Greg Johnson on the Holocaust:
1. White Nationalists need to deal with the Holocaust just as we need to deal with the Jewish Question in general.
It is futile to focus on White advocacy alone and ignore the Jews. Quite simply, the Jews will not return the favor. You might not pick Jews as the enemy, but they will pick you. You might wish to see Jews as Whites, but Jews see themselves as a distinct people. Thus they see any nationalism but their own as a threat.
2. It is futile for White Nationalists to ignore the Holocaust, for the Holocaust is one of the principal tools by which Jews seek to stigmatize White ethnic pride and self-assertion. As soon as a White person expresses the barest inkling of nationalism or racial consciousness, he will be asked “What about the Holocaust? You’re not defending genocide, are you?”
The Holocaust is specifically a weapon of moral intimidation. It is routinely put forward as the worst thing that has ever happened, the world’s supreme evil. Anybody who would defend it, or anything connected to it, is therefore evil by association. The Holocaust is evoked to cast uppity Whites into the world’s deepest moral pit, from which they will have to extricate themselves before they can say another word. And that word had better be an apology. To borrow a turn of phrase from Jonathan Bowden, the Holocaust is a moral “cloud” over the heads of Whites.
So how can White Nationalists dispel that cloud? We need an answer to the Holocaust question. As a New Rightist, the short answer is simply this: the New Right stands for ethnonationalism for all peoples—what Frank Salter terms “universal nationalism.” We believe that this idea can become hegemonic through the transformation of culture and consciousness. We believe that it can be achieved by peaceful territorial divisions and population transfers. Thus we retain the values, aims, and intellectual framework of the Old Right. Where we differ is that we reject Old Right party politics, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide.
The idea of ethnonationalism is true and good, regardless of the real and imagined crimes, mistakes, and misfortunes of the Old Right. Thus we feel no need to “deny,” minimize, or revise the Holocaust, just as the New Left felt no need to tie its projects to “Gulag revisionism.”
The above are only the first paragraphs of a long article at The Occidental Observer. I would recommend reading it all: a sound answer to, say, Carolyn Yeager’s stance on the Holocaust.
However, I must take issue with Johnson’s “We believe that it can be achieved by peaceful territorial divisions and population transfers.” Besides the fact that lots of Jews were very probably murdered in the Second World War the following is what, like the ostriches, most nationalists are still unwilling to see:
1. The dollar will crash soon
2. With all probability the crash will cause high-rocketing unemployment, riots, looting and eventually famine in some places
3. Unlike New Orleans after Katrina, the tension won’t be solved soon after the crash. On the contrary: racial tension in the most ethnically “enriched” cities will escalate throughout the US
4. To boot, in due time the racial clash will converge with a peak oil crisis that, by the end of the century, has a chance of killing the surplus of worldwide population created as a result of quixotic Christian ethics (“Billions Will Die—We Will Win!”)
The reason I believe that most nationalists’ reactionary, non-revolutionary stance hides the head in the sand is because in the coming tribulation very few will care about “totalitarianism, imperialism or genocide” as the bourgeoisie of today care. With all probability, during the convergence of catastrophes nationalists will be ruthless survivors committed to the 14 words and no more to Christian ethics. As I put it elsewhere, “the future is for the bloodthirsty, not for the Alt Righters.”
Granted: Johnson’s piece is otherwise excellent, a must-read for conservative nationalists who are still struggling with guilt and anti-white sentiments inculcated by the tribe. But unlike Johnson and the other ostriches I agree with Mark that the situation for our people is so dire that, with the help of Mother Nature, only a scorched-Earth policy has any chance of success. This is why these days I am reproducing, and will continue to reproduce, the articles of William Pierce: the only intellectual who has dared to write openly and unabashedly about exterminationist pro-whitism—exterminationism with or without the help of Nature.
Even those nationalists who very strongly disagree with us on moral grounds ought to open their minds. They have closed minds because they still have to live for decades in a city plagued with non-white swarms and almost no whites (as I have). You must open your minds about the coming collapse of the dollar and the subsequent peak-oil crisis. Please take your heads off the sand! After all, any of this could potentially unleash a racial crisis of truly biblical proportions even considered as an independent factor. I believe Guillaume Faye will be proven right: the convergence of catastrophes will mark “the metamorphic rebirth of Europe or its disappearance and transformation into a cosmopolitan and sterile Luna Park.”
Johnson and the rest of nationalists who are unwilling to see the storm that is coming are like the tender-hearted women who lie weeping and mourning, awaiting the results of the coming fighting in Jacques-Louis David’s Oath of the Horatii:
We on the other hand are like the three brothers expressing loyalty and solidarity with Rome before battle, wholly supported by the father and willing to sacrifice our lives (and millions, if not billions of other lives) for the good of our people.
16 replies on “On ostriches and real men”
So Greg Johnson is now also an Ethno Nationalist, is he? My, my, my. First the flip-flop on Breivik and now declaring as an Ethno Nationalist. Next thing you know he’ll be announcing his breakthrough re the direct inter-relationship between Post-Peak Oil collapse and White Euro salvation. (Btw, good to see that you are featuring Chris Martenson’s Crash Course.)
Martenson is great!
I’ve wondered why the more esoteric White Nationalist writers haven’t recognized the coming die off. Jared Taylor types may have a thin veil of respectability to uphold amongst establishment conservatives, but Greg Johnson style intellectuals are supposed to be an exploratory elite for our movement. They do no favors paying lip service to preposterous idea that somehow the White Race is going to survive via completely peaceful means, but I feel deep down all White Nationalists implicitly know that this storm has been brewing for a long, long time.
The die off is coming: whether occidental man exists or not, or whether he [becomes] one of its main perpetrators or one of its many victims. Nature has no qualms with genocide: and thus the petroleum induced human surplus of the 20th and 21st century will need to be culled to reach a peak oil.
It may be quick: the entire collapse of the oil market supply, with casualty rates similar to a imagined global black death.
It may be slower: The oil market slowly teeters, alternative energy slows the pace of descent, and the global political system somehow stays stable under these dogged conditions.
It does not matter if we froth at the mouth for the blood of Non-Whites and Jews, if we have genocidal fantasies of mass killings in slick Nationalist uniform. It does not matter if we play that particularly western and White game of “who’s the most pacifist!” Nor does it matter if we decide to “shed the crimes of the old right” to paraphrase Greg Johnson.
The West is dying, and the survival of the White Race depends on the battles that will take place amongst its ruins.
To worship violence is in the wrong, I admit that much. Systems based around the worship of a violent culture will degenerate, but to ignore the inevitability of the coming violence and to ignore its integral position for White Nationalist victory means one is either craven, stupid, or both.
Ditto, and I can only say that I added a word-bracket in one of your sentences that perhaps you missed: “The die off is coming: whether occidental man exists or not, or whether he [becomes] one of its main perpetrators or one of its many victims”.
Thanks for the correction. I’m young and of the texting generation so my natural inclination to type and submit in haste often gets the better of me.
Relevant topic:have you ever wondered why modern White Nationalism has become such a comfortable refuge for these artistic and intellectual types? Its not all bad: they’re a refreshing face to a movement with a lot of history of bad P.R.: particularly being vilified by the media as thuggish and stupid. However, you’ve pointed out before there’s really little we can do with these people going into the future. Every group needs its coffee-shop intellectuals, but these same intellectuals seem completely content with they themselves being the only game in town. Why is that?
Ego? A lack of imagination? Fear?
Most of my summer this year has been doing long hours of monotonous outdoor work. Thus, to pass the time I’ve been individually listening to every one of Harold Covington’s podcasts on my MP3 player: a mammoth task in terms of volume.
You really can learn a lot from a man by the mere tone and style of his speech, and I’ve realized what makes HAC different from many of his peers is that he understands the limits of his misanthropic intellectualism: something that all the other intellectuals are simply too uncomfortable to admit.
He knows he’s not going to lead the transformation: he actively calls for a future Lincoln Rockwell to lead the Northwest Front.
With all these Alt-Right types (who I hold in good respect, as they could have used their intellect for much less alienating pastimes) its as if in their racial awakening they go from 0 to 60 in no time flat, but then instantly peak and hit cruise control and just putter along endlessly articulating the same old WN tune.
What makes HAC so different is that he personalizes the whole movement. While Greg Johnson makes us feel all uppity and intellectual while we sit behind the computer screen and put our thinking caps on, HAC makes me honestly question myself as a man of character, he actually DEMANDS something of me.
And its made me realize why so many of them hate HAC. He digs deep into the conscious of intellectual WN’s and twists where it hurts: where no amount of internet anonymity or mental finesse can protect them. He makes movement types self reflect, and with self-reflection comes the fear that they’ll find the narcissistic, cowardly, and ultimately dead character of modern Western man within their very souls.
I like HAC’s podcasts exactly for the same reason.
I am positive that Greg is using his volition to negate what is in front of our noses, like the Architect in the second Matrix telling Neo that negation is the most common of human frailties. Greg wants to become the intellectual lighthouse of the white movement. Alas, he chose the wrong timing: the eschaton is around the corner. There’s simply no time for a sound metapolitical movement.
Both the crash of the dollar and the subsequent social chaos messes his plans. So he simply ignores—“represses” is the academic word—the sign on the wall.
Several signs in fact, since what is coming is more than a single catastrophe.
The collapse of the dollar will unfold very rapidly, but the full impact of the oil crisis will take decades. Unimaginable social turmoil will result from the perfect storm when these two separate calamities collide with each other.
C.Macarthy said something like “in the affairs of men there is no waning and the noon of his expression signals the onset of night. His spirit is exhausted at the peak of its achievement.”
Most elder (intellectual) WN’s just don’t have the stomach for the fight. I don’t blame them but sub-consciously, they aren’t prepared for ‘blood and sand’ and this comes through in their approach.
I notice over at TOO, the ‘Rabbis’ are forcing them to take the ‘violence/force’ card off the discussion table. They all might as well find a new hobbie if they can’t even detect the subtle agents at work.
Chechar,
Excellent entry! 🙂
Alexander Solzhenitsyn mentioned in his June 8, 1978 Harvard address the weak glue holding American society together, in a section devoted to explaining why he did not see the United States as a model for the countries (including Russia) of the Eastern Bloc:
It seems that the last paragraph was a reference to TNB in DC. This will occur on a far larger scale, throughout much of AmeriKwa, when the economy collapses. There are already signs of it:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/black-mobs-knockout-game-raising-alarms/
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/black-mobs-terrorize-1-of-whitest-big-cities/
Thanks Solzhenitsyn.
What white nationalists ignore is that they are also part of the problem. For instance, the cranky music featured in every single program of Robert Stark in Voice of Reason exemplifies what Solzhenitsyn said at Harvard. But of course: like others Stark is clueless that such music contributes to debilitate the spirit of the West.
I love many pages written by the Russian giant. These Gulag passages are among my favorites. If you compare the accompanying pic chosen for those Wikiquote passages with the cranky music that one hears in most nationalist circles, you will understand why the problem is deeper than what the average, monocasualist nationalist believes.
Chechar,
We are in agreement about the musical choices of WN, although I personally do enjoy selected popular and classic rock, which may just be TJB on my part.
The quotes from Solzhenitsyn are fascinating. My knowledge of Solzhenitsyn’s work is limited to discussions of his work in TOQ, excerpts from “Two Hundred Years Together”, and his Harvard Address. However, my family recently acquired a collection of his addresses delivered to American audiences, entitled “Warning to the West”, and I am planning to finish reading it (i.e., since I have already read the Harvard Address), now that I have finished summer school.
It turns out Solzhenitsyn was referring in his Harvard Address to TNB not in DC, but during the New York City Blackout of 1977:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_blackout_of_1977
Wikipedia states in particular:
“Because of the power failure, LaGuardia and Kennedy airports were closed down for about eight hours, automobile tunnels were closed because of lack of ventilation, and 4,000 people had to be evacuated from the subway system. ConEd called the shutdown an ‘act of God’, enraging Mayor Beame, who charged that the utility was guilty of ‘gross negligence.’ In many neighborhoods, veterans of the 1965 blackout headed to the streets at the first sign of darkness. But many of them did not find the same spirit. In poor neighborhoods across the city, looting and arson erupted. On streets like Brooklyn’s Broadway the rumble of iron store gates being forced up and the shattering of glass preceded scenes of couches, televisions, and heaps of clothing being paraded through the streets by looters at once defiant, furtive and gleeful. ‘The looters were looting other looters, and the fists and the knives were coming out,’ Carl St. Martin, a neurologist in Forest Hills, Queens, recalled years later. A third-year medical student living in Bushwick when the blackout hit, recalled he spent the night suturing a succession of angry wounds at Wyckoff Heights Hospital. Before the lights came back on, even Brooks Brothers on Madison Avenue was looted. On July 17, the first Sunday after the blackout, a priest named Gabriel Santacruz looked out at the congregation in St. Barbara’s Church in Bushwick and jokingly referred to the ‘act of God’, declared by ConEd when he said, ‘We are without God now.’
In all, 1,616 stores were damaged in looting and rioting. 1,037 fires were responded to, including 14 multiple-alarm fires. In the largest mass arrest in city history, 3,776 people were arrested. Many had to be stuffed into overcrowded cells, precinct basements and other makeshift holding pens. A Congressional study estimated that the cost of damages amounted to a little over US$300 million.”
Chechar,
The below quotes from Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard Address struck me as remarkably perceptive. In particular, the sections entitled “A Decline in Courage” and “Well-Being” seem, at least to me, to be similar to your assessment of the situation facing contemporary Westerners, while the section on “Legalistic Life” seems to be a veiled commentary on the Jewish influence:
“A Decline in Courage [. . .]
may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party and of course in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course there are many courageous individuals but they have no determining influence on public life. Political and intellectual bureaucrats show depression, passivity and perplexity in their actions and in their statements and even more so in theoretical reflections to explain how realistic, reasonable as well as intellectually and even morally warranted it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And decline in courage is ironically emphasized by occasional explosions of anger and inflexibility on the part of the same bureaucrats when dealing with weak governments and weak countries, not supported by anyone, or with currents which cannot offer any resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.
Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?
Well-Being
When the modern Western States were created, the following principle was proclaimed: governments are meant to serve man, and man lives to be free to pursue happiness. (See, for example, the American Declaration). Now at last during past decades technical and social progress has permitted the realization of such aspirations: the welfare state. Every citizen has been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and of such quality as to guarantee in theory the achievement of happiness, in the morally inferior sense which has come into being during those same decades. In the process, however, one psychological detail has been overlooked: the constant desire to have still more things and a still better life and the struggle to obtain them imprints many Western faces with worry and even depression, though it is customary to conceal such feelings. Active and tense competition permeates all human thoughts without opening a way to free spiritual development. The individual’s independence from many types of state pressure has been guaranteed; the majority of people have been granted well-being to an extent their fathers and grandfathers could not even dream about; it has become possible to raise young people according to these ideals, leading them to physical splendor, happiness, possession of material goods, money and leisure, to an almost unlimited freedom of enjoyment. So who should now renounce all this, why and for what should one risk one’s precious life in defense of common values, and particularly in such nebulous cases when the security of one’s nation must be defended in a distant country?
Even biology knows that habitual extreme safety and well-being are not advantageous for a living organism. Today, well-being in the life of Western society has begun to reveal its pernicious mask.
Legalistic Life
Western society has given itself the organization best suited to its purposes, based, I would say, on the letter of the law. The limits of human rights and righteousness are determined by a system of laws; such limits are very broad. People in the West have acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting and manipulating law, even though laws tend to be too complicated for an average person to understand without the help of an expert. Any conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the supreme solution. If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody may mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint, a willingness to renounce such legal rights, sacrifice and selfless risk: it would sound simply absurd. One almost never sees voluntary self-restraint. Everybody operates at the extreme limit of those legal frames. An oil company is legally blameless when it purchases an invention of a new type of energy in order to prevent its use. A food product manufacturer is legally blameless when he poisons his produce to make it last longer: after all, people are free not to buy it.
I have spent all my life under a communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man’s noblest impulses.
And it will be simply impossible to stand through the trials of this threatening century with only the support of a legalistic structure.”
See: here
Better to start with Rise of The West.
Body of Works here
Again: next time please compact these long URLs.
Sorry, How do I do that?
I already edited them. You have to use this code:
(a href=”http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-The-Twenty-First-Century/dp/1463562217/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343082503&sr=8-1&keywords=frank+l.+desilva” rel=”nofollow”)here(/a)
just replace “(” for the triangular brackets
Thanks. I’ll do my best.