they are, are confined to piecemeal resistance to the implementation of the grand designs of the left. As often as not, conservatives are just trying to hold on to the leftist programs of the past.

William F. Buckley’s description of conservatism as “Standing athwart the tracks of history yelling stop” pretty much captures this mentality, as unseemly as it is for a serious-minded individual. We White Nationalists, however, want to be in the engine of history, steering it toward our goal, and cheerfully pouring on the steam when the Buckleys of the world try to get in our way.

The core of Pierce’s argument is that conservatives can’t win because they aren’t really trying. The left plays for keeps. They have an overriding goal. They have a world to win. Conservatives are just trying to hold on to the 1950s or the 1980s. Conservatives may fight ferociously from time to time, but they are always playing defense. They think the election of a Nixon or a Reagan is a great victory, then lapse into complacency, only to awaken a few years later to find that the left has been on the march the whole time.

Other things being equal, the side that fights to win will defeat the side that fights for a draw. Fortune favors the bold, those who launch offenses, not those who merely play defense.

Conservatives also make a virtual cult out of being good sports, graceful losers, and ready compromisers.

Well, conservatives still can’t win. But neither can they learn, so they continue to promote their folly to new generations. Recently, two White Nationalist publications that once showed real promise have been lost to conservatism: Occidental Dissent and The Occidental Quarterly, which I edited for two and a half years, along with its sister publication, TOQ Online, which I created and edited for a year. I have already dealt with Occidental Dissent in “White Nationalism and the Political ‘Mainstream.’” Here I wish to deal with TOQ.

On November 6, 2010, John Gardner (“Yggdrasil”), the new publisher of TOQ, published “Why The Occidental Quarterly Exists” in which he explains the aims of TOQ under his watch. This article contains sound advice to whites to become as independent as possible from the consumerist system and its values and to create mutual aid networks.

But when it comes to the political system, Gardner is still very much a conservative, a Republican even. He thinks that White Nationalists—a tiny, voiceless, despised, poorly funded, and poorly led movement—should aim at lobbying and “conditioning” Republicans to represent white interests. Gardner actually thinks that whites can vote and lobby and game ourselves out of this mess, as if our people have not been slated for slow and systematic genocide but are merely having a run of bad luck at the polls.

I think it is too early for White Nationalists to get involved in electoral politics and lobbying. We need to become a much bigger, richer, and more politically threatening group before we can make a difference in that realm. (And if we become powerful enough, we can dispense with electoral politics altogether.) But for any of that to happen, we need to invest our time, money, brains, and talent in community building and outreach. We need to win people over to our way of thinking, by packaging and delivering our message to every white group through every medium available. We need to build up our community so it has something more to offer prospective converts than ignominy and the company of the insane.

The John Gardner I knew was a race-wise, Jew-wise White Nationalist who believed in the goal of a white ethnostate. The Occidental Quarterly I knew was founded to be explicitly white and to deal explicitly with the Jewish question. But you would never know that from Gardner’s TOQ 2.0 agenda. The most he says about race is that white Americans are being demonized and discriminated against because of our “skin color.” (Which is the language of biological race deniers and minimizers.) And as for the Jewish question, all we get is this:

Effective political motivation demands an identifiable “them.” Our competing racial groups have an identifiable “them” in their stereotype of the evil and undeserving White man. We need our own identifiable “them” which is, of course, those who benefit from the current repression of Whites under the regime of “multiculturalism.” Then the trick is to make the “them” apparent to our own people without inflaming and motivating our opponents. We should not name “them” explicitly. Rather, we advance policies that directly thwart the extractions and benefits “they” get from “us,” thus generating the kind of policy-oriented anger that will motivate and unify “us.”

If this is taken seriously as TOQ policy, then every back issue of the journal will have to be pulped and reprinted, with references to Jews replaced by euphemisms like “liberals” and “cultural Marxists.” Furthermore, Kevin MacDonald now seems like an odd choice for Editor. And in the end, it will never work, because the SPLC will always be around to remind people of the truth about White Nationalists who scuttle crabwise toward the mainstream, begin speaking in riddles and euphemisms, and try to reinvent themselves as conservatives.

We few who know the most important truth in the world—that organized Jewry (not “liberals,” not “cultural Marxists”) have set the white race (not “conservatives,” not “Christians,” not “Western Civilization”) on the path to extinction—have an absolute duty to get this message out and wake our people up. Because if we don’t do it, nobody else will. Those who know the truth but can’t shout it from the rooftops have the duty to support those who can spread the word.

Gardner’s claim that “the trick is to make the ‘them’ apparent to our own people without inflaming and motivating our opponents” is just a version of the old idea that we can “sneak up on the Jews” and catch them napping. But the enemy has millions of lidless, unsleeping eyes. And the idea that the enemy is not already inflamed and motivated and working against us at 99% capacity is laughable.

Gardner’s “trick” is not to name “them” but to support policies that negatively impact the interests of the enemy, so they rise from their slumbers and attack us, which will then motivate us to fight back.

Where to start?

(1) Aren’t the Jews attacking us enough already? And if decades of Jewish attacks have not motivated whites to unite and fight back, then why does Gardner think that ratcheting up the Jewish pressure will produce a different result this time?

Our people have suffered enough. The role of White Nationalists should be to explain who has been attacking us, and why, and how to fight back. That is the leadership our race needs.

(2) When and how are White Nationalists going to gain enough power to credibly threaten Jewish interests? How, exactly, is White Nationalism going to grow without first talking about race or Jewish power? If we don’t say anything to set us apart from conservatives, if we don’t act any more honest than system politicians, then why would we expect any growth? Gardner’s strategy for gaining political power begins: First, gain sufficient power to threaten the interests of the enemy. It doesn’t work that way.

(3) It is a tried and true method of political agitation to present a moderate petition to an arrogant power and hope that it is denied. There is nothing wrong with using this technique from time to time, when it is appropriate. But to depend on this technique alone—because one has adopted a policy of never speaking the enemy’s name—is an abdication of leadership. White Nationalists should be the primary educators and agitators of our people. Again, if we don’t argue our case, nobody else will.

(4) What exactly is the advantage to our people of being kept in the dark about our real enemies? The mainstream right has been doing that for decades, and what has that gotten us? Richard Nixon knew the score, but he spoke the truth only in private. In public, he made a foreign-born Jew Secretary of State and created Affirmative Action. The enemy operates under no such self-imposed handicaps.

(5) Gardner’s strategy is obviously based on the experience of the Tea Party, a piously color-blind, universalistic movement promoting fiscal conservatism and constitutional government which was nevertheless viciously attacked as “racist” by the left. These attacks have prompted ever-angrier denials of “racism” but not much more. Perhaps White Nationalists can reap some benefits from this polarization, but it is not a phenomenon that we need to imitate or encourage. It is doing quite well without us. Furthermore, leftist attacks on the Tea Party might move some people in our direction, but we will not move them any further unless we stay true to our own message rather than blending in with conservatives.

Pierce was right. Conservatism can’t win. It doesn’t really conserve anything. It is so politically inept and hapless that it seems almost designed to lose. If doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, it is also a good definition of conservatism.


__________________

I read this article in Counter-Currents Publishing. The image at the middle does not appear in the original article.

Alex Kurtagić interviews Greg Johnson

“I tend toward tolerance, but in this area I have a moralistic streak, and I am quite a bastard when I sense cowardice and dishonesty in people. Really, what I despise is dishonesty out of cowardice.” - G.J.

* * *

Excerpted from a longer piece I read in Counter-Currents Publishing (no ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs:

I first became aware of you following your appointment as editor of The Occidental Quarterly [TOQ]. However, I understand you had already been active as a dissident writer for a number of years, during which you wrote under various pen names. What, in your particular case, made you opt in favor of pen names? And why did you decide eventually to do away with them?

When I wrote under pen names, I was working for people who would fire me if they knew my real views.

When I took the TOQ job, I was told I would have to use my own name. At the time, I was explained that since TOQ is the would-be flagship of the intellectual wing of the Anglophone movement, it would not be suitable to edit it under a pen name. I accepted that argument at face value and took the plunge. At that point, I crossed the Rubicon. After about a year, all my old professional “friends” and contacts simply melted away.


Your tenure as TOQ editor saw a number of innovations: an active online presence was developed and articles and reviews appeared that covered a much wider spectrum of cultural spaces than ever before. What were your aims for the TOQ during this period?

My aim was to make TOQ a metapolitical journal for a North American New Right, the goal of which was to lay the foundations of the White Republic. There were, however, limitations built into TOQ from the beginning that made that difficult.

A problem was that the journal did not have clearly articulated goals. There were basic topics and parameters in the founding documents, which were drawn up by Sam Francis, Louis Andrew, William Regnery, and Kevin Lamb: TOQ was to deal with biological race differences as well as the Jewish Question. TOQ was not to bash homosexuals. TOQ was to be neutral on religion.

The de facto editorial line, however, can be divined from the interview published with Alain de Benoist. Only about half the actual interview was published. Everything critical of scientific materialism and Christianity was dropped. Benoist, I imagine, was quite disgusted. I certainly was when I learned about it. (I plan to publish the discarded portions in the first volume of North American New Right.)

Now, to his credit, the original Editor Kevin Lamb frequently crossed these boundaries. When I took over as Editor, I quickly learned that I had to edit as if I had a scientific materialist over one shoulder and a religious fundamentalist over the other. I too went beyond those strictures. I made some improvements in the design and editing of the journal, but ultimately I did not do anything radically different than Lamb.


The term “metapolitics” is often used within the intellectual class, and no doubt there are some who think it is all pretentious nonsense. Please explain this term for the layman, and why metapolitics is important. Why not just straight politics?

Metapolitics deals with foundational questions connected to politics, questions from history, philosophy, religious studies, the arts, and the human sciences.

One way of understanding the distinction between metapolitics and politics is in terms of values.

A political leader has to appeal to the existing values and attitudes of his constituency. The reason why White Nationalist politics is premature is that it offends the values of the electorate. (David Duke’s one win was a fluke. It won’t be allowed to happen again.) We can’t get what we want, because our people don’t want what we want. They think our goals are immoral. They also think they are incoherent and impractical.

They think these things, because our enemies have carefully laid the metapolitical foundations for the power they enjoy. They control academia, the school system, publishing, the arts, the news and entertainment media, and they have remade the American mind to their liking. My aim is to change people’s sense of what is politically desirable and right, and their sense of what is politically conceivable and possible.

That means that we have to explore ideas that would offend the majority of people.


So metapolitics is not the province of impractical bookworms, then. How does it relate to politics?

Metapolitics is about laying the foundations for political change. There are three levels to our struggle. (1) The metapolitical struggle to change values, culture, worldviews. (2) The metapolitical struggle to create a white community, and not just a virtual community, but an actual, real world, face-to-face community. A counter-culture needs to be embodied in a counter-community. (3) The political struggle for actual political power. In the end, we want political power, because we want to make the survival and flourishing of our people the law of the land, a matter of explicit policy, indeed the fundamental law and policy.

But metapolitics is not compatible with political activity within the present system and at the present time. Why? Because the prevailing metapolitical consensus rejects White Nationalism as immoral and impossible. This means that pushing our agenda in the present system is ultimately futile. Any gains will be at tremendous cost and will be easily reversed. You can swim against the current, but it is exhausting, and as soon as you run out of energy, the current will sweep you back to where you started. You can’t build the political superstructure before you lay the metapolitical foundations.

This is not to say that it is impossible for a deep-cover White Nationalist to pursue political power. I hope a lot of them are.

Nor is it impossible for system politicians to support initiatives that White Nationalists can support. For me, the only political issue in the United States that I care about is immigration, and there is reason for hope on that front. Politicians who are close to the right bank of the mainstream are pushing initiatives that might slow or halt the onslaught of illegal immigration. It is far short of what White Nationalists want—namely, a race-based immigration policy—but it would give us time by putting back the date when Whites become a minority in the United States. Given how disorganized and kook-infested the White Nationalist movement is in the United States, we need all the time we can get. Thus if it is possible for a White Nationalist to push immigration policy in the right direction, I say do it, so long as you do not divert our community’s resources into the political mainstream.

What I reject utterly is the idea that White Nationalists—a tiny, despised, poorly funded, poorly led minority—should divert any of our scare political capital into the mainstream at the cost of building up our own institutions and community. [Chechar’s note: This seems to refer to the blogsite Occidental Dissent — see also below] The mainstream is capable of taking care of itself. We need to take care of ourselves. If we don’t articulate our message and build our community, nobody else will.

We can’t buy mainstream politicians. They would flee from and denounce us if they knew who we are. Thus spending our political capital on people like that and expecting White Nationalist results is analogous to taking one’s capital to Las Vegas and playing craps as opposed to building one’s own business that will provide long-term steady income. Gambling, of course, is more fun than hard work, and the political system, like Las Vegas, is full of people who will be your friend and stroke your ego as long as you have money to blow. But the house always wins in the end, so White Nationalists who put their capital behind system politicians end up cleaned out, burned out, and useless to our cause.


Does not the inherent need for dissimulation in politics make it incompatible with free enquiry and open intellectual debate?

Yes, I will grant that. And if I thought that the time for political struggle were at hand, and if I thought that someone had come up with the perfect “Noble Lie,” I would fall right in line.

But White Nationalist politics is premature. Yet the main impediment I encounter is giddy people thinking that the time for political struggle is at hand [Ibid: This seems to refer to the blogsite Occidental Dissent administered by Hunter Wallace], and the only thing standing in the way of that are people like me who insist on talking about things like the problems of Christianity, European ideas like fascism and (horrors!) National Socialism, etc. After all, these ideas won’t play in Peoria! They tell us that we need to shut down such discussions so our enemies don’t use them to scare away the voters.

Well, it doesn’t take a Ph.D. to see where this is going. The first thing we need to do is stop publishing articles that might offend mainstream Republican types. So we can’t publish articles about Black Metal, because that is “Satanic,” or Traditionalism because it is “occult,” or paganism because it is pagan. And we can’t be critical of capitalism either.

But you can’t stop there. Nothing offends Christian fundamentalists more than Darwinism, so scientific race studies and evolutionary psychological studies of the Jews are out too. Why talk about race and Jews at all, for that matter? Isn’t that divisive? Why not just get people riled up about “unfairness” and “double standards” against “European Americans” based on our “skin color”? Maybe we should just talk about restoring the Constitution.

In short, why not just close up shop? That is the ultimate end of this lemming-like stampede into the safe, respectable oblivion of mainstream conservatism.

The trouble with the mainstream, though, is that our enemies have done the metapolitical engineering work necessary to divert the conservative mainstream away from the turbines of political power and into the irrigation ditches of irrelevance.

So until the time is ripe for political struggle, I think that it is best to have the most open and free-wheeling intellectual debate possible. That is the only way we will create an intellectually exciting and morally credible metapolitical movement.

Besides, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle or the toothpaste back in the tube. For instance, even if I shut up tomorrow about the damaging effects Christianity has had on our racial survival, our enemies could still use that to scare Christians about Godless or Satanic racists. So we might as well keep the conversation going.

Besides, racially-conscious Christians will never reform their churches unless we constantly scourge them to do it. Otherwise, they tend to be far more interested in shutting down criticism in our camp than in confronting anti-White hatred in their churches.

Maybe metapolitical debate is folly from the point of view of political expediency. But as William Blake put it, the fool, if he persists in his folly, becomes wise. So we will persist.

We aren’t going to shut up and blend in, so people in the mainstream had better figure out ways of making us work to their advantage, if only by using us as boogey men to make them seem moderate by comparison.


After editing TOQ, you founded a publishing house, Counter-Currents. What are your aims with this new enterprise? What can we expect from, and what would you like to make happen with, Counter-Currents in the next five to ten years?

Counter-Currents publishes North American New Right, which is a metapolitical journal that aims at laying the foundations for a white ethnostate in North America. North American New Right has two formats.

First, there is our webzine, at the Counter-Currents website, www.counter-currents.com, which publishes something new every day. The reason we publish online is because it increases the availability and thus the impact of an article, and it makes it immediately available to the public. Our goal is to save the world, after all. If something contributes to that end, it is worth publishing right away.

Second, we will publish an annual print volume, which contains the best of the website and additional articles, reviews, interviews, etc. This will be a handsome book along the lines of the journals Tyr or Alexandria: The Journal of Western Cosmological Traditions. The first volume, for 2010, will go to press in March 2011.

We also plan to publish around six books a year. Our format is to publish short books that can be read in a day, say in the range of 120 to 160 pages, with 200 being the upper limit. All our books will be published in limited numbered, hardcover editions of 100 copies plus standard hardcover and paperback editions.

Our first two volumes are Michael O’Meara’s Toward the White Republic and Michael Polignano’s Taking Our Own Side. Forthcoming volumes include works by Julius Evola, Alain de Benoist, Kerry Bolton, and Edmund Connelly.

Counter-Currents/North American New Right focuses on philosophy, political theory, religion, history, the arts, and popular culture with a White Nationalist metapolitical slant, and a special emphasis on whites in North America, since this is where we are located. We do not focus on science, policy studies, or the daily news cycle. We are not a political activist group, but a politically aware publishing house.


During the summer you wrote “Learning from the Left,” to which I responded with an article of my own, “Learning from the Right,” both on The Occidental Observer. In my article, I enumerated what I considered to be the failed strategies of the right. What are, in your opinion, the failed strategies of the right? And, having learnt from them, what do you propose should be the Right’s focus/approach in the coming decade?

I will speak specifically of the American scene.

I think the greatest failure of the post-WW II racial right is not dealing with the Jewish Question, whether through ignorance or cowardice. Instead, the tendency has been to use euphemisms, circumlocutions, and proxies to speak about the enemy: liberals, socialists, cultural Marxists, etc. But you cannot fight an enemy whom you refuse to name and understand. Is it any surprise that people have not been eager to follow leaders who reek of cowardice and moral confusion?

Next is the failure to identify what we are fighting for, again whether through ignorance or cowardice. We are fighting for the survival of white people in North America. Again, the tendency has been to use euphemisms, circumlocutions, or proxies: the Constitution, free enterprise, Christianity. The most preposterous one that I have heard is the claim that we are “the descendants of non-duophysite Christians as of 1492.” Of course this is not a definition of anything, just a euphemism for white Europeans, not Arabs or Jews. But why not just come out and say that? Is it any surprise that a movement where this passes for cleverness has gotten nowhere?

The third great failure is ceding the whole realm of culture and ideas to the Jews and trying to fight a merely political battle, which leads inevitably to the buffoonery of cornpone populism as an attempt to make an end run around the establishment’s lock on thinking people. But it just hasn’t worked. It might have worked 60 years ago, but it didn’t. But today Jews control the whole realm of explicit culture, for the thinking and unthinking alike.

Whites in North America will not be able to regain control of our destiny until we (1) openly avow and defend our racial identity and interests, (2) openly identify the leading role of the organized Jewish community in setting our race on the path to degradation and death, and (3) lay the metapolitical foundations for political power, which includes (a) spreading our message through the whole realm of culture and ideas and (b) fostering a concrete, real-world, racially-conscious white community.


Surely the future must not simply be a futile (and impossible) return to the 1930s. The Left, on the other hand, has always had a utopian vision. Describe a future society where Savitri Devi’s texts are canonical university textbooks, read without controversy.

This is why I think we need to cultivate artists. Artists project worlds. Harold Covington’s Northwest Quartet novels, for example, are enormously effective at communicating ideas. His novel The Hill of the Ravens is set in a future Northwest Republic, as are parts of A Distant Thunder.

Of course film is even more effective at communicating ideas than books. Film really is the realization of Wagner’s idea of the Gesamtkunstwerk.

Savitri Devi was politically to the right of Hitler. I guess the best image of a world where she is read without controversy is the final chapter of her Impeachment of Man: “Race, Economic, and Kindness: An Ideal World.”

___________________

Listen also to James Edwards’ audio interview of Dr. Johnson.

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.”