“The country is dying because of a
lack of men, not a lack of programs.”
—Codreanu
Categories
Month: May 2017
Categories
The WDH radio show
We are making progress and hopefully next Wednesday we will be able to tape the first episode of The West’s Darkest Hour Radio Show featuring Jake, Joseph and yours truly.
I’ll try not to talk much because the last time I practiced my English for a year was seventeen years ago, in Manchester. My knowledge of English basically comes from reading, not speaking: and I’ll need lots of practice to be able to speak fluently, with an understandable pronunciation.
Anyway, if we can master the audio software by the next Wednesday, our first guest will be a well-known figure in the Jew-wise, racial American movement.
Keep tuned!
Categories
White Sharia
Unlike most white nationalists, Andrew Anglin has been telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about women. He’s even better than the MGTOW complainers because MGTOWers are not racists. Below, a few excerpts from Anglin’s article today on the Stormer:
What I am “claiming”—which is in fact simply explaining an objective reality, based on accepted science—is that women have no concept of “race,” as it is too abstract for their simple brains. What they have a concept of is getting impregnated by the dominant male.
Believing in “racially aware women” is a furry-tier sexual perversion. A woman is hardwired to breed with whoever she perceives as dominant in the society, as she wishes to give birth to dominant children. That is simple, mainstream, accepted evolutionary biology—not to mention painfully fucking obvious.
In a natural society, all women wanted to fuck the dominant warlord tribal chief. Because that would produce for them dominant, warlord children, who would protect them, feed them, house them and clothe them when they were too old and unattractive to have a male protect them for sexual reasons. This is the biological instinct of women to produce the most dominant male offspring—that instinct does not recognize race.
And we now have a society that has elevated the brown man to the status of dominant male. So the increasing female desire is to fuck the brown man. This is not complicated and it is not controversial.
The female sex drive is primitive and obsolete. Having been sexually liberated, they are leading our race to oblivion…
Primitive, obsolete female sex drive needs to be controlled with brutality.
I wish there was another way.
But there isn’t.
Categories
James Mason
What a discovery! Yesterday I watched this clip featuring James Nolan Mason:
https://youtu.be/czdLNUG8ajY
The whole, three-part old interview by Tom Metzger can be watched: here. I haven’t read Mason’s Siege because it is out-of-print, and a single surviving copy can be purchased through Amazon at $1798 dollars.
On the other hand, a book packed with lots of illustrations like Siege cannot be read comfortably with the small letters of the available PDF, which today I uploaded to this site: here (postscript note: deleted – see the bottom of this entry).
After watching the whole Metzger interview of Mason the idea occurred to me to print at home the PDF of Siege. While the small letters make an uncomfortable reading both on screen and paper, it is possible to take the printed PDF to Office Depot and make photocopies of the whole text with amplified letters. It surely will be less expensive than purchasing rare surviving copies through Amazon.
Yes, we have Noontide Press and Arthur Kemp’s Ostara Publications. But we still need another publishing house. Recently I was shocked to learn that Pierce’s Who We Are, which (to my mind) is the most important book for racialists together with Hellstorm, is now unavailable from Amazon. Like Siege and other books, Who We Are should be available in printed form.
It is true that Johnson’s Counter-Currents has published several books. But like the mediocre Arktos Press, out of ten books Johnson publishes one good book for nine mediocre books. These two are not revolutionary but merely reactionary publishing houses.
It looks like Mason is still living but he seems to have disappeared from the public scene. Now that white nationalists are going to the streets for the first time, it could be great if a national socialist could investigate what happened to Mason.
P.S. I have now deleted the text of Siege because of this comment, and uploaded instead a better version:
https://westsdarkesthour.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/james-mason-siege.pdf
The above PDF can certainly be printed at home and the printed page makes for a very comfortable reading.
Categories
WN ignorance
Last Sunday I reproduced here an excellent article by Andrew Anglin against feminized white nationalists. Today Anglin posted another Sunday article on The Daily Stormer where he says:
Note before we get started: economics
It is important to make clear that economics are not really a particularly relevant factor anymore. I don’t mean that absolutely, but pretty much the deal is that with our current level of technology and the ease of material production, any economic system can work in a white country, while no economic system can work in a nonwhite country or a formerly white country with an extreme number of nonwhite immigrants.
No one really talks or cares that much about economics anymore because for the most part, people are comfortable. The economic issues which do exist can be easily deconstructed as social issues… We are very close to the point in history where labor will be free, and the entire concept of “economics” 100% obsolete.
Really?
Two weeks ago I criticized Richard Spencer with these words: “Spencer used to be the only famed white nationalist who openly warned about the looming economic crisis. Not anymore. Yesterday he added in his Facebook page a retweet: ‘Many in the Alt Right know about economics, especially the Austrian School. We just don’t care anymore. There are bigger fish to fry.’ I posted at his FB page this: ‘This is a big mistake, Richard. Real economics—call it Austrian or not—teaches us that the dollar will crash under Trump’s watch, which means that a big window of opportunity for the Alt-Right will be opened this very decade. Meanwhile, keep silver coins in your safe box’.”
Besides me, who among pro-white bloggers is saying that the international money policies are driving the system towards an accident? Am I the only one, or white nationalist ignorance is endemic?
What is happening to the world of economics is exactly the opposite of what Anglin has said in his Sunday article.
Divided for publication at The Occidental Observer in three parts this Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, Andrew Joyce has published a magnificent article explaining the Jewish Problem under the title: “The Jewish Question: Suggested Readings with Commentary.”
I would like to quote a few passages from Joyce’s piece; the first one about Richard Wagner:
When Europeans found themselves caught up in a drive to ‘emancipate’ the Jews, it wasn’t as a result of careful analysis of the possible positive or negative consequences of such an action. Rather, those involved were merely “champions of abstract principle.” Liberalism, argues Wagner, is “not a very lucid mental sport.” Liberalism relies on emotion and feelings, rather than rationality and facts. Europeans had been duped into fighting for the ‘freedom’ of a people “without knowledge of that people itself, nay, with a dislike of any genuine contact with it. … Our eagerness to level up the rights of Jews was far more stimulated by a general idea, than by any real sympathy.” Of course, the same argument might be made today in relation to the ‘refugee’ craze. Liberals are merely in love with the idea of helping migrants, rather than this being something they are genuinely emotional about. Liberalism, as Wagner rightly perceived, is the political expression of selfish emotionality. Aside from his musings on Liberalism, Wagner’s comments on Jews in culture are so profound and extensive that they cannot be adequately covered here. It simply remains to be said that Jewry in Music is an essential text, worthy of careful study.
This quote from Houston Stewart Chamberlain makes him look like a Cassandra!:
The end result of this [Judaization of the West] process will be apocalyptic: “If that were to go on for a few centuries, there would be in Europe only one single people of pure race, that of the Jews, all the rest would be a herd of pseudo-Hebraic mestizos, a people beyond all doubt degenerate physically, mentally and morally.”
About Kevin MacDonald, and contrary to popular opinion among white nationalist circles, Joyce says: “I can state with some confidence that Separation and Its Discontents has no equal.” (Curiously, in 2012 I wrote that Separation was my favorite of MacDonald’s trilogy.)
Although Joyce’s focuses on the Jewish Problem, he also hints to what I have been calling the Aryan Problem: a suicidal out-group altruism combined with bourgoise compliance among whites:
Fichte complained about “sugar-sweet words about toleration and human rights and civic rights,” which act only to facilitate the removal or downgrading of the rights of natives…
In particular, [Bauer] argued against the idea that ‘rights’ are innate, writing that they instead come with certain requirements and responsibilities…
Marr is also worth reading because of his focus on the inertia of the masses in the face of rising Jewish influence. For example, he finds it remarkable that Jews have been able to conquer entire national systems without violent revolution but instead “through the compliance of the people.”
I strongly recommend visitors of this site to send the links to Joyce’s article, divided in three parts (here, here and here), to those normies who know nothing about the Jewish Problem: it is a fascinating reading.
by Savitri Devi
Excerpted from Chapter IV: Action precedes theory
A man who has always felt an insurmountable, physical disgust for animal slaughter, and to whom the very sight of meat is nauseating, is hardly likely to force himself to become a flesh eater just because the books he was taught to consider as sacred or infallible (be they religious scriptures or “scientific” works) seem to encourage such a diet rather than forbid it, or because the founder of his faith, or the geniuses he reveres the most, obviously ate meat. He may not always have the courage to denounce the man-centered religion or philosophy in which he was educated, on the sole ground that its ethics are not high enough for him (in fact, shockingly below his own natural ethics).
From the point of view of practical behaviour, there are, properly speaking, only two kinds of people: those who really love animals (and plants) and those who do not.
We are, for instance, all acquainted with the belief, shared by many, that animals (and, a fortiori, plants) have “no soul,” or that if they have, their soul is of a nature entirely different from ours, in particular that it is not immortal. We all know that Christianity enjoins us to “love our neighbours,” including our enemies, “as ourselves,” but is completely silent about our duties towards subhuman creatures.
If one is to “love” a man who has murdered one’s parents, committed atrocities upon one’s countrymen, or robbed one of one’s livelihood, then it appears obvious that one should, a fortiori, love the lamb, the kid, the cow, and all innocent irresponsible creatures enough, at least, not to encourage the butcher’s hideous industry; and that one should love harmless frogs and guinea pigs enough to protest against the use of them in scientific experimentation.
Up till today, no creed obviously implying consistent active kindness towards all sentient beings has ever succeeded in imposing itself upon the practical life of any human society.
A great many of the town-bred meat-eaters we know, in Europe at least, are animal- lovers at heart.… although they generally express a sincere horror after reading or hearing a vivid description of a slaughterhouse, yet they do not spontaneously connect all the ghastliness of animal killing with that particular chunk of meat they see before them in a dish with roast potatoes and onions all around it.
They do not automatically picture to themselves, at the sight of it, the agony of a sheep, of a bullock, of a young calf, once enjoying the taste of fresh grass and the light of heaven, then suddenly drawing its last breath in a pool of blood . . . and for what?—for them to have some mutton, beef or veal on their menu. If they did actually imagine that, half of them would shrink in horror, and not only eat no more meat themselves, but also despise all those who refuse to give up that habit as one despises the accomplices in some hideous murder case.
But they do not. The custom of feeding on flesh and the knowledge that “men have always done so from the beginning of the world”—the reaction of daily repeated misdeeds upon one’s true sense of values—have blunted, if not completely obliterated, their power of visualizing at once that which they wish to forget. They are not obsessed by the unavoidable connection between an appetizing roast with potatoes around it and the sickening reality of the death struggle of a slaughtered beast, as we would be. A whole series of associations of ideas has been suppressed in them by an obnoxious “education,” and they have not enough imagination to revive it of their own accord.
The same could be said about all those inconsistent animal lovers who would not refuse the present of a fur coat, nay, who would not hesitate to buy one if they could afford it; who take medicine (preventive and curative) prepared at the cost of the suffering of many guinea pigs and white rats; and who hire a carnage when they are in a hurry (in places where taxis are not available) without making sure that the horse is not tired, sometimes even without paying attention whether the driver beats it or not.
A natural, spontaneous feeling of sympathy for any individual living creature, allied to a sufficiently vivid imagination, is a rare quality. And consequently real animal lovers—not merely those who keep pets, or those who burst into indignation at the thought of one form of cruelty and tolerate or even encourage another—are very few. Real plant lovers who feel for the trees themselves, and not merely for the shade, fruit or flowers they give, are equally rare.
One may also wonder whether any substantial progress has ever been made in that line, from the beginning of historical times. One may even wonder whether organized society has not deliberately worked to destroy such spontaneous brotherly feelings towards beasts as might have existed in some of the better human beings living outside its pale.
The enemy of the hunter (as well as of the butcher, of the scientist who experiments on living creatures, etc.) is an enemy of mankind.
We scorn all men who condemn “wars of aggression,” and who, at the same time, eat meat; nay, we scorn all pacifists who do not, in their everyday dealings, live up to the ideal of universal nonviolence preached by the Jains. We scorn all those, whoever they be, who have never raised their voice against scientific experimentation upon innocent animals (which can be neither for nor against any cause) and who dare condemn experimentation upon one’s dangerous—or potentially dangerous—human enemies.
We scorn all those who never were moved to indignation at the idea of man’s lasting crime against the living Realm;—at the thought of the enormous daily round of avoidable pain inflicted by man upon beasts (and even plants)—and who, yet, dare speak of “war crimes” and of “war criminals.”
We flatly refuse to condemn war,—be it a thousand times a war “of aggression”—as long as mankind at large persists in its callous attitude towards animal (and tree) life. And as long as torture is inflicted by men upon a single living creature, in the name of scientific research, of sport, of luxury or of gluttony, we systematically refuse our support to any campaign exploiting public sympathy for tortured human beings—unless the latter be, of course, such ones as we look upon as our brothers in race and faith, or people near and dear to these.
The world that exalts Pasteur and Pavlov, and countless other tormentors of innocent creatures, in the name of the so-called “interest of mankind,” while branding as “war criminals” men who have not shrunk from acts of violence upon hostile human elements, when such was their duty in the service of higher mankind and in the interest of all life, does not deserve to live.
Categories
What is NS?
“National Socialism is nothing more
or less than NATURAL ORDER.”
—George Lincoln Rockwell
Categories
White nationalist critic
(It’s me in my personal library.)
This blog used to have the triple of visitors before I embarked on the ambitious project of writing the now aborted From St Francis to Himmler. Earlier this year I even planned to abandon this site until the financial accident happened.
Now that I have much free time the idea has occurred to me to make a series of YouTube podcasts with the provocative title “White nationalist critic.”
As recent visitors of The West’s Darkest Hour know, last week I made some critical remarks about what Matt Heimbach, a well known figure in white nationalism, said on The Daily Shoah. Yesterday I spent an inordinate amount of time listening to three podcasts featuring another well known figure, Greg Johnson. I liked what Johnson said, with his host Millennial Woes, about France’s elections last Sunday (here), especially why we must reject democracy as the political system of the West.
However, in an interview with a Seventh Day Adventist who converted to Judaism (here) Johnson rejects William Pierce’s methods of bringing to justice white traitors and Jews after the revolution. He proposes, instead, a “no fault divorce” with the Jew. It is not the first time that Johnson speaks of non-bloody solutions in this age of treason.
In the other Counter-Currents radio podcast I listened yesterday, Johnson talks with Hunter Wallace (here). Johnson says it is time for pro-white advocates to give up infighting. Andrew Anglin said something similar on The Daily Stormer after the most diverse factions of white advocates united forces last month at Kentucky against the antifa.
I respectfully disagree. Although white nationalists are the best men we have in the West, unlike national socialists most of them still cling to some meta-ethics that are ethnosuicidal. Here I explain why there is a substantial difference between white nationalism and National Socialism; and why the former is a steppingstone at best and a blind alley at worst.
As far as I know, there is no podcast that presents National Socialism to the listeners. Why not start one?
in the WN movement
Male feminists refuse to explain why a book—written by a woman for women about BDSM is now the best-selling book of all time. I get a lot of hate from white knights (who should really be called “male feminists”) for my straightforward commentary on the collective behavior of women.
The fact that women are sexually aroused by the idea of rape and abuse is extremely difficult for a lot of men to process. In particular, men have a hard time processing this in relationship to the female obsession with flooding the West with men who are shockingly prone to rape and abuse of women.
However, although I have laid out my arguments for this phenomenon in great detail, as of yet, no male feminist has bothered to give a counter-argument. Instead, they attack me personally, claim I must have some personal problem, or else I wouldn’t even care about the data which supports my claims.
It doesn’t matter what people think of me. If I was concerned about the opinions that random anonymous people on the internet have of me, I would have chosen a different profession. My concern is with the concept itself, that of shaming men who dare question the behavior of women.
By attacking me, these male feminists are sending a message to all men: if you question women, we will turn against you, we will insult and attack your masculinity. This is called “Man-Shaming.” It is the same exact system that the Jews used to silence men opposed to homosexuality: “If you’re against the gays, you must secretly be one yourself.”
The reason that white men will shame other white men with feminist garbage is that they themselves are emotionally incapable of dealing with the fact that their girlfriends and wives (or their objects of romantic interest) are not the princesses they imagine them to be.
This is objectively true. If they simply disagreed based on data, they would present counter-arguments and relevant data. Instead, they personally attack the man making the argument that causes them to feel the uncomfortable emotions.
I am absolutely disgusted by the idea that white men are willing to shame other white men, to question their virility and masculinity, in order to protect their own fragile emotions. This needs to stop. Man-shamers within the white nationalist movement are inhibiting free and open discussion of ideas, which can only be good for our enemies.
Beyond this, they are also creating a narrative that will harm men who are trying to have successful relationships with women. In order to have a successful relationship with a woman, a man must understand that they are fundamentally non-loyal (as opposed to disloyal), amoral (as opposed to immoral) and have a strong need to be dominated and controlled (in the modern system, where this need is not being fulfilled because men have been taught to treat women as “equals” with “valuable input,” their desire to be dominated and controlled expresses itself through pathological sexual desire).
I take criticism well
I am very good with criticism, and am fine with the idea that I might be wrong about certain things. I don’t consider myself infallible, and am always open to discussion and debate. However, because the feminist arguments are emotional and not based on data or logic, they do not engage in constructive criticism or debate, instead resorting to name-calling: woman-hater, MGTOW, etc.
All insults, no data or logic. My point, continually, has been that these concepts have nothing to do with me, and attacking me for presenting the concepts shows that the attacker lacks a rational, data-based defense.
I understand that this is a sensitive issue for many men, and I do my best to understand men where they are. I believe that the bonds between men are what make up the foundation of any society, and so I do my best to remain as sympathetic to the men who are taken in by feminism as the men who are able to acknowledge that they are victims of the Jewish-feminist agenda.
Nevertheless, it is the male feminists who are in the wrong, and who are harming others with their man-shaming agenda. Attack me all you want. It doesn’t matter. I care about my brothers, and sticking up for my brothers. We are all victims of feminism, whether we acknowledge it or not. All you have to do is look around you. In all likelihood, your own mother destroyed your life and the life of your father, for no explainable reason. Your friends have family members [who] have had their lives destroyed by women.
You are told that “somewhere out there” there are women who are different. But you keep looking, and you do not find them.
For the sake of the movement
It is very important to our personal lives that we understand women and their behavior. But our personal lives, individually, are irrelevant in the face of our agenda. And our agenda suffers very greatly if we do not take a realistic approach to the female issue. For one, if we allow women to assert influence on the movement, it will never go anywhere.
Perhaps even more importantly, we want this movement to expand, and we are not going to do that by being a movement of a bunch of losers who can’t get women. As such, it is important to me to teach men to be the kind of men who are successful with women, and the kind of man who fantasizes about women as princesses is not the kind of man who is successful with women.
The ironic thing about all of this is that while I am accused by the male feminists of “alienating women” and “limiting our movement to men only,” I am in fact doing the opposite of this. The only women who are ever going to truly feel adamantly about right-wing politics are women who do so because they have a boyfriend or a husband who is involved in the movement.
Women do not have moral convictions and do not have ideologies. These are masculine concepts. All philosophers understood this fact (literally, all of them, so there is no need to cite an individual philosopher here).
Given that women do not naturally possess their own beliefs, they adopt the beliefs of who they view as their natural physical protector. So in our modern situation, women adopt the beliefs of the state. The way we will get women “into the movement” is by getting girlfriends for the men already in the movement. Not by trying to cater an ideological message to women.
Single women who get involved in the movement do it either to find a man, or for attention whoring/funding purposes (in certain cases, they may also find it fashionable). Not because they were moved by a logical or ideological argument. As the woman exists for the sole purpose of producing children, her entire orientation is geared towards gathering resources and/or acquiring a man/men who will gather resources for her.
As such, the way to get women involved in the movement is very simple: Create a movement of men who are desirable to women. The female partners of those men will then, by default, be involved in the movement.
Male feminists are inhibiting our ability to do this, by attempting to shame men who take on a character that is attractive to women. Men who “respect women” are not attractive to women. They are viewed as weak and pathetic. That is not the kind of movement we want.
You cannot compare this to leftism
One cannot say “we have to follow the pattern of the leftists and recruit single women into our movement ” because the concepts are totally different. Women are naturally drawn to leftism, for innumerable reasons. In part, it is because they are natural communists.
One should read the ancient Greek play Assemblywomen by Aristophanes, about women taking over the government (or at least the Wikipedia synopsis of it). In 391 BC, this man was able to predict that women, if given the chance create a government, would institute communism. This is because women do not have the ability to gather their own resources, so they prefer that they are distributed based on “equality” rather than merit.
In the play, the women also dissolve the family, and require that the most attractive men be forced to have sex with all of the women in the city, so that unattractive women are also able to have a chance to mate with attractive men. It has always been understood that the sexuality of women is deranged by any male, moral standard.
Modern leftism is also satisfying the sexual desires of women by importing men whom they find sexually desirable. They manipulate weak, beta males (the type of males who are drawn to leftism to begin with) into helping them import brown people who they view as sexually dominant.
Blaming Jews for the behavior of women isn’t helping anything
There is a saying: “the only thing worse than a white knight is a white knight who blames Jews for the behavior of women.”
This is accurate. Of course, Jews should be blamed for the liberation of women. It was, on the whole, their idea. However, the behavior of women is the behavior of women. As I mentioned above, men in the 4th century BC understood that women, if given the chance, would do exactly what they are doing now.
If Jews released thousands of tigers out onto the streets of New York City, and they started mauling people, you would say “Jews are responsible for the fact that these tigers are mauling people on the street,” but you would not say “Jews are responsible for the fact that tigers are natural predators.” Claiming that Jews are responsible for the behavior of modern women simply confuses the issue.
Jews are responsible for creating a culture in which the worst, primitive instincts of women are celebrated as virtue, and the natural male desire to protect women is redirected into protecting her ability to indulge in these destructive, primitive behavior patterns.
Man-Up
It is time to act like men, and to take responsibility for the situation we are in, which includes taking responsibility for our women. Claiming that women are not a problem is simply a way of passing off male responsibility.
Our movement needs to be sexy. We want men to look at us, and say “that’s something I want to be a part of.” A huge part of that is being something that is attractive to women. And women are not attracted to men who “respect women.”
Call out the man-shamers for what they are: subversives who are harming this movement in order to fulfill a sad emotional need to believe in the virtue of women.