web analytics

Author: C .T.

Categories
Conspiracy theories

A flaw in the white nationalist psyche

I am becoming disappointed with the white nationalist movement. If I were editor of any of the main nationalist blogsites, I’d be collecting lots of articles debunking the 9/11 conspiracy theories endemic in the movement. What we got instead is feminized timidity in face of the macho vehemence manifested by many truthers within the movement. Below I cite two of my recent comments of my previous entry, and another at Counter-Currents:

*   *   *

I am not a believer of the “official version.” I am a skeptic of extreme claims that violate Occam’s razor intuitively.

Why I cannot be blamed that I am a believer of the official version? Because exactly ten years ago I listened a radio program in Mexico City. A commentator explained with vivid detail (in Spanish of course) that he was sure that Osama bin Laden orchestrated the attacks.

Take note that the US government had not made any official pronouncement when I listened the program. The Mexican commentator was so convincing that I’ve not changed my views since then. Which means that I didn’t get my POV from the US government, but from a known reporter outside the US with zero connections to the US establishment.

*   *   *

There’s something I call “intuitive Occamism”, which means that the majority of sane westerners have an in-built Occam’s razor without any need to study philosophy of science. It’s sheer intuition.

Such intuition works marvelously with conspiracy theories. Most reasonable people reject aprioristically the claims which advance a multiplicity of entities unnecessarily: for instance, the conspiracy theories about the UFO Roswell incident, the “faked” moon landings of the 1960s and 70’s, etc. The right hemisphere of their brains intuitively tells them that all of these theories are grossly violating Occam’s razor, yes even 9/11 theories that strain our credulity way beyond its breaking point.

The problem is that many other westerners lack this in-built intuitive Occamism in their cognitive process (something I call humoristically “antediluvian regression” or a regression to paleologic modes of thinking—cf. the first part my online book). That’s why I advice those nationalist truthers who are really honest to forget 9/11 for a while and study Bugliosi’s enormous study debunking the JFK conspiracy theories. The process of thoroughly refuting the other conspiracy theory that duped millions of Americans in the previous decades is good school to understand the Principle of Parsimony for those that, for one reason or another, lack intuitive Occamism.

*   *   *

There’s a book published last month that I recommend, the revised and expanded edition of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (which includes rebuttals on claims about Building 7) by David Dunbar and Brad Reagan, with a foreword by James Meigs.

If you [James O’Meara et al.] have already listened to the attorney of these crackpot theories, the logical step now is to listen to the prosecutor. It’s not logical—as every single nationalist truther I’ve met in the net does—to listen the “attorney” and, as a member of the “jury”, leave the room every time the prosecutor talks in order to avoid the most elemental cognitive dissonance.


Postscript

I cannot be as demanding as to request nationalist truthers to read the 2011 book which cover appears at the top of this entry before considering angrily jumping on this thread and scold me for not believing in “The Truth.” However, if any of you wants to comment here I’d recommend at least to read the couple of Amazon reviews of that recently published book or this TV interview with one of the editors. Also, please watch this documentary that features several key individuals of the truther movement as well as the more rational responses by those skeptical of your “Truth”.

I am fed up to try to reason with those nationalists who have forfeited every single presentation of the prosecution side…

Categories
Conspiracy theories Holocaust Israel / Palestine

9/11: White nationalist paranoia





“We believe whatever we want to believe”

—Demosthenes




Further to my May 7, 2011 piece “Oh silly truthers…”

In the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks I am becoming increasingly disappointed with the irrational will to believe whatever we want to believe in the nationalist movement.

I’d be delighted that Mossad, the Israeli Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations, orchestrated the attacks. That could certainly boost legitimacy to our agenda among non-nationalist whites. But my cognitive processes are not dissociated enough from reality to make such a gigantic leap of faith and dismiss all evidence to the contrary.

My field of expertise is not racialism or politics but deep psychology, especially the trauma model of mental disorders caused by poor parenting. How did I become dragged into that field? It’s a long story. But for the moment let me confess that I am a triple apostate: since my teenage years I gave up Christianity, then a cult, Eschatology, and finally a pseudoscience, parapsychology (for a brief summary see here). The whole spiritual odyssey to give up faith in these beliefs destroyed my life, as many other lives are being destroyed among those who fall in destructive cults as a defense mechanism resulting from a failed intent to escape from the abuse at home.

That’s why I am indebted to Paul Kurtz, Ray Hyman, James Alcock and many other skeptics of the paranormal who taught me how to think critically about extreme claims, whether religious, paranormal or conspiratorial. The last time I saw them, in a 1994 Seattle conference, I had the pleasure to experience a handshake from Carl Sagan, author of The Demon-Haunted World, a book that encourages laypeople to learn critical thinking. During that event I also attended a conference debunking the conspiracy theories about the John F. Kennedy assassination.

Hadn’t all of these skeptics vaccinated my mind against magical thinking I’d still be immersed in it. Unfortunately, only through a dark night of the soul it’s possible to realize that we believe whatever we want to believe, and that those beliefs are not always rational or based on fact. Which means that the truthers in the nationalist movement won’t ever make an honest effort to listen the other side: they are forfeiting their dark night.

I gave up paranormality after more than fifteen years of belief in the paranormal precisely because at one point of my live, from 1990 to 1995, I made a serious effort to listen to those skeptical scholars who held diametrically opposed views of my cherished beliefs. Many white nationalists are not that honest; not even close to a mile. They won’t ever use such amount of time to listen to the other side.

Not all white nationalists are truthers of course (see e.g., this splendid summary by Ted Sallis published yesterday on how America became a madhouse after 9/11). But a substantial segment of the nationalist population believes in nuts like those ridiculed in this video.

Let me recontextualize what I’m trying to say. I admire Hitler and the Nazis. For Third Reich sympathizers like me the big question is, Were Jews slaughtered in World War 2? If Irmin Vinson’s approach to the so-called holocaust represents a quantum leap forward from mere denialism, a denialism almost ubiquitous in white nationalism, I believe it’s high time to apply the same flawless logic to the tragic events of a decade ago.

But most nationalists are no match to Vinson’s honesty…



Postscript of September 14

A featured author is now saying at Majority Rights that because I wrote this entry I must be… a Jew! After days of controversy he clings to his belief. He supports the claim that I am Jewish on the basis… of my criticism of the truth movement!

Well, this is magical thinking to be sure, or the deductive fallacy to use more academic language.

This is how paranoids and paranoiacs reason: If something major happens in the political world (e.g., the assassination of a president; an Islamic terrorist attack) there must be a conspiracy involving someone in the American government. If a critic is skeptical of any of these conspiracy theories, he himself must be part of the conspiracy (e.g., a Jewish blogger pretending to be a non-Jew).

Naturally, since paranoid modes of thought are endemic at Majority Rights I won’t ever comment there again. But I decided to write this postscript to show how this affaire corroborates my view that there is indeed a flaw in the white nationalist psyche.

Fortunately, not every nationalist suffers from paranoid delusions, as proven in the Johnson article that I republished here, and in the comments by Matt in this entry’s thread. It’s a pity though that those who subscribe to Aristotelian modes of thought are a minority in the movement.

Categories
Audios Civil war

1st Brandenburg Lecture



Listen to Uncle Harold’s first Brandenburg Lecture in today’s Radio Free Northwest podcast, starting in minute 44:46 (here).

Categories
Swastika

“I’m not a Nazi” —Linder

Last month I added two provocative entries quoting Alex Linder, who has been labeled a “neo-Nazi” by ex pro-white activists. But Linder is not a Nazi. These are some recent excerpts taken from his VNN forum:



The swastika can’t be falsified into pro-jew, but it can be worn falsely by jews (see Frank Collins), and it is also associated with Nazism. I don’t wear a swastika because I’m not a Nazi. There’s also the problem that most people, including most declared Nazis, do not understand what Nazism is. I’d include myself among that number. The reason for this is that a very good deal of bad or misleading information out there hides what NS [National Socialism] actually is. I’ve tried to clear this up lower down on the forum. It’s complicated by the fact that the junkmedia call anyone who criticizes jews, much less those, like me, who make a main point of it, “Nazis,” even if those people, like me, aren’t Nazis.

I don’t agree with an all-powerful central state. I support, as I’ve written lower on forum, in a monofunctional overstate focused on defending the race, defined as broadly as needed. Beneath that racial umbrella, I believe in decentralization. Hitler did most emphatically not believe in decentralization.

Just as jews routinely mislabel me a Nazi, WN [white nationalist] enemies routinely mislabel me a libertarian. I don’t know what to do other than simply continue to make the case for the arrangement I think best. I don’t have a cool symbol. Personally I don’t like jewelry and symbols of any sort. Of course one is needed at some point, but that point is not now.

What is needed, so far as WN put forward a positive vision, rather than a critique of AmeriKwa, a ZOG production, is, in my opinion, to stress that our solution is the only one in which you have the independence that befits a white man, and you can exercise your whitemaniacal creativity and intelligence in the white context most suited to its flourishing.

Imagine a country in which you could be both white and a man. Under ZOG, you can be neither white nor a man. Under NS you can be white but not a man. Under libertarianism you can be a man but not white.

I want to be both white and a man, and I think about half of WN feel the same way I do; the rest are either outright NS or social-democrats (European type) or welfare-statists (American type).

Men can agree that we need all-White nations without agreeing on the scope and role of the government within that all-White nation. This is fairly obvious, that there’s no agreement on the deeper how-we-live-together stuff, that there’s a basic split, but it gets confused because so many WN come from conservatism and essentially just add race to their politics, leading outsiders and insiders alike to think that WN is just another petty party political option on the democratic-electoral menu rather than a fundamentally different and all-orienting worldview. Which is why I’ve insisted against all others, basically, that our practical political goal in this period ought to be attacking conservatives and replacing them in the eyes of the people rather than mixing with them and trying to influence them as MacDonald and James Edwards do.

My view is that altho KM and Edwards call themselves (as far as I know) White Nationalists, or at least don’t mind being called that, they are better viewed as implicit conservatives (IC). Because functionally that’s just what they are—conservatives. Their mindset is defending/appealing, not attacking and attracting. While many of the ICs’ positions overlap with WN/NS, the mindset is completely different. I see them as simply repeating failure patterns of the past without ever putting any conscious thought to why the Lindbergh on their party actually failed.

Back to my own view, WhiteMania, WhiteManistand, whatever you want to call it…

In the setup I describe, no one is free to question or undermine the racial basis of the state—if they don’t agree to it, they leave. If they feel they can only be men by living amid third worlders, they have either fought to prevent the birth of our new state, been killed, or fled abroad. If any of these are left after Whites take power, they will be dealt with in one way or another, but in no way will anyone ideologically opposed to the racial basis of the new states be allowed to remain within it.

Race is not a matter that can be compromised, but it is a matter worth killing over. The same goes for Catholics, or other goddists. If their religious weltanschauung demands race mixing, or race-neutralism at all levels, and they are actively going to teach and incite on that demand, then they too will be forced out of the new state. If they can live within the confines of the new founding on an explicit racial basis, then perhaps they can set up a neo-Maryland microstate for their type beneath the umbrella. But it must be absolutely clear that absolutely no political opposition to the basis of the new state will be tolerated. And if it is discovered, the leaders will be executed and the followers expelled or executed. Call it sicut catholicus non.

Beneath that federal level—the collective racial defense umbrella—white men may group themselves as they like, and build such subcommunities as they see fit. They could be welfare-statists, they could be libertarians. They could be 1001 other things I can’t imagine. But they will be responsible for building their own intermediate institutions if they feel they need them. In this way their freedom, honor, need to assume responsibility and manliness are preserved. The central state provides the drainage: keeping anti-White shit on the other side of the borders and out of the streets. The dreams are the responsibility of the men themselves.

To me, what I describe is both possible and desirable. I fancy it is hard where needs hard, and loose where needs freedom. It takes into account both racial laws and economic laws. For the great truth of our time, which has not yet been realized in minds and matter, is that the state is outmoded for nearly all, if not all, purposes. That means the state is the worst way of accomplishing almost any given task. I recommend WN take some time to educate themselves in the limits of politics (read Burke, Kirk, and other classic conservative thinkers) and get up to speed on the latest triumphs made through private, voluntary arrangements (read lewrockwell.com). And then you’ve got VNNF for tying it all together through the insights of the best racialists on the ‘net. Or at least a few dozen good smart white men on the same page seeking the same basic thing.

One counter view to mine is that genuine National Socialism has all the answers any white men need (adapted to their particular nation and circumstances), and we should simply don the swastika with pride and make our way forward.

I don’t agree with that view, which I take to be the view of NSM [NS movement], but it is psychologically right and strong, whereas the whining, remonstrating, complaining approach of, for example, the A3P [American Third Party] ICs is psychologically wrong and weak—mere conservatism with a racial veneer.

That sums up my position. I don’t wear swastika because I’m not a National Socialist. If I were a NS, I would wear it. I’m not NS because I don’t believe the government should be running White men like children. I don’t believe White men need public schools, socialized health care, or anything but collective racial defense out of their central government.

Categories
Christendom Francis Parker Yockey Nicolaus Copernicus Revilo Oliver Universalism

Revilo Oliver on “Imperium”

Under the pseudonym of Ulick Varange, Francis Parker Yockey’s two-volume Imperium was published ten years before I was born and was dedicated “To the hero of the Second World War,” about whom some reviewers speculate was Hitler.

The following excerpts come from a subsequent edition: an introduction authored by Dr. Revilo Oliver. They resonate with Greg Johnson’s thoughts in a recent entry critical of the universalism in Christianity. No ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs:





Yockey in 1960

Dimly, I could make out the form of this man—this strange and lonely man—through the thick wire netting. Inwardly, I cursed these heavy screens that prevented our confrontation. For even though our mutual host was the San Francisco County Jail, and even though the man upon whom I was calling was locked in equality with petty thieves and criminals, I knew that I was in the presence of a great force, and I could feel History standing aside me.

Yesterday, the headlines had exploded their sensational discovery. “MYSTERY MAN WITH THREE PASSPORTS JAILED HERE,” they screamed. A man of mystery—of wickedness—had been captured. A man given to dark deeds and—much worse—forbidden thoughts, too, the journalists squealed. A man who had roamed the earth on mysterious missions and who was found to be so dangerous that his bail was set at $50,000—a figure ten or twenty times the normal bail for passport fraud. The excitement of the newspapers and the mystery of it all seemed to indicate that this desperado was an international gangster, or a top communist agent.

At least, this is what the papers hinted. But I know now that it erred in many ways, this “free press” of ours. I know now that the only real crime of Francis Parker Yockey was to write a book, and for this he had to die.

Yockey was a concert-level pianist; he was a gifted writer. He studied languages and became a linguist. As a lawyer, he never lost a case. He had an extraordinary grasp of the world of finance—and this is surprising, for we learn that in his philosophy economics is relegated to a relatively unimportant position. And it is as the Philosopher that Yockey reached the summit; it is this for which he will be remembered; he was a man of incredible vision. Even so, his personality was spiced by the precious gift of a sense of humor.

Like the great majority of Americans, Yockey opposed American intervention in the Second World War. Nevertheless, he joined the army and served until 1942 when he received a medical discharge (honorable). The next few years were spent in the practice of law, first in Illinois and subsequently in Detroit, where he was appointed Assistant County Attorney for Wayne County, Michigan.

In 1946, Yockey was offered a job with the war crimes tribunal and went to Europe. He was assigned to Wiesbaden, where the “second string” Nazis were lined up for trial and punishment. The Europe of 1946 was a war-ravaged continent, not the prosperous land we know today. Viewing the carnage, and seeing with his own eyes the visible effects of the unspeakable Morgenthau Plan which had as its purpose the starvation of 30 million Germans, and which was being put into effect at that time, he no doubt found ample reinforcement for his conviction that American involvement in the war had been a ghastly mistake.

It was late 1947 when Yockey returned to Europe. He sought out a quiet inn at Brittas Bay, Ireland. Isolated, he struggled to begin. Finally, he started to write, and in six months—working entirely without notes—Francis Parker Yockey completed Imperium.

The formidable task of publishing it was the next step. Here, also, Yockey ran into serious problems, for no publisher would touch the book, it being too “controversial.”  Hungry publishers of our advanced day know that any pile of trash, filth, sex, sadism, perversion and sickness will sell when wrapped between two gaudy covers and called a book, but under no circumstances may they allow readers to come into contact with a serious work unless it contains the standard obeisances to the catchwords of equality, democracy and universal brotherhood.

Finally, however, Yockey was able to secure the necessary financing, and production began.

The first edition of Imperium was issued in two volumes. Volume I has 405 pages and three chapters. Volume II has 280 pages and also three chapters. Both were published in 1948 in the name of Westropa Press. Volume I was printed by C. A. Brooks & Co., Ltd. and Volume II by Jones & Dale—both of London. Both volumes measure 5 x 7 1/4 inches in dimensions and have a red dust jacket with the title in black script on a white held. The cover of Volume I is tan and that of Volume II is black.

It is known that 1,000 copies of Volume I, but only 200 copies of Volume II, were finished. The discrepancy in quantity and the change in printers point to the difficulty in financing the job. Copies of the first edition are, of course, virtually unobtainable today.

*   *   *

And as I peered through the thick screens in the San Francisco Jail, and made out the indefinite shape on the other side, that tenth day of June, 1960, I knew that I would have to help the prisoner as best I could. I could do nothing else.

“I have read your book,” I said to the shadow, “and I want to help you. What can I do?”

“Wait,” he said. “Wait, and do as your conscience tells you.”

The following week was full of news of Yockey’s appearance before Rabbi Joseph Karesh, the U.S. Commissioner.

Twice, I attended the hearings, and each time was fascinated by this man, Yockey. In stature he was about five feet, ten inches. He was light of weight, perhaps 145 pounds, and quick on his feet. His hair was dark, and starting to grey. The expression on his face—pensive, sensitive, magnetic—this was the unforgettable thing. It was his eyes, I think. Dark, with a quick and knowing intelligence. His eyes bespoke great secrets and knowledge and such terrible sadness. As he turned to leave, one time, those eyes quickly searched the room, darting from face to face with a sort of desperation, though the expression on his face of a determined resignation never wavered. What was he looking for? In that lions’ den, what else but a friendly countenance? As his gaze swept across, and then to me, he stopped and for the space of a fractional second, spoke to me with his eyes. In that instant we understood that I would not desert him.

Friday morning, June 17, I arose as usual. I heard the radio announcer pronounce words that stunned me.

Yockey was dead.

It was like a certain wise, old reporter whispered to one of Yockey’s sisters as she slumped tearfully and quietly in her solitude. “Your brother is a martyr—the first of a long line of them if we are to take back our country from those who have stolen it from us.”

*   *   *

There is much in Imperium which can be easily misinterpreted. There is something for everyone to agree with. And there is something for everyone to disagree with. This is a distinguishing characteristic of every truly vital and revolutionary departure.

It is important to seek the origins of Yockey’s philosophy. [Oswald] Spengler published Decline in July, 1918, and we are still being washed in the very first breakwaters of that titanic event. For The Decline of the West was fully as revolutionary to the study of history in 1918 as Copernicus’ theory of heliocentricity was to the study of astronomy in 1543.

What, we may ask, is the main cause of resistance to accepting Spengler aside from the fact that he is a massive roadblock to the total victory of the marxist-liberal “intellectual”? The main difficulties, I think, are two: the necessity of acknowledging the essentially alien nature of every cultural soul, and the apparent necessity to reconcile ourselves to the dismal fact that our own Western organism must, too, die as have all those [civilizations] which have passed before.

As for the first specific difficulty, the acknowledgment of the essentially alien nature of each cultural soul, it follows that if every culture has its own inner vitality, it will be uninfluenced by the spirit of any other. This also runs against the very deepest grain of Western man who, for five hundred years and more, has been proselyting men all over the world in the vain hope of making them over into his own beloved image.

This psychological block runs deep in the West—so deep that it is an error which is apparent in all philosophical strata, certainly not only the leftist variety. Name any philosopher, economist or religious adept of Western history, except Hegel (yes, even including Spengler) and you are virtually certain to find a man who sought to lay universal laws of human behavior; who, in other words, saw no essential difference between races. This error is so fundamental it is usually unconscious.

The Roman Catholic Church is a case in point. Tradition-minded Westerners rightly speak of the Church as being a bulwark of the West, but sometimes go so far as to identify the Church as the West. Unfortunately, the compliment is not returned. The Holy Roman Church is a universal Church—one Church for all men—which sees all people, wherever they are and whoever they be, as equal human souls whose bodies are to be brought to the holy embrace of Vatican City. It is the first to reject the impious suggestion that it owes a primary loyalty to the West. Scientific and philosophical demonstrations that men and cultures are, nevertheless, different in many fundamental respects and that it is unhealthy—unethical—to mix them are sure to meet with the same inhospitable reception that the Church earlier gave to Copernicus and Galileo. In April of 1962 three Catholics in New Orleans were excommunicated for daring to stand on this heretical Verity.

The zeitgeist is always reflected in definitions, so it is the height of insult for a White man today to be labeled an “isolationist” or “nationalist.” White folks must all be “free traders,” “internationalists” and “cosmopolitan” in our outlook, and how we admire the “citizen of the world,” whatever that is.

Our view is intently focused away from our marches; it is far easier, we have discovered, to solve the problems of total strangers than to solve our own. Non-Western peoples are not so enlightened as we, and it is eagerly excused, utilizing a newly-discovered Christian double standard which is a mark of modern moral superiority, like belonging to the Classics Book Club or contributing to the Negro College Fund. What, asks Nietzsche, has caused more suffering than the follies of the compassionate? It is good for colored peoples to be nationalistic; we encourage it, in fact, and snap up Israel Bonds with a warm feeling of self-righteousness. We are joyful when colored peoples and Jews exhibit “race pride,” the cardinal sin and taboo of our own puritanical environment. Incidentally, why is it that every subject except one can be discussed in our enlightened age? Atheism is now a dull subject. Marxism is even duller, after one hundred years of popularity. A step further has taken us past plain sex to sadism and perversion; the Marquis de Sade is even becoming jaded. What racy topic is left to discuss since the equalists have brought democracy’s blessings? Only one thing cannot be discussed in polite company: race.

If we are to draw analogies between cultures and organisms we must agree that the soul of the organism dies only because of the death of the body. The soul can sicken—the soul of the West is now diseased and perhaps mortally ill—but it cannot die unless the organism itself dies. And this, point out the racists, is precisely what has happened to all previous cultures; death of the organism being the natural result of the suicidal process of imperialism.

A word on the racial view of history before proceeding further. Today, of course, history is written from the Marxist standpoint of economics, linear progress and class warfare—and Yockey explains this triple error well. Previous to the first World War history was written largely from the racial point of view. History was seen as the dramatic story of the movements, struggles and developments of races, which it is. Suppression of the racist point of view reached its apex about 1960.

Perhaps the biggest reason for a growing tendency of White folks to look at the races objectively is, paradoxically, precisely because they have been forced to look at them subjectively! It is no problem to maintain a myth in ignorance. Negro equality, for example, is easier to believe in if there are no Negroes around to destroy the concept. In a word, internationalism in practice quickly metamorphoses into racism. To turn from experience to academic matters, how many Americans or Britons are acquainted with the stupendously elemental fact that they are—in the historical sense—Germans; that they are, like it or not, a part of that great Teutonic-Celtic family which—millenniums before the dawn of Rome or even Greece—was one tribe, with one language?

Further, there is a correlation too perfect to be a coincidence in that in every case on record of the death or stagnation of a Culture there has been simultaneously an abortive attempt to digest large numbers of cultural and racial aliens into the organism. In the case of Rome and Greece death came about through imperialism and the resulting, inevitable backwash of conquered peoples and races into the heartland as slaves, bringing exotic religions, different philosophies; in a word, cultural sophistication first, then cultural anarchy. In the case of Persia, India and the Amerindian civilizations, a race of conquerors superimposed their civilization upon a mass of indigenous people; the area flourished for awhile, then the Culture vanished or, in the case of America, was on the verge of vanishing, as the descendants of the conquerors became soft, fat and liberal and took on more and more of the accoutrements and blood of the subject population. In the case of Egypt, the alien blood was brought in over the course of many centuries by the importation of Negro slaves. The inevitable racial mongrelization followed, creating the Egypt we know today.

We thus see the real reason underlying the “inevitable” decline and destruction of a cultural organism. It is because, at a certain stage, a Culture develops a bad case of universalism. Speaking pathologically, unless this is sublimated to harmless channels by proper treatment, it will inevitably kill the organism through the absorption of a resulting flood of alien microbes. It is, therefore, the natural by-product of universalism which kills the organism; the death of the organism itself is neither natural nor necessary!

This conclusion comes by a synthesis of the Spenglerian and the racial point of view. Each tempers the other; together a comprehensive and hopeful theory of history can be developed which holds a deep meaning to Westerners of this day. At all costs, the imperialistic phase of our development must be avoided, and we must guard against the digestion of alien matter we have already partially absorbed.

What is the significance of Imperium? In one respect, Imperium is akin to Das Kapital, for Karl Marx gave to the conspiratorial Culture Distorter the necessary ideological mask to hide its mission of ruthless, total destruction. He provided an ugly and invalid theory of man, cloaked in putrifying equality, mewling hypocrisy, the disease of undiscriminating altruism and the “science” of economics.

Francis Parker Yockey has done the same thing for those who are constructive-minded and who have the intellectual and moral courage to face reality and seek and speak truth. This is why, although Yockey’s plan for the West may not be perfect, it contains atomic power. If only one man reading this book is influenced to lead, and if others are made to see the world a little more clearly than they do now, then Yockey’s life of suffering and persecution and his monumental accomplishment in spite of all has not been in vain.

—Revilo P. Oliver

Categories
Quotable quotes

Quotable quote

“When I think of Western cities to be nuked in priority in order to save the white race, Paris is first on my list, together with New York.”

Armor

Categories
Alexander the Great Ethnic cleansing Neanderthalism

Manifest destiny


This is the corollary of my previous email exchange about Latin America. Ever since I read Will Durant’s book on Greece, my opinion about Alexander the Great changed dramatically:


When, in 399 b. c, Socrates was put to death, the soul of Athens died with him, lingering only in his proud pupil, Plato. And when Philip of Macedon defeated the Athenians at Chaeronea in 338 b. c, and Alexander burned the great city of Thebes to the ground three years later, even the ostentatious sparing of Pindar’s home could not cover up the fact that Athenian independence, in government and in thought, was irrevocably destroyed.

The domination of Greek philosophy by the Macedonian Aristotle mirrored the political subjection of Greece by the virile and younger peoples of the north. The death of Alexander (323 b. c.) quickened this process of decay. The boy-emperor, barbarian though he remained after all of Aristotle’s tutoring, had yet learned to revere the rich culture of Greece, and had dreamed of spreading that culture through the Orient in the wake of his victorious armies. The development of Greek commerce, and the multiplication of Greek trading posts throughout Asia Minor, had provided an economic basis for the unification of this region as part of an Hellenic empire; and Alexander hoped that from these busy stations Greek thought, as well as Greek goods, would radiate and conquer.

But he had underrated the inertia and resistance of the Oriental mind, and the mass and depth of Oriental culture. It was only a youthful fancy, after all, to suppose that so immature and unstable a civilization as that of Greece could be imposed upon a civilization immeasurably more widespread, and rooted in the most venerable traditions.

The quantity of Asia proved too much for the quality of Greece. Alexander himself, in the hour of his triumph, was conquered by the soul of the East; he married (among several ladies) the daughter of Darius; he adopted the Persian diadem and robe of state; he introduced into Europe the Oriental notion of the divine right of kings; and at last he astonished a sceptic Greece by announcing, in magnificent Eastern style, that he was a god. Greece laughed; and Alexander drank himself to death.

This subtle infusion of an Asiatic soul into the wearied body of the master Greek was followed rapidly by the pouring of Oriental cults and faiths into Greece along those very lines of communication which the young conqueror had opened up; the broken dykes let in the ocean of Eastern thought upon the lowlands of the still adolescent European mind. The mystic and superstitious faiths which had taken root among the poorer people of Hellas were reinforced and spread about; and the Oriental spirit of apathy and resignation found a ready soil in decadent and despondent Greece.

In antiquity a change of the magnitude that we are living through is summarized also in The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity. Like Will Durant, James Russell claims that:

From whatever point of view Alexander’s campaigns are judged… their consequences were profound and irrevocable… The number of Greek settlers was, in absolute terms insignificant… Despite [these] intentions the ultimate result was not cultural conformity but… cultural confusion, and the loss of cultural identity by native and immigrant alike… Native Greek culture was gradually transformed and “de-Hellenized.”

Going back to the American continent.

The right way to conquer land was the way the English did in the New World, emigrating with their whole families instead of bachelor soldiers conquering the Aztecs and marrying Indian women, as the Catholic Spaniards did. If an adolescent, proto-nation like New Spain absorbs what it conquers it becomes what it colonizes.

If a future Northwest Republic is ever created later in this century, let’s not repeat the mistakes that my Spaniard ancestors committed. Only ethnically cleansing the whole land (as the English did from the 17th through the 19th centuries), whether Aztlán or still further down the South to the border of Antarctica—sparing Iberian white countries like Uruguay or Argentina—, would prevent the blunders of Alexander and Cortés that eventually overwhelmed both the Hellenic and the Iberian empires.

My dream is that Kendall’s communication to Andrew Jackson telling him that someday Anglo-Saxons will be majority in Mexico becomes a reality after the Holy Race Wars that are coming ahead in this century.

I am curious though: Why do I love your race more than you do…?

Categories
Christendom

Greg Johnson on Christianity

The following are responses of Greg Johnson to Christian sympathizers at Occidental Dissent right after the Breivik incident (slightly edited):


Kievsky,

Before you draw conclusions about the usefulness of Christianity as a vehicle for White racial preservation, you need to read the Breivik manifesto.

First, in the name of Christian Universalism, for instance, he advocates treating all Christians as Europeans, no matter what their race, and even bringing non-White Christians into his Templar Crusade.

Basically, Breivik’s concern for preserving Nordics is trumped by his Christian universalism. If all the Muslims in Norway converted to Christianity, he would have no objection to them.

Second, in the name of Christian universalism, Breivik envisions crusades into the Middle East to help the local Middle Eastern Christians. So Europeans will spill their blood to help the genetic first cousins to Europe’s Muslim invaders, so long as the beneficiaries are Christians.

This is the logic of Christian universalism at work. Blood is particular. But Christianity is universal. Blood is natural. But Christianity aims higher than nature. Thus Christian brotherhood always trumps and undermines blood brotherhood.

Spooky,

It is possible to hold conflicting values without problems as long as they are merely in one’s mind, as abstractions never tested in the real world. The problems emerge when you try to live by them, then they actually do come into conflict, and you actually do have to decide which value trumps which.

Say that you are a devout Christian, and your daughter wants to marry a devout Black Nigerian Christian. You now have a conflict between blood-based values and Christian universal values.

Which is more important to you: maintaining genetic distinctness or honoring the universal community of the church? If a Black man is worthy of sharing heaven with you, through accepting Jesus Christ as his savior, then why should he not be worthy of sharing the same neighborhood with you, the same public transportation, the same church, the same water fountain—or holy wedlock with your sister? Or do you think that there will be Jim Crow in heaven?

Hunter,

Christianity will not be dead until its secular offspring, liberal universalism, is dead as well. But you know that, don’t you?

Christian fanatics are precisely the ones who believe that blood differences don’t matter. One can work with lukewarm or confused Christians, or people who are racists first and Christians second. But you can’t work with real Christians, because they take their supernatural universalism seriously, which pits them against blood brotherhood wherever and whenever it conflicts with the supernatural brotherhood in Christ which is the Church.

Judaism is an ethnocentric religion. Racism is just a form of ethnocentrism. Christianity is a universalistic religion. Paul, who is part of the Bible and therefore part of Christianity, makes it clear that the differences of blood and nation make no difference once one enters into the universal brotherhood of the Church. Christianity is therefore anti-ethnocentric, anti-xenophobic, and anti-racist—even if “racism” was not a word at the time.

This means that all kinds of men can share heaven. Again, if a black Christian is good enough to share heaven with you, on what grounds [he can’t] enter holy matrimony, one of the sacraments of the church, with your daughter?

Kievsky (again),

Good luck to you. There is nothing we need more than a Racial Reformation of the Church, and only practicing Christians can provide it.

The Churches have always been willing to compromise with the Zeitgeist because ultimately their kingdom is not of this world. Once a racialist Zeitgeist re-emerges, we will hear less and less about Christian anti-racism.

But if we get that genie back in the bottle, we will always have to be eternally vigilant, lest it escape again. Because Christian universalism is, in fact, opposed to racialism and thus will always pose a danger.

Update of 3 May 2012:

Johnson has now commented at The Occidental Observer:

[Christianity] did undermine racial exclusivity for nearly 2,000 years. Racial and subracial differences were no bar to marriage, as long as both parties were Christian. Christianity spread in the racially and culturally mixed seaports around the Mediterranean, to the lowest strata of society, which included slaves and freedmen of all races. Of course we do not have records of these people’s marriages, but surely the church blessed many miscegenating matches from the very beginning.

We have better records from later times, when Christianity was the dominant religion of Europe. Here are just a couple of random examples. In the 8th century, the Byzantine Emperor Constantine the V married Irene of Khazaria, a daughter of the Khazar Khagan. Their son, Leo IV, also called Leo the Khazar, ruled the empire from 775 to 780. But Constantine himself was no Greek or Roman. His family were from Syria, but they married into the Byzantine ruling class. Because of Christianity, the Byzantine Empire had lost its ethnically Roman and Greek character by the early 8th century, taking on instead a heavily near-Eastern (Armenian and Syrian ethnic composition). The later Phyrigian and Macedonian dynasties were actually Armenian, and they married their sons and daughters to the Frankish and Russian aristocracies. Indeed, Grand Duke Vladimir of Kiev Christianized himself and the Rus in order to marry Anna, the daughter of Romanos II, in the late 10th century.

Race mixing has, of course, increased with the greater mobility of populations. But wherever Christians of different races and subraces existed together in the past, the Church has been willing to bless their matches.

Jews, of course, are not Europeans, yet the Church has blessed marriages between Jewish converts to Christianity and European Christians, and these sorts of matches must have been quite common in the early years of the Church.

And of course the Crusades, in which Europe spilled the blood of generations of its finest and fairest Frankish nobles for the freedom of Near Eastern Christians, could hardly be said to be in the genetic interests of Europeans.


Update of 27 March 2013:

Johnson has now commented at Counter-Currents:

Where are the WN Christians in your little scenario? Apparently they have no agency whatsoever. The Left has conquered the churches, and New Right pagans argue that this is no accident on tiny websites and in the pages of low-circulation books and magazines. But where are the pro-White Christians?

Oh, wait, they are here, trying to shut down anti-Christian discourse on the Right. Because that is what you are saying: shut up; stop agreeing with the Left that Christianity is a universalistic, egalitarian, individualistic religion. Which it is.

Again, I have to ask: show me evidence that you are actively combatting anti-white hate in the churches and I will take you seriously as a white advocate rather than merely a christian apologist.

As for the either/or: that comes from the Bible. Yahweh is the only god, and all the others are false. Christianity actively wiped out paganism. Those Christians who incorporated elements of paganism killed it before they ate it.

I regard Christianity as part of my cultural heritage too. But I don’t regard it as true. I try to focus on the things the Christians created, rather than the things they destoyed. And I look at Christian art as merely the ideological channel through which white genius was forced for a long time to flow.


Update of 29 May 2013:

Johnson has now commented at Occidental Dissent:

Here’s my breakdown of the ultimate causes of our plight:

1. Whites are prone to universalism: the idea that there is one humanity and one moral law that transcends differences of race and culture. This tendency is pre-christian. One finds it in the Ancient Greek philosophical schools, and Stoicism is perhaps the most striking expression of it. Whether this plight is genetic in any meaningful sense or not is an open question. I hope it is not genetic, because we don’t have time to change our gene pool to fight it.

2. Christianity, which is a universalistic religion grafted on the trunk of Jewish tribalism, and infected with Jewish fanaticism and intolerance, came to dominate the West, which pretty much explains why whites are open to everyone, but Jews are somehow more equal than everyone else.

Of course, Christians who take the New Testament seriously and who remember the early history of the Church, made a distinction between the old holy Jews and new, unholy Jews who crucified and reject Christ, and imposed legal restrictions on the latter that lasted until the Enlightenment. (That distinction is lost on today’s mouth-breathing Christian Zionists.)

3. Enlightenment liberalism pretty much secularizes Christan axiology, and since it discarded Christianity, it discarded Church-based impediments to Jewish emancipation, opening the doors to Jewish hegemony. To secular liberals, however, Jews (and blacks) are more equal than others because they believe that they suffered from intolerance to unique degrees.

Any group that practices rigorous ingroup nepotism in a liberal society while demanding that the rest of the society treat them with tolerance and fairness has a built in advantage that will cause them to accrue power and wealth at the expense of the rest of the society. South Asians and East Asians in the US are now using the same techniques, with similar results.

Categories
Conservatism Real men

Vanguardist retort

“I’m openly intolerant. If someone doesn’t follow my line, he’s the enemy. Not like it’s a hard standard to meet: openly White and openly anti-jew. That’s all. Within that framework, we can do business. Outside it, we’re enemies. Simple, clear, effective.” (Alex Linder’s dual litmus test)

The following is Linder’s deconstruction at VNN Forum of what Leon Haller said at Majority Rights. It exemplifies my view about why the mainstreamer side of white nationalism is deluded. No ellipsis added between unquoted sentences:





Leon Haller: The primary strategic question is always, therefore, who is your base?

Alex Linder: Wrong, quite wrong. First you must answer a pre-strategic question: who are “we”? Yeah. That basic. Once that is answered, and you know what you mean by “we” and “our” (the VNN answer is we are Whites, and jews are our enemy), then the strategic question becomes: how do we gain sovereignty from a System in which jews control the money, the mass media, and the military?

Haller: The base of any movement to save the white race—the minimum of which in my view consists in stopping nonwhite immigration everywhere, followed by repatriating nonwhites from Europe, and, in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, 1) ending white judicial and legislative oppression, and 2) reestablishing white cultural hegemony—is going to be found among conservatives. Who else could it be? Occasional NS [National Socialist] Euros think that some labourite working class somewhere will constitute it, but I think that view is decades out of date, if it was ever valid.

Linder: Wrong on two levels.

Our cause isn’t truly a political position but a species-representation: We are a biological party, not a political party. White society by default, on a far deeper level than mere petty politics, is what white nationalism represents. We aren’t representing or appealing, we are the thing itself—the thing itself defending itself, in the biosphere. We don’t need to appeal to anybody, we not only represent them already, we are them. We’re just open about it. That is the only real difference between us and the vast majority of fellow whites: we are open about it.

The reason people don’t join their formal political behavior with their informal unspoken feelings and behavior is fear. The jews have divorced our external from our internal by means of fear. It is fear, above all else, that we must overcome, in ourselves and in our people, if we are to regain sovereignty.

Only bravery gets out fear. We don’t need to appeal to people, Leon. We need to lead them. Lead them means not making arguments that people already believe in but, at this point, not showing fear, and striking back at the enemy, verbally and, if we have the guts, like Breivik did, physically. [Chechar’s note: Cf. the recent entry Linder on Breivik]

People will only join us when they see 1) we are not afraid (like the cowardly conservatives and Republicans) and that 2) we strike real blows against the enemy. It starts verbally by using slurs. Truly, the continental verbal-political-strategic divide is the use of the term nigger. If you won’t use it under your real name, you are not involved in serious politics. You are merely a conservative. Either use “nigger” or be a niggler, to make a phrase of it.

We gotta be gross large powerful and scary as all fuck, Haller, like a great white shark maw coming up out of the water at the slick black jewmud-seal.

Haller: Speaking as an American, though on this issue I can’t believe matters would be much different in Canada or England—or perhaps any white nation today, given the postwar convergence of governing structures, economies and lifestyles—, it is perfectly obvious to me that our base is among conservatives (I’m tempted to add, “duh”).

Linder: You are inside the box, Haller. You need to get out of the box.

We don’t need to appeal to voters, Leon, we need to attract White men. We don’t do that by our silly positions, we do it by what we are.

We only have one agenda item: whites living normally among whites in a white country under White control. If our cause isn’t negotiable, if it isn’t a matter of voting because it’s deeper than that (our existence is not up for debate) then talking about appeals and who and how we need to alter our position smorgasbord is actually obscene, if you think about it. It reduces our cause to cheap trifling. It makes petty what is profound. Don’t do that. Our cause is not conservative. Appealing to middle-class cowards never has and never will get racialism anywhere. Selfish, cowardly bourgeois won’t fight for anything but lower taxes. They’ll join us all right: when we’re on the verge of winning. So it was with Hitler, and his Germans were a hell of a lot more serious, intelligent and less sketchy than AmeriKwans in 2011.

Haller: My point is that white preservationists will only find allies, if at all, among conventional, as yet “unawakened”, conservatives. So the real question, for those who actually want to do some racial good in the world, for those, that is, for whom intellectual work is not an end in itself, but a guide to desired social change, is, how can we best appeal to the broader world of conservatives?

Linder: If you use the word appeal, you don’t get it. Your mindset is trapped in a petty political world that has nothing to do with deep, real politics—where nothing is off the table. I mean, that’s how we got here.

The jews don’t play fair. Our petty right-wing politics have faced the jews for a hundred years and the jews have won every single time. Maybe we should try something different. Of course we should. What is new and different is using slurs, following a principled, impersonal political line, and attacking everyone not meeting our litmus test as the enemy, with the end goal of destroying the petty right, the stupid, cowardly, lazy conservatives, en route to polarizing the public for the real and final battle between Whites and jews.

The conservative approach has been tried for decades. It has failed. Let’s try a different route.

Haller: As I have argued vociferously and ad nauseam, the answer to this question is “subtly” —not in terms of outspokenness, but intellectual content. In democracies whose (still) white majority populations are remarkably psychologically and thus politically stable, that which is seen as too far outside the mainstream will fail. But the “mainstream” comprises a number of different “streams”, so to speak. If we are going to challenge the racial status quo, which, if left unchallenged, will in the normal course of things destroy us, then we need to be as mainstream as possible in every other way apart from the foundational ideological challenge.

Linder: Wholly wrong. Indeed, comically wrong. You just don’t get it, Haller: the enemy controls all the devices that determine what is normal and who has authority. That’s tv, mostly. But also public schools, preachers, the presidency. A subtle, moderate appeal to cowardly conservatives is going to create an invincible racial radicalism? You can’t be serious. Loud, gross, unsubtle, clear, simple, but above all strong… is what is called for. Strong is the only thing whites understand.

The masses are feminine, Leon. They respond to strength, like a woman. Not niggling weakness. They want to be bowled over, not reasoned with. If they’re scared of ZOG’s penalties for siding with the politics they really want, no rational argument will win them over—only showing there’s a new sheriff in town, and he might just be on the way to kicking ZOG’s ass. Elemental stuff. It always is. Who’s the big dog in the room? Hint: itz never a bunch of conservative faggots. Never. We’re not in an argument. We’re not in a debate. We’re not playing a game. We’re in a fight. And a fight with no rules. Humans are animals, and that is the bottom-line fact. Whites lost their countries through intimidation, and they will only get them back through bravery.

Haller: People like David Duke and especially Jared Taylor came to understand that unconventional grooming habits, wearing funny “uniforms,” indulging in strange gestures or forms of speech, or adhering to bizarre or repugnant (conspiracy) theories and/or ideologies, was simply less effective than appearing “clean-cut” and as culturally and psychologically normal as possible.

Linder: Yeah, and I’m an average white guy watching Polished Turd get abused off his own paid-for podium by a bunch of teenage pussies [see here]. Yeah, I’m signing up with kosher racialism real quick. Looks like fun. We whine and niggle (what Jerry calls gentlemanliness), and get our ass kicked.

No strength? No power. Where’s the strength in conservatism? Just some arguments. Arguments without heroes to champion them do nothing. As Hitler said—and he was a winner, unlike conservatives— “it is not enough that you believe: you must fight.” Truth shall not prevail without a sword at her side.

Why did people follow Hitler, Haller? Was it his arguments? Or was it that they knew he meant what he said and would back it with his life? You can’t even find among your cowardly conservatives a leader with the guts to use “nigger” in public. And you’re going fuck The People with that dick?

Haller: This emphasis on conventionality ought to extend to ideology. Thus, in assessing how to get a hearing for WP [White preservationist] concerns from conservatives…

Linder: Real men lead. They don’t “appeal” or “try to get a hearing.” Passive, passive, passive, wimpy, wimpy, wimpy, loser, loser, loser.

I hate to use a niggerism, but either go big or don’t go at all. This wimpy democratic-electoral appeal to lazy, cowardly, selfish middle-class khaki wearers is ridiculous. You can’t take crap like that and escher it into revolutionary warriors. That ought to be obvious. What we need to do is be the Conans, and by our sheer powerful awesomeness attract the barbarians. Then the lamenting women—an apter description of conservatives could hardly be devised—will follow us. “Appealing” to the conformist middle-classes is the political equivalent of putting women on a pedestal. It doesn’t work except to produce misery. Only ideological racial fanatics can do that. Accept it. Help generate those fanatics.

Haller: …our only possible mass base, we need to understand conservatives, and try to show that WP—and the policies it requires: ending immigration, ending the anti-white racial spoils system, building white consciousness as an aspect of conservative consciousness—is a natural outgrowth of conservatism (which, in fact, it is).

Linder: Race is the basis of what you’re going to preserve, since culture springs from it. The culture comes from the race. Not the other way around.

To ordinary people, conservatism is whatever comes out of Bill O’Reilly’s mouth, or Rush Limbaughs’. And that’s liberalism on the most basic thing—race. People don’t think, they parrot. You don’t persuade them, you become the authority. To people, who are almost all women, authority is the argument.

Haller: This means in part, especially in America, demonstrating the ethical compatibility between Christianity—the belief system of a clear majority of American conservatives, extending far beyond just the noisier and narrower Bible-thumping Christian “Right”—and policies of white preservation.

Linder: Try this instead: “Niggers are flash mobbing our neighborhoods? Let’s go flash mob some niggers.”

Yeah. That crude. Necessarily. People are not intellectuals. People do not think. We don’t need to argue, we need to bulk up. Verbally and physically—simultaneously.

How did Whites act when they were free and sovereign? They used racial epithets and lynched troublemakers—jew, mud and white. By degree jews stole to power, and made those healthy actions “hate” crimes and enforced taboos against even noticing racial differences, let alone acting on them. We don’t get back to where we were by playing along with the rules of the New Racial Order.

Haller: In much larger part, it means jettisoning, or at the very least muting, those aspects of WN which conservatives will find anathema.

Linder: So crazy it beggars belief. We are to suck up to weaklings to gain political power. How is that possibly a winning strategy? The jews didn’t get power by appealing to people but by kicking their ass, in every possible way. We will only get that power back by kicking their kikey ass. Appealing to mouthbreathing Foxtards as a strategy is, again, so far past ridiculous it makes one question your motives in suggesting it.

Haller: Force a conservative to choose between Christ and Hitler, and 99% of the time, he will choose the former. That is a fact that needs to be dealt with, even by atheist or NS WNs.

Linder: Planted axiom: that it matters what christians or conservatives think. It does not. They’re stupid, scared dogs, and will support who they’re told to by their bought bosses, as all evidence shows. They are irrelevant to the struggle between Whites and jews until the Fox-faux-right, the controlled opposition, is destroyed and the real parties doing battle are seen by everybody, from the 10-watts to the 100-watts, to be WHITES and JEWS. And then the christian-conservative cuntlings will side with the white side because as bad as evil-nazis might be, jew commies are worse. Until that point, what the christ cultists think is irrelevant. They’re just dumb tools and safely ignorable.

Haller: But even if racial fascism is where the Euroright needs to get to, the present paradox is that it will not get there by advertising this fact openly. The key for all white nations is, as I’ve stated previously, gradual radicalization, the insinuation of white consciousness and pro-white policy advocacy into conservative discourse.

Linder: “Gradual radicalization”… Haller, it just doesn’t work like this.

Imagine any successful revolutionary saying the stuff you’re saying. Imagine Hitler talking about subtly influencing people, gradually radicalizing them. Either you’re leading and loud and laughing, or you’re limping, lingering and lamenting. Nothing sneaky or superficial, shallow, subtle can work. It must be plain and strong.

Again, this is so obvious it is hard to believe you actually believe what you’re typing. You’re going insinuate and gradually radicalize conservatives? Really? Maybe if you controlled Fox News. Otherwise, no. And even if you did control Fox, why would you go by degree? You’d just flip policy overnight, and your audience would follow cluelessly.

There’s not one hundredth of Fox viewers who can define conservatism in a way Burke would recognize. They’re intellectual niggers. Conservatism is simply whatever a publicly labeled conservative just said, even if he said the opposite yesterday. And since you don’t have any major media outlets, and every official vector is controlled by the enemy, a policy of insinuation is utterly impossible.

Haller: We must be as moderate as possible.

Linder: And with that, you’re taking over my job. Good friggin’ grief.

What about Latin America?

Hi Chechar,

You were born in Mexico, right? Is it worthwhile to distribute anti-ZOG propaganda to Spanish-speaking Latin Americans? Anti-Americanism seems popular enough in Latin America, but do they know who is secretly in power? Even if they aren’t white, do you think we could gain “allies” in Mexico?

Venezuela seems to be predicting a showdown with ZOG. They have recently begun trying to move their gold reserves back into the country and have condemned the overthrow of the Libyan government.

Do you have any thoughts?

Regards,

Sam Davidson

*   *   *

Dear Sam,

Sophisticated Latin Americans don’t know almost anything about ZOG (in my life I’ve only met a handful of them conscious of the Jewish Question). I like what Chávez is doing with the gold, but like Evo Morales he’s a rabid anti-white. Indians, mulattos and mestizos can be our allies only in the sense that Arabs can be allies in our common war against Jewry. Most criollos (Iberian whites living here) have become as body-snatched pods as their northern, WASP counterparts. Mexico is beyond repair unless…

1) the dollar crashes and the US goes down, down, down…

2) desperate niggers start behaving pretty naughtily in a crashed America

3) an ethnostate is formed somewhere in Northam after a bloody war and, finally,

4) the new Aryan nation grows strong enough—e.g., as in Covington’s latest novel, Freedom’s Sons—to conquer Mexico with the ease that Cortés conquered the Aztec Empire half a millennium ago.

I’ve translated to English a couple of my articles about Mexico, and although I am translating MacDonald’s CofC the Spaniards are my main target audience in my blog in Spanish. Latin America in general and Mexico in particular have degenerated so horribly after my childhood that my only hope is to escape from this hell as soon as possible.

C.