Sixteen

years later (III)

Already flying halfway across the Atlantic on 12 September 2009, I read Justin Raimondo’s article “The Good War Wasn’t So Good”, the first few paragraphs of which were published by TOQ Online:

I write these words on September 3, 2009, seventy years to the day since Britain and France declared war on Germany—an occasion observed, if not exactly celebrated by the leaders and opinion-makers of the West, as the beginning of “the good war.” The War Party just loves WWII because it’s the one war where all agree we had no choice but to fight and win a war to the death. Well, not quite all, but on this question dissent is simply not tolerated.

Take, for example, Pat Buchanan, who marks this anniversary with a reiteration of the theme of his excellent book, The Unnecessary War, which makes the case that war was never inevitable, and that only the pernicious idea of “collective security”—the Franco-British “guarantee” to Poland—made it so. Buchanan also makes the indisputable point that if only the Poles had given Danzig back to Germany, from whom it had been taken in the wake of the disastrous Treaty of Versailles, a negotiated peace would have been the result—a much more desirable one than 56,125,262 deaths and the incalculable toll taken by the war in terms of resources and pure human misery.

Oh, but no: to the “bloggers,” left and right, this is a case of “Pat Buchanan, Hitler Apologist.” In the political culture constructed by these pygmies, any challenge to the conventional wisdom—especially one that involves questioning WWII, the Sacred War—is something close to a criminal act, one that separates out the perpetrator from the realm of polite society and consigns him to an intellectual Coventry, where he can do no harm. And of course attacking US entry into WWII is considered a “hate crime” because—well, what are you, some kind of “Hitler apologist”?!

But of course WWII was not inevitable, and Hitler was indeed amenable to negotiations: he never wanted to go to war with the British—whom he admired—and the French, whose influential native fascist movement had good relations with their German co-thinkers.

The article motivated me to obtain a copy of Buchanan’s book. Once settled in Mexico, on 23 September I read Sam G. Dickson’s “A Modest Proposal” in the same webzine which contains these paragraphs:

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

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

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

But where do the feelings that it’s immoral to advocate Aryan survival come from? Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault, which I heard countless times at Mass as a child, only metastasised into the Aryan collective unconscious after the Second World War. As Tom Holland has said both in writing and on YouTube: after WW2, white people managed to maintain Christian ethics only by transferring the idea of the Devil to Adolf Hitler. Because of this transfer, the West now defines morality in a negative way: everything must be done in opposition to Hitler’s ideals!

In other words, after WWII Aryans must commit ethnic suicide. That same day, I read Greg Johnson’s review of the novels of Harold Covington, who had been inspired by The Turner Diaries (the following year, when Johnson launched his new website, Counter Currents, he republished his review which can be read here).

Given that Johnson praised the novels this explains why, in 2009, I, who longed for a revolution, never criticised white nationalism. I imagined it then as a revolutionary ideology, as evident in this comment by Michael O’Meara in TOQ Online regarding Johnson’s review. Incidentally, some TOQ Online articles are still available on the internet. But they no longer have a comments section, so the following gem from O’Meara would have been lost had I not printed it out for my binder sixteen years ago:

This is an extraordinary article on an extraordinary subject. I am constantly amazed by the fact that the Quartet [H.A. Covington's The Hill of the Ravens, A Distant Thunder, A Mighty Fortress and The Brigade —Ed.] has been virtually ignored in our community. Part of this, I imagine, is due to the fact that the present generation of racialists, like their unconscious cohorts, no longer reads. Anything that’s more than two or three thousand words long and lacks illustrations is practically inaccessible to them.

A second reason I imagine the Quartet has been ignored is probably due to Covington himself, who is apparently an uncompromising individual and certainly one who has acquired a great many enemies. I don’t personally know Covington, so I have no way of evaluating the various charges made against him. [The charges were true. See may take here —Ed.]

In any case, even if the nasty things said about him by his enemies are true, it still distracts not in the least from the quality of his works, which are virtually unparalleled in our community. This gets me to the third reason I think the Quartet is ignored. Both white nationalism and race realism are largely cyber phenomena. If you take Covington seriously, however, you would have to tear yourself away from the computer monitor and act in the real world—with all its attendant inconveniences. The thought of political activity, though, is apparently too much for most of us. We too, even if we have remained unmoved by the system’s racial fictions, seem to behave in ways not unlike the rest of the sheep. Will we also go quietly to the slaughter?

I think it’s significant that the spontaneous uprising depicted in the Quartet at Coeur d’Alene, which provoked the war leading to the eventual formation of the Northwest American Republic, was something of a mystery. This rings true to me. We may no longer be the men who defied the might of the British Empire in 1776 or 1916, but there are other forces that might save us from ourselves.

The greatest of the “conservative” thinkers, Joseph de Maistre, pointed out long ago that the French Revolution led the revolutionaries rather than was led by them. For he believed that certain Providential forces rule our lives. These forces he saw in Christian terms, but others, like Heidegger, for instance, saw them in terms of Being, over which humans have no control.

In either case, the force of Providence or Being or Destiny has a power that has often made itself felt in our history. For this reason, I have little doubt that Europeans will eventually throw off the Judeo-liberal system programming their destruction. I’m less confident about we Americans, given the greater weakness of our collective identity and destiny. But nevertheless even we might be saved from ourselves by this force—as long as we do what is still in our power to do. Greg Johnson has given us in this review something we ignore at our own peril.

The tragedy is that, in the years that followed, American white nationalism suffered a regression: from an incipient revolutionary thought to de facto conservatism. Moreover, the revolutionary O’Meara left the movement after a heated discussion thread against the monocausalists of Counter-Currents regarding the JQ.