web analytics
Categories
William Pierce

Comments by Trainspotter, 1

With this entry I’ll start collecting some of the insightful comments authored by a blogger who uses the penname of Trainspotter. This one comes from a C-C thread:



Today, white nationalism at least has the beginnings of a meaningful intellectual scene. Since the intellectual side has to come first in any truly revolutionary movement, this is a damn good thing to have. For right now, it’s the only thing that matters, though in time that will change.

I suspect that a lot of our brightest people got their start with [William L.] Pierce, who offered insightful and incisive analysis in a way that nobody else was. Perhaps some of you are old enough to remember the sort of floundering Right of the 90′s. I was pretty young then, fresh out of college, and wasn’t even online. Every now and again I’d come across some right wing, racially oriented material—you know, real paper and ink. It was invariably awful. The huge captions, the photos of snarling blacks, text written at about a sixth grade level. It was, in a word, tacky.

Yes, we know that niggers commit lots of murders. Yes we know that they commit lots of rapes. So… let’s put on white robes and burn a cross in somebody’s yard. After all, it’s 1995. Bound to work. Why change a winning formula?

Looking back on those strange days, it strikes me as almost kitsch. So hopelessly ridiculous and out of touch with the real trends that were sweeping society.

Now, maybe simple material has its place, and some will even need to be targeted at a middle school level. But first, you’ve got to have some really bright people who can put together a credible movement. Without that, you’re just lowbrow losers in the minds of most. People don’t follow lowbrow losers. Everyone “knows” that you don’t say certain things in public. Therefore, by definition, if you do say those certain things, or pass those words out in the form of a leaflet—you’re weird. You’re a loser. Unless… you obviously aren’t. Pierce obviously wasn’t, but I’m getting ahead of myself.

Then, around 2000, I got online. So great was my thirst for the white perspective that I immediately sought out racialist sites. After seeing the nineties up close and personal, I had already largely radicalized on my own. But I didn’t really know where to go with it, and there were still a lot of connections that I had yet to make.

So, literally within seconds of my first getting online, I took a beeline for white nationalism—no passing go or collecting $200. I remember bopping around a bit. I had already heard of Stormfront, so I went there. Eh, it was o.k. I still go there just to see news links, but it never really had much influence upon me (until much later with poster The Old Man, from whom I learned a thing or two—no longer at Stormfront by the way, he’s moved over to Kelso’s forum with the username Edmund Ruffin). I also remember an Alex Curtis, and checking his site out. A few interesting posts, but again… eh. Frankly, I was disappointed.

Then I found Pierce and his weekly broadcasts. It was like striking gold. Nothing tacky or kitsch about it. Just a very intelligent white man with an uncanny knack for addressing contemporary issues, yet with a perspective that seemed inclusive of all the ages, from the primordial mists to a future unseen. Timely but timeless. I could dig it.

It would be the first thing on my to do list on Saturday mornings, and I would lay in my bed and listen to the broadcasts. I really looked forward to it. A lot of these things I had figured out myself during the disheartening nineties, but Pierce connected the dots in a way that I simply hadn’t at that point. He was clearly a lot further along than I was, a total reversal of what I was used to. Pierce actually made it nice to be the student and not the teacher—he was that good.

It was Pierce that convinced me that this could be a real movement at some point, that this could be something significant. I’ll always appreciate him for that. Before, I had almost felt pity for those that I had seen speak out. The nineties were a transitional decade. At the beginning of the nineties, I don’t think I had ever seen a black/white couple. Then all of a sudden I saw them everywhere. It was soul crushing (it wasn’t envy per se, I was quite the ladies man myself, but it bothered and offended me on a very deep level, even though I myself meet the SWPL profile in many ways).

There were still some white working class types who had not learned to keep their mouths shut according to the new social norms, and spoke out at inappropriate times and places. They won over precisely zero converts. They were right, their instincts were good, and they had courage of a sort. But they were completely outclassed, literally and figuratively. This was painfully obvious. They could not articulate their vision, because they simply didn’t have one. Didn’t they get the memo? They were going nowhere fast. I wanted to protect them, and tried as much as I could. Since I’m reasonably effective socially, I usually was able to extricate them without much damage. I just wanted to tell them (and pretty much did, once in private) to STFU, I agree with you but your approach isn’t working, and no I don’t know what will work, just teach your none too bright working class daughters to not fuck niggers, try to hold it together and maybe we’ll get a break down the road, and that was the best we could do for now. That’s how I felt. It was friggin hopeless.

There had been a war of ideas, and our side had lost—plain and simple. A redneck with good instincts but no education or credibility wasn’t going to make any headway at all—unless and until this thing gets really big time and he can be put to other purposes… but that’s another issue altogether. In the nineties, such a man was truly a lost soul, and yet his betters were doing precisely nothing. What a stain upon all of us. The disgust has never left me, though today I am far more optimistic.

After a decade of seeing inarticulate whites fumble the ball and get absolutely nowhere, enter William Pierce. This guy could take on the best that the System had to offer. There was zero need for pity, only respect and admiration. That’s his importance. That’s what he did… nothing else matters. I could definitely dig it.

Then came Linder (who also was clearly influenced by Pierce), who in his own way redefined white nationalism, moving it even further away from the lame nineties, and gradually more and more capable and intelligent people began populating the net. Today, I think the quality of intellectual white nationalism is better than ever—far and away better than ever, though even now there is some of the one step forward and two steps back variety. I practically gagged earlier today when I saw Hunter Wallace on the byline for an article at Altright. What is [Richard] Spencer thinking, further insinuating that creature into a promising movement? Up until today, I thought well of Spencer. I still do, but am seriously questioning his judgment. Yes, let’s make a pathological liar [Chechar’s note: cf. this long exchange], and that’s one of his better qualities, more prominent in the movement. Great call. Spencer, can you dig it? I wonder.

In any event, gaffes and blunders aside, the intellectual momentum is clearly gathering steam. A flesh and blood movement is bound to follow—sooner if we shun the kooks. Pierce was in many ways the fountainhead of the good things that we now see around us. Yes, it’s a pity that he wasn’t able to take it any further than he did, but for those of you who have at least some memory of the nineties, you’ll appreciate how far ahead of his time Pierce really was. Very strange decade—good for me personally, but terrible for my race. Trust me when I say that in those odd times, he didn’t have much to work with. He showed us a different path, or at least the beginnings of a path. A path that could in time lead to victory, if we start playing our cards right.

Categories
Real men

The king of the animals

With the exception of Animal Planet I usually don’t watch TV: it’s the vehicle from which the System has been brainwashing us for decades. But yesterday I experienced a revelation. A program about the coming extinction of the lion in Africa (ca. 2020) stated that the male lion is not the ornamental, passive guy we have seen in the other programs of wild animal life. The lionesses hunt during the day, true; but with night-vision cameras the role of the male lion has finally been revealed.

It turns out that, for ages, there has been a war between the two super-predators of Africa: the hyenas and the lions. And the only way for a clan of lions to mark their territory and survive is when the healthy male lions hunt and kill the female leader of the hyena clan that dares to trespass the boundaries (which usually happens at night). Footages of male lions hunting and killing the leader of the hyenas are a treat! I had never seen it before.

Yet since it’s precisely the splendid male lion the specimen that man has been hunting down for decades, the population of lions dropped from more than 400,000 to a tenth of that number.

Similarly, in our species a liberal system led by the Hyenas of mankind has been hunting down the White males for decades with feminist laws and a Gomorrean culture that turns them into the feminized western males, degenerate race wee see today overwhelmed with gratuitous guilt complexes.

From the nationalist viewpoint the moral of the story is that, if boys don’t behave like real men again, if we don’t get back our ruthless predator spirit, if we fail to raise a gun again, like the lion we’ll go extinct.

Focus Northwest.

Categories
Miscegenation

Secession, our only hope…

The idea of fighting for a republic populated only by Whites; to secede from a degenerated America, boggled my mind back in 2009 when I read Michael O’Meara’s seminal articles “Toward the White Republic” and “The Sword” at The Occidental Quarterly.

Today, two years later, at The Occidental Observer (TOO) Farnham O’Reilly has been publishing a series of articles of which I will republish only the latest one, “What Will Work, Part Nine.” It is an inspiring word for all those who, like me, believe that the next step toward a White Republic is to continue spreading these ideas until the minimum mass for actual revolution is reached.

Only then will secession become possible.




In discussions with others regarding the TOO responses on the topic of secession, some are discouraged by the number of negative reactions — ostensibly from racially conscious kinsmen — saying that, for one reason or another, White people cannot or should not secede. Yet, let’s remember the respondents are not representative of most White Nationalists. While perhaps one-third are really solid, clear thinking individuals, another third may be best described as Internet hobbyists. The remaining are, frankly, shills or malcontents of one stripe or another.

I really don’t mind the shills; I suspect most TOO writers have them, and while they work for the Enemy they are at least sincere. Really, it is an intriguing game of chess with them, for they are the best sophists, often agreeing in part yet coming across with compelling arguments that leave honest readers with the impression that, one way or another, Whites just cannot have total victory and total sovereignty. This impression is strengthened when the shill splits — not unlike an amoeba — assuming two different identities that begin to argue with one another, with the less polished half losing credibility. Yet, somehow the pseudo-dialog still leaves the reader with the impression that we can never have our Homeland — ever. As for the malcontents, they simply work from a premise of envy or hatred. Not happy unless they are miserable, these folks are of our own blood and will plague us to the end.

Many readers raise the point that the U.S. government “won’t let us secede.” But, that is what secession is all about! Yes, it is not for the faint of heart, but secession is quite possible, and would be brought about not through military victory, but by way of economic expediency. Just how the mechanics whereby a more powerful nation concedes territory and autonomy to a weaker one through economic necessity will be left to others to discuss in private — ample historical precedence as well as some very fine blueprints set in fictional settings exist.

We have all heard it is wise to not underestimate your enemy. But, it is also wise not to overestimate him! The Jews and their collaborators are only as strong as their servants, and we would do well to remember the last conflict the American military ever truly won was that against the diminutive Caribbean nation of Grenada.

Compromise will not work, implicit caste or segregation systems will not work, and enclaves will not work. Who is still in power in all those scenarios? Who has the nukes? Who has the central banking system? Who has the media? Nonwhites do not like Whites. They never have. Dig it. We can’t just all get along, for the nonwhite factions in this country — who will soon be a majority — do not want to get along, and do not want equality; they want us dead.

Only complete sovereignty, complete safety through autonomy, complete self-determination brought about by secession, will save us. United we stand, scattered we fall. We have seen how bad it is when we are a majority — has anyone given thought to the nightmare facing good White folk once we are a minority? If we do not act, there is no punishment we will not deserve. Every goal must bear a just proportion to its cost. For those who will act, there never has been a more noble cause.

Those who wish to ‘take America back’ have not honestly assessed reality. They are not even in a position to dictate their terms from a position of weakness. America — in its current physical entirety — is no longer theirs to take back. And, they do not deserve to have it back, even if they were in a position to take it. It is much like a prostitute who, upon meeting Mr. Right, decides to ‘take back’ her chastity. It can’t be done. It can’t be taken back. She sold it, and now it belongs to someone else — just like we did with America. The Jews did not betray and sell out America — Whites did that. We did it constitutionally, I might add. It is this America, the polluting, anti-Nature, race-mixing, porn-addicted, junk-food gorging, homophile, baby-killing, anti-family, instant gratification, entertainment craving, God-hating, Jew-fawning abomination that seeks to introduce its moral superiors such as Iran and Afghanistan to American democracy.

There is such a thing as national sin, the demand for payment which shall always be made in this world. America, once the safest, richest, kindest, most blessed nation, deigned not to honor the Source of that goodness, choosing instead to pursue evil beyond imagination. But to those who have been faithful to all that is good, all that is moral, all that is loyal, indeed all that has been declared to be in accordance with natural law by that ineffable Force without beginning or end, to those there is given the opportunity to come out of this diseased whore known as the United States of America before her ruin overtakes them.

For this nation of desolation has set its hand against everything good, and has upheld everything evil. It destroys the environment to extract those elements by which it may continue to foster sensual, sedentary lifestyles. It has eschewed health, preferring repulsive ingestion of garbage over good food — Americans are the fattest, weakest, most unnatural creatures on earth. It has mocked the sacred dual image by which Nature has designed all higher life forms — male and female — daring to call this holy design into question and relegating it to a matter of ‘orientation’ and ‘gender identity’. It has actively sought the destruction of the gene pool to which it owes its very existence through miscegenation, abortion, alien immigration, and all forms of sexual shame. It has celebrated and nourished the pornography industry, destroying families and robbing children of their innocence. It has chosen for its leader a man symbolic of the highest sin against Nature — a progeny of the sun and the moon — a repulsive yet narcissistic individual whose hatred for our folk knows no bounds. Finally, in all things and everything America serves — first and foremost — Jewish interests. And our people, what is left of our good people, need to come out from under her, for there is a sight of blood on her hands, and her fall, destruction and damnation will be great.

Much of what we talk about is what we don’t like; what is happening, why it is bad for us, what will happen if we don’t do anything, or perhaps how we intend on dealing with it. But seldom do we speak of what we want, what we are after, and what kind of world we want for our children.

It is hard to grasp how heavy the White Man’s burden really is, and how good life could really be without subsidizing the parasites and willful non-producers. One might think “Well, the income taxes really aren’t that bad, much lower in fact than most other developed nations. Besides, I always get a refund when I file.” But that is just the individual income tax. There are a lot of other taxes as well: tax on gasoline, tax on liquor, tax on highway users (truckers), tax on arrows used for archery enthusiasts, sales tax, payroll tax, estate tax, gift tax, corporate tax, tax on machine guns, franchise tax, tax on tobacco, ad nauseam.

And then there is foreign aid, the most obscene example being Israel, which siphons off, in the form of military aid, ‘loan guarantees’ and out and out cash gifts, enough to support each man, woman and child — legal or otherwise — in this country. In a society in which parasites and willful non-producers are absent — and there was at least one example of such a society not too many years ago — a government can serve its citizens quite well without the tax burden, and the citizens in turn will find that, while life still presents many problems, personal finances are not one of them.

If there will be anything like a national religion in the future White ethnostate, it will be a reverence for Truth. As with the ancient Druids, truth will be sought, coveted, and prized. Truth will be recognized as an absolute, regardless of any inconvenience, offense, unpopularity, or expense. We shall have truth in science, with all discoveries being welcomed regardless of iconoclasms they may bestow. We shall have truth in history — hysterical assertion shall not triumph over historical fact in our new State. Within our reverence for Truth shall be the recognition we are part of Nature and subject to Nature’s laws, and our treatment of, and interaction with the environment shall be one of love and respect.

We want an economy based on invention and production rather than speculation and consumption, on equity funding rather than debt financing. With an economy based on production, no citizen who is willing to work will be without employment or livelihood, no matter what kind of work it is. We want an end to the tyranny of oligarchy, the bitter maturing of laissez-faire capitalism with the loss of jobs, planned obsolescence, and the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer, and our people being saddled with massive debt.

We want a nation where scholarships awarded on academic achievement are really given to young people based on their academic achievement, where you can send your daughter to college knowing if she does come home with a husband he will at least be a loving husband compatible with family heritage, and furthermore they will make some darn fine looking grandkids. We want a world where you can speak freely and honestly among your peers or at your workplace about any aspect of science or history without being ostracized, called names, or fired.

We want a society where you can watch a TV show without hearing profanity, seeing strange people, or being exposed to immodesty and immorality, and where there is no private monopoly on media/TV, for control of media equals control of the mind. We want a society where free speech means free speech, and not license to desecrate that which others hold sacred, or to steal the innocence of children by exposing them to filth and depravity.

We want a society where young men still find young women attractive when they are modestly dressed, and where young women can find young men who act like young men and not old boys, where kids can take walks in town at night in safety, where little boys can hunt frogs in the creek, and little girls can walk home from school safely. We want a society where food is not fast, and commutes are not slow. We want a society without repulsive malls, decrepit trailer parks, chintzy, greasy, plastic fast food establishments, and other post-war junk architecture.

We want a system where justice is bestowed on the righteous, and not purchased by the wicked, where truth is a legal defense, and where professional attorneys can make as much as the professional electricians and professional plumbers — if they work hard enough.

We want a government where the constitution not only confers a bill of rights, but also secures a bill of responsibility from each citizen, and where the rights of the people are not trampled by the rights of the individual.

We want a society where history books refer to the murder of 20 million Christians or 50 million unborn children as holocausts.

We want a land where our children learn about their heroes rather than about the heroes of our enemies — the man who responded to a courageous challenge by bringing a sling that could kill from afar, who started a love affair with the King’s son, who betrayed his loyal lieutenant so that he might ravish his wife in faithless treachery, and then thanked God when an innocent child paid the penalty for his transgression. It breaks my heart to think this repulsive little Hebrew is held up as a godly role model to White children in Sunday school listening in innocent, rapt wonder to the whitewashing (literally!) of his loathsome deeds.

We want a society where true artists are encouraged and honored, and where pornographers are located and executed. We want a society where live babies are preferred over live perverts, and where the slaying of the former rather than the latter is considered a crime of hate. We want a society where degeneracy is ridiculed, and Christianity is respected. We want a society where the just recompense for one’s wife being subjected to insult or unwarranted attention by another man may be transacted with guns and not words. We want a society where homemaking and motherhood is revered because it is natural, and the reversal of spousal roles is ridiculed because it is unnatural.

We want a nation where the beauty accruing from racial hygiene is preferred over the ugly anatomical disharmonies associated with race-mixing. We want a nation where any photograph of a gathering of people shows a healthy compliment of our own folk, rather than the obligatory and unnatural conglomeration of various races. We want a nation where quality is preferred to equality, and where value is based on the natural criteria of beauty, scarcity and utility, rather than the unnatural, fictitious, man-declared concept of inherent human worth, without the earning of such worth.

We want a country where dogfighting, cockfighting, bullfighting, all kosher barbarisms against our animal friends and other forms of ghoulish cruelty are rewarded with shame and death.

We want an education system that expands the definition of Special Education to include those ‘gifted & talented’, and expand those services to include, at a minimum, an equal amount spent on gifted as well as ‘challenged’ children, a system where our children can learn more about their own folk than about others, and learn more about the good things their folk have done rather than the mistakes they made. We want a society where active little boys are given 4H projects instead of Ritalin.

We want a society where ‘freedom’ is defined as being able to do as much good as one wants, regardless of criticism, rather than as much evil as one wants, so long as physical or financial injury does not occur. We want a republic, not a democracy. In other words, we want our constitution to be founded on the rights of the people, on which the rights of the individual shall not infringe, where our freedom comes before my freedom. This will be a constitution that recognizes the eternal truth which is this: the rights of all individuals cannot be protected so long as the individuals within that group have radically different values, but the rights of a group of people with similar values can be protected.

We want a land where any writing or pictures on buildings or trains will take the form of art, not hideous graffiti, where people who are hurt will get prompt attention in emergency rooms without having to wait while aliens are given priority, where dogs will receive loving care, fowl will receive proper animal husbandry, and neither will face an ugly end surrounded by sweating, screaming faces bidding the highest dollar on mutilation and death. Motorists will be insured, lawns will be mowed, and restaurants will have health inspections. We want to be able to walk our streets or into our stores and hear only the steady, friendly language of our own folk, and not the gabbling and gibbering of an alien tongue. Our military will guard our borders. No se habla español aquí.

We want a nation that loves and upholds Nature and Her laws, and that hates and opposes all that is unnatural and contrary to Her laws, a nation whose folk recognizes that creation should go up, and not down, even as it has in eons past. We want to live in a White world.

***

We have had a wonderful springtime here in the Homeland. The large snowpack has been experiencing a slow melt-off, and there are a profusion of wildflowers. The long, wet, cool spring followed by sudden summer heat has made for a very challenging farming season, but still life is very good. The ruffed grouse have finished their drumming and courtship in the woods, and the elk and deer, having wintered much lower due to the heavy snowfall, came through in fine shape. I saw two bull elk last week — both fat as ticks, with antlers forming and thick with velvet. For those who like shopping for free and nutritious groceries in the woods, the morel mushrooms were quite plentiful, as were the wild onions. The huckleberry harvest, still several months off, looks very promising.

And, for birders, the Pacific Northwest is paradise. While there are over 800 species of birds in North America, more than 350 of them may be found in Idaho alone! Much of this is due to our diverse geography, as well as the fact that, while we are a large area, we have only about 15 people per square mile. Actually, we have in many areas zero people per square mile as most folks live in or near one of three major cities. Recently my wife and I saw a pair of Pileated woodpeckers — always a haunting sight as they so closely resemble their larger southern brethren the Ivorybill woodpecker, the survival of which we and others in our communities continue to pray for, as we do for our own folk — the Children of the Sun.

* * *

Trainspotter comments at TOO:

Excellent and inspiring essay. As to the critique of America, I am ashamed to admit that Farnham is both harsh… and essentially correct. At what point do the missteps and misdeeds of the United States become fundamental to its nature as opposed to flukes and aberrations?

Importing cheap labor (including blacks), then whites slaughtering whites at least in part over blacks, reconstruction, extending the vote to blacks (in the 1800′s for crying out loud) – need one go on? And we haven’t even reached the post World War II era yet, or the absolutely disgusting present. A present where even rock ribbed red staters are peachy keen on immigration, so long as it is legal and the person wants to work hard. Want to make a buck? Want to pursue your self-interest and gorge on filthy lucre? Surely you are my kinsman, surely you are my fellow citizen. LOL! You just can’t make this stuff up.

If this bizarre attitude on the part of “conservatives” that the simple desire to make a buck makes one a kindred spirit, a good countryman, whether he be Zulu or aborigine, does not reveal the hollow shell of the United States, I don’t know what does. (I’ll note that, obviously, there is nothing wrong and much right with productive activity and building wealth – but the idea that such a desire makes a Bantu a meaningful part of my community, my people, is utterly absurd – but perfectly in vogue with the modern Kwa.)

Today, in 2011, we are witnesses with front row seats to the endgame. It’s a mad house.

Point is, this country had fundamental problems well before Brown v Board and the ensuing cesspool. I’m increasingly persuaded that these problems are inherent to what the United States is, baked into the cake as it were. Two of the major poisons being equality and excessive materialism, prominent right from the beginning.

This is not to say that there is nothing good about America, but it becomes increasingly apparent that most of the good attributed to the United States is, in fact, simply an expression of the whites who peopled it as opposed to the political ideas that get all of the credit. Whites who had a continent to conquer and put to productive use. Whites who still had a meaningful culture and folkways that they brought with them from the Old World, while temporarily being freed, or at least relatively so, from an exploitative oligarchy.

Whites were extremely race conscious for most of American history (and thank god for that, or we would already be at Brazil status), but again, can this be attributed to the United States political ideology/system in particular? I think not. It was simply whites, as essentially decent and realistic people, attempting to protect their communities, and in particular the more vulnerable whites in the community, from the horrors that we see all around us today. It had essentially nothing to do with “equality” or Coolidge’s famous “the business of America is business” materialist nonsense.

If anything, America’s political ideology/system worked against these good things, always threatening to undermine them. And then it did just that, and with some extra help from the Chosen, we survey the wasteland across the fruited plain.

In short, what has been beautiful and impressive about America has been its white people coupled with a fairly unusual set of circumstances, not the political and ideological snake oil that garners civic book kudos.

So yes, perhaps we do need something fresh, new and unused. Something particularly geared to our nature, and specifically designed to protect and elevate us through the coming ages. I just don’t think that the United States can really be that anymore. In many ways it never was.

This does not mean that I’m sold on the Northwest plan. I just don’t think it will work out that way, for a variety of reasons that I’ve written about before. However, at the moment, nothing better has been put forward, so the Northwest idea wins by default. So be it.

In any event, and however we get it, Farnham is absolutely correct: sovereignty for our people must be the unalterable goal. Nothing less will do. Whether the Northwest idea in particular falls in or out of favor, gaining a land of our own must be our lodestar.

Categories
Holocaust Israel / Palestine

Irmin Vinson on the Holocaust

Editor’s note: If white nationalists remain reluctant to debunk the post-war narrative about Hitler and the Holocaust (and by this I do not mean denying that various genocides were committed against various ethnic groups in the 20th century, including Jews), whites will not see the light. Never.

Irmin Vinson’s articles on Hitler and the Holocaust are essential reading for anyone remotely willing to see through the lies with which the elites have been brainwashing us for over sixty years. Although Vinson’s latest article published by Counter-Currents deserves a closer read, as it is over seven thousand words long, I have cut it down to less than half below.

* * *

Once upon a time, not so long ago, the suffering of European Jewry during the Second World War lacked a name. It was just suffering, terminologically indistinguishable from, say, the suffering of Ukrainian peasants during Stalinist collectivization, or even the suffering of German civilians at the hands of the Red Army. The suffering of an American soldier crippled on D-Day, the suffering of a Jew starved at Bergen-Belsen, and the suffering of a German woman crucified on a barn door all belonged to the same broad generic category of wartime deaths and wartime suffering. In the Western democracies historians and the public at large paid, naturally enough, more attention to first two than to the latter, more attention to our suffering than to theirs, but no one believed that ours deserved a special name.

Beginning in the 1960s, during the course of the Civil Rights Revolution, that changed. One group, until then numbered on our side, the Jews, began to distinguish their suffering from everyone else’s.

“Holocaust,” the English version of “Shoah,” was first deployed to describe distinctively Jewish suffering during the 1961 Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, a trial consciously conducted as an educational enterprise, and it was not until the late 1960s that “Holocaust” began its ascent into public consciousness in the English-speaking world, propelled by a steadily growing number of essays and books bearing the term, most authored by Jews. In 1968 the Library of Congress replaced “World War, 1939-1945 — Jews” with “Holocaust, Jewish (1939–1945)”; in 1978 the influential television mini-series Holocaust appeared, watched by almost a hundred million Americans, its advertising financed by Jewish organizations; and in the same year President Carter established a commission, chaired by professional “survivor” Elie Wiesel, to create a national museum in Washington memorializing Jewish suffering in Europe. Holocaust remembering accelerated rapidly in the decade that followed, and by 1991 Rabbi Michael Berenbaum, then project director of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, could boast, accurately, that World War II was merely a “background story” to the Holocaust. The contrary view, that the Holocaust was a footnote (“point de détail”) to the war, is now illegal in France and much of Europe, as the French nationalist leader Jean-Marie Le Pen discovered. The old view of World War II has not only been supplanted; in some countries it has literally been criminalized.

The Jewish Holocaust was a run-of-the-mill horror in a century that saw many horrors, no worse than the Armenian holocaust, or the Cambodian holocaust, or the Russian holocaust, or the Rwandan holocaust, or the Ukrainian holocaust.

Whose suffering gets publicly commemorated is a political decision based not on the magnitude of the suffering but on the political lessons that the commemorators hope to privilege.

There should be no real mystery why this occurred. Holocaust education in the public schools, Holocaust Studies programs at most major universities, a Week of Holocaust Remembrance in mid-April, annual Holocaust commemorations in fifty states, a Holocaust Museum on the Washington Mall, Holocaust documentary after Holocaust documentary, Holocaust film after Holocaust film — all testify either to the absolutely unprecedented character of Jewish suffering during World War II, a suffering that dwarfs all pseudo-holocausts into pitiable insignificance, or else to the power of Jews to foist their racial agenda on White Gentiles. Since the first alternative should be unthinkable — the death-tolls of Soviet and Chinese Marxism were twenty million and sixty-five million respectively, according to the Black Book — no one can seriously discuss contemporary “Holocaust mania” without also discussing Jewish power.

[Norman] Finkelstein has, however, no intention of discussing Jewish power, and he resolves the problem, in his own mind, by recourse to a fantasy common across the mainstream political spectrum, from Rush Limbaugh on the Right to Noam Chomsky on the Left — the fantasy of Israel as a valuable strategic resource, “a proxy for US power in the Middle East” necessary to ensure cheap oil and docile Muslims. Because the Holocaust deflects legitimate criticism of the Jewish State, Finkelstein argues, incessant remembering of the Holocaust also serves American foreign-policy objectives.

It is difficult even to conceive how this Israeli proxy is supposed to function, and there is no evidence that it does function, witness the price of oil, a devastating oil embargo in the 1970s, and the conspicuously undocile Muslim terrorists who now regularly attack Americans. But the proxy’s phantom existence enables Finkelstein and some others on the Left to identify their anti-Zionism as a species of anti-Americanism. Leftist criticism of Israel becomes de facto criticism of American geopolitical objectives. The latter are, Finkelstein imagines, really responsible for the billions shipped annually to Israel, and Zionist lobby groups in Washington, motivated not by distinctively Jewish group loyalty but by the raceless pursuit their own political agendas, are only the willing facilitators, “marching in lock-step with American power.” The unexamined assumption — that support for Israel benefits the United States — remains unexamined. No one need discuss Jewish power, Finkelstein has convinced himself, because Jewish power is only a useful tool in the hands of much more powerful non-Jewish “ruling elites.”

Finkelstein’s implausible thesis was necessary, from his perspective, only because the fact, if openly acknowledged, of strong Jewish racial loyalties will inevitably lead anyone who thinks seriously about the political abuse of the Holocaust to anti-Semitic conclusions. Incessant Holocaust promotion by Jews has some obvious ulterior motives, none of which has anything to do with American foreign-policy objectives: to delegitimize nationalism within majority-White nations; to legitimize Jewish nationalism in the Jewish State; to immunize Jews from criticism; to extract money from Germany, the United States, Switzerland, etc. Holocaust remembering is, in short, part of a racially self-interested agenda — it helps Jews and hurts us.


The Lessons of the Holocaust

The Jewish Holocaust, we are told endlessly, teaches universal “lessons,” and there are now taxpayer-funded Holocaust museums throughout the West, along with an extensive miseducational apparatus, designed to impart these supposedly crucial “lessons,” applicable (so we are instructed) to everyone everywhere. But the principal “lesson” that the Holocaust teaches is, undoubtedly, the lethal consequences of any racial or national consciousness among Whites. Because White racialism and intolerance and nationalism led to the Holocaust, White racialism and intolerance and nationalism must be eradicated, to avoid future holocausts. In terms of practical politics a politician who opposes Third World immigration on racial or even on cultural grounds has failed to learn the “lessons of the Holocaust”; the largely successful Jewish campaigns to tag Patrick Buchanan and Jörg Haider with the “Nazi” label/libel are recent cases in point.

The Holocaust Museum in Washington announced its anti-White objectives early on, even before its construction: “This museum belongs at the center of American life because America, as a democratic civilization, is the enemy of racism and its ultimate expression, genocide.” Genocide is, according to Jewish Holocaust lore, the natural outcome of any racial self-assertion by people of European descent, and American democracy is, by Jewish fiat, devoted to the extirpation of every vestige of our racial consciousness. That, not surprisingly, is what organized Jewry has wanted all along, as Kevin MacDonald has thoroughly documented.

In theory, the “lessons of the Holocaust” should teach Jews that Israel cannot ethically remain an explicitly Jewish state, committed to the preservation and advancement of a single Volk, rooted in land, tradition and blood, but must instead become a multiracial “state of its citizens,” bound together only by abstract political principles and an eagerness to celebrate diversity, like the nation-less anti-nations most Diaspora Jews now demand that their host populations become. In practice, needless to say, few Jews and no major Jewish organizations allow logical consistency and the lessons of the Holocaust to interfere with their racial self-interest. On the contrary: “The heart of every authentic response to the Holocaust,” writes philosopher Emil Fackenheim, “…is a commitment to the autonomy and security of the State of Israel.” Whereas in Israel Jews have formed a Jewish State for themselves and permit no one but Jews to immigrate into it, not even the Palestinian Arabs they ejected in 1948, in the Diaspora they campaign for multiculturalism and Third World immigration. Jews hate all nationalisms save their own; they are nationalists within Israel, but anti-nationalists everywhere else.

Broad Jewish support for Zionism in Israel, coupled with strident opposition to any form of racialism or nationalism in the Diaspora, is the defining hypocrisy of contemporary Jewry. Finkelstein, like the late Israel Shahak, is not guilty of it. He is a principled man: He opposes racialism in the United States, so he also opposes it in Israel. Yet he is apparently unaware of, or unwilling to acknowledge, his own anti-racialist debt to the “shelves upon shelves of [Holocaust] shlock” under whose weight American libraries are currently groaning. What has been, beyond any doubt, the most politically significant lesson of the Holocaust, the evil of White “racism,” is almost completely absent from his text [The Holocaust Industry], appearing only in two sentences in the final chapter:

Seen through the lens of Auschwitz, what previously was taken for granted — for example, bigotry — no longer can be. In fact, it was the Nazi holocaust that discredited the scientific racism that was so pervasive a feature of American intellectual life before World War II.

Auschwitz did not, of course, scientifically discredit scientific racism, but it is certainly true that the academic study of racial differences has been discredited by its association with German National Socialism, although the facts themselves remain indifferent to the lessons of the Holocaust. It is also true that “bigotry is no longer taken for granted,” but this bland summary of the sea-change in post-war attitudes to race requires a translation. Finkelstein, like most multiracialists, believes that the majority-White nations of the West are still riddled, from top to bottom, with bigotry and systemic “racism.” The fight against White “racism” has scarcely begun; the lessons of the Holocaust have only taught us that bigotry should no longer be taken for granted.

Thus in the midst of a culture soaked in White guilt, Finkelstein recommends more of the same, while presenting his proposals as part of a radical assault on a conservative Holocaust Establishment too timid to berate the goyim with the severity they deserve. “We could,” he says, “learn much about ourselves from the Nazi experience,” and he helpfully suggests additional atrocities that we might, if so inclined, also commemorate: European “genocide” in the Americas; American atrocities during the Vietnam war; American enslavement of Blacks; murderous Belgian exploitation of the Congo. All of these suggestions for atrocity commemoration have a feature in common that should not be too difficult to discern, and with the likely exception of the last, each could be dutifully recited by any well-indoctrinated schoolboy, thanks to multicultural miseducation.

Finkelstein has further suggestions. We could also contemplate, while learning much about ourselves from the Nazi experience, how “Manifest Destiny anticipated nearly all the ideological and programmatic elements of Hitler’s Lebensraum policy”; how German eugenics programs, commonly regarded as precursors of the Jewish Holocaust, merely followed American precedents; how the Nuremberg Laws were a milder variant of the Southern prohibition of miscegenation; how “the vaunted western tradition is deeply implicated in Nazism as well,” Plato and Rousseau being the proto-Nazis Finkelstein has in mind. Clearly, learning from the Nazi experience means learning to see the Nazi in ourselves and in our history.

Here Finkelstein’s self-described radical critique of Holocaust orthodoxies has a parasitical relation to what it purports to debunk, tacitly relying on alleged Holocaust uniqueness in order construct a tenuous guilt-by-association which would be laughable in any other context. Hitler opposed “birth control on the ground that it preempts natural selection”; Rousseau said something similar. Most American states once had eugenics laws sanctioning the sterilization of mental defectives; the Nazis had similar laws. Leo Strauss called this form of non-reasoning the reductio ad Hitlerum. We are expected to see, and unfortunately most Whites will indeed see, not discrete ethical issues but a sinister pattern that establishes culpability.

Yet the sinister pattern of culpability only exists if the Holocaust remains, on account of its unparalleled evil, the terminus toward which all of Western history was directed; the pattern ceases to exist if the Holocaust is dislodged from its position high atop a hierarchy of suffering. Substitute the Judeo-Bolshevik slaughter of Ukrainians for the Jewish Holocaust [see e.g., here] and you will also select a different set of sign-posts leading to a different unparalleled evil.

Since Finkelstein does not practice what he preaches, avoiding the implications of his own call to democratize suffering, his preferred Holocaust lessons turn out, as we have seen, to be not much different from the anti-racialist lessons that Holocaust promoters already teach. Elie Wiesel would have no objection to most of Finkelstein’s pedagogy of White guilt, though he would of course insist that Jews need not be among its pupils. White guilt is a given for both; they differ only on how we should best commemorate it and on whether Jews should be included among the group to whom the requisite lessons must be addressed. We are, Finkelstein and Wiesel agree, morally obliged to “confront” and “remember” Nazi crimes, even though the confronting and remembering will be “difficult” and “painful,” because we were somehow complicit in them, and in this both articulate what is now surely the core dogma of Holocaust propaganda.

“[To] study… the Holocaust,” says Marcia Sachs Littell, director of the National Academy for Holocaust and Genocide Teacher Training, “is also to study the pathology of Western civilization and its flawed structures.” Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits, Holocaust theologian, goes further: “The guilt of Germany is the guilt of the West. The fall of Germany is the fall of the West. Not only six million Jews perished in the Holocaust. In it Western civilization lost its claim to dignity and respect.”

Such expressions of anti-Western animus, routine in Jewish Holocaust writing, would be very difficult to reconcile with Finkelstein’s account of the genesis of Holocaust remembering, namely that organized Jewry “forgot” the Holocaust throughout the 1950s and then, in order to become valued participants in American statecraft, tactically “remembered” it in 1967, so that “Jews now stood on the front lines defending America — indeed, ‘Western civilization’ — against the retrograde Arab hordes.”

Anti-Western animus is, on the other hand, very easy to explain within the socio-political context of the decade when, by all accounts, the Holocaust received its English name and began its ascent into popular consciousness. American Jewry’s decision to remember the Holocaust was dependent on White America’s willingness to listen. A speaker normally presupposes an auditor, and vocal Holocaust remembering likewise presupposes receptive Holocaust listening. Jews had no intention in the 1960s and they have no intention now of remembering their Holocaust in the absence of a non-Jewish audience.

American Jews conveniently recovered their forgotten Holocaust memory at the very historical moment when racial victimization in the past began to confer political power in the present. The religion of the Holocaust was the Jewish version of anti-White identity politics. To number yourself among the wretched of the earth was a source of political power during the Civil Rights Revolution, and it continued to be a source of political power in the decades that followed.

Jews had played an instrumental role in fomenting the Revolution, and by remembering the Holocaust they enlisted themselves, citing an impeccable pedigree of suffering at the hands of Whites, among the minority groups eligible to receive its moral capital, while relieving themselves of membership, largely nominal in any case, in the White oppressor race, against whom the Revolution was and still is directed. Through the Holocaust the most successful ethnic group in American history not only joined the various aggrieved minorities staking out a claim against the Euro-American majority, but also pushed itself to the front of the line.

Since Jews are more intelligent and much more politically powerful than other aggrieved minorities, they have elevated their wartime victimization above all other victimizations, while surrounding it with a deceptive, often eloquent language of humane universalism. The Jewish victims of the Holocaust, philosopher Paul Ricoeur writes, are “delegates to our memory of all the victims of history,” a formulation which in practice means that all of history’s other victims can be safely ignored or consigned to a small, dark corner in your local Holocaust museum, being somehow included in the representative suffering of the Jews.

Thus this exceptional piece of Holocaust lore from Yad Vashem’s Avner Shalev: “We add our voice to those who believe that the Holocaust, because of its Jewish specificity, should serve as a model in the global fight against the dangers of racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic hatred and genocide.” The sentence is logically incoherent but its meaning is clear: Jewish specificity ensures universality. And the political subtext is also clear: In the holy war against “racism,” one race of victims is far more equal than the rest.

* * *

Insofar as we accept, as far too many of us do, the false moral burden to feel racial guilt over German wartime atrocities, real and fictional, we have internalized Jewish ethnocentrism, learning to see ourselves through Jewish eyes. We should therefore learn our own “lesson of the Holocaust” — that the descendants of both the winners and the losers of the Second World War now have a common interest in repudiating the old mythology of unique Nazi evil, along with the anti-Western Holocaust industry which has fastened itself on it.

Categories
Mainstream media

Why I don’t watch TV or read newspapers

Yesterday I picked up a couple of comments from Mangan’s. Here there are two more from another thread:

 

 

Wandrin said…

“The typical bribe paid to a television-channel owner was about a hundred times larger than that paid to a politician”

Yup. Democracy + television = mediacracy.

Most people only know about their little slice of reality which on a national scale is maybe 10%. The media fills in the other 90%. If the media lies about or censors the true reality then the whole political process will revolve around that false reality.

I grew up in and also later worked in certain kinds of neighborhood. There was a lot of inter-ethnic violence and the ratio was about 40:1 black on white. Because the media didn’t report any of the black on white attacks as black on white attacks—they were either not reported or no ethnicities were mentioned—but made a huge splash about any white on black attack that literally went on for months, the people outside those areas believed the majority of the problem was white on black.

People literally four miles away believed the media version even though it couldn’t possibly have been further from the truth. This is just an example of how much they can get away with.

It’s staggering really. You could have death camps in Washington DC and as long as the MSM didn’t report it, it wouldn’t matter.

Mediacracy.

The politicians are the least important part of the process. The MSM are like the air force in the first gulf war. By the time they are finished bombing (manipulating public opinion) all the army (left-liberal politicians) need to do is roll over the start line and start taking prisoners.

Obviously the magic of this form of controlled democracy depends on people trusting the MSM. Without the trust element television loses its power—like it did in the Sov Bloc—and if so the power of the ruling class has to be exercised in a more direct and brutal way.

Daybreaker said…

People think they know a lie when they see one. They forget that you can’t see through what was never reported. That is why the media blackout on undesired information is so effective, and why it’s worth the high price.

Categories
Final solution Israel / Palestine

A final solution to the Jewish problem

A moral commitment to the permissibility of exclusionary identity for European-derived people lies at the heart of starting to think about a final solution to the Jewish Problem. Let’s take a look at a couple of comments today in a thread at Mangan’s:




Armor said…

An easy solution to “save the Jews” [in 1939-1945] would have been to resettle them all in Palestine or Madagascar. I’d rather have 10 million Jews safely expelled from Europe than millions of Germans and other Europeans killed in a war.

[Responding to an Anonymous commenter—]

JSM said…

“Sheila, Pat, and Svigor, and other Jew-critical people, what should the Jews do, according to you? Should they stay in Western countries or should they go to Israel?”


My opinions:

Going to Israel would be best. Most particularly, none be allowed to reenter the U.S., where they might agitate in U.S. government affairs.

“If they stay in the West, should they convert and intermarry or could they stay there as Jews?”



Not stay as Jews. If any stay, in recognition of their and their people’s complicity in our current mess and in demonstration of their sincere regret and willingness to make amends, should willingly agree to give up the Judaism, should intermarry and assimilate, and in addition, should agree to no occupations in finance, education, government or media for at least three generations of unremitting assimilation. If Jew or part-Jew marries Jew or part-Jew, they should go to Israel.

“If they go to Israel, should they claim it as the Jewish nation state or should they share it with Arabs as a proposition nation?”



Shrug. Not my problem. You guys do what you want, but NO foreign aid from U.S. in any form.

“Or should they all be killed (sterilized)? What would be a good solution?”


Yeah, this last bit is proof that you’re not sincerely seeking solutions with us but trying to smear us as Nazis to get us to shut up.

You turd.

Categories
Feminism Real men

Stoic ethics for bachelor nationalists

“…because you would have acted to assure your worthiness even if none of them are actually your children.”

A comment by Greg Johnson in the latest C-C thread of Roger Devlin’s splendid series of articles against feminism encapsulates my hard-ethos recipe of what frustrated young males ought to do in face of the degenerated marketplace for women:




Here is my suggestion: Stop worrying about happiness and start thinking in terms of duty. Work to make the world a better place. That makes you worthy of happiness, even though you might not have the external conditions to actually be happy.

But — and here we verge on something that tempts us to “metaphysical” explanations — when I stopped worrying about happiness and started focusing on duty, I found that I ended up being happier anyway, while I was unhappier when I was more worried about being happy.

One explanation for this is the fact that happiness requires external conditions that are not under our control, including the cooperation of others, whereas doing the right thing is more under our control. Thus people who focus on happiness tend to be stressed out trying to control people and contingencies that are outside their control, and they usually do it at the expense of their own worthiness to be happy, because results oriented people tend to be unscrupulous, which corrupts their characters.

People who focus more on their character make themselves worthy of happiness and also more capable of seizing it when events align in their favor, because good character, virtue, is a form of strength, of capacity to act.

Here is another consideration: What Evola calls Uranian masculinity, true spiritual virility, is a matter of commitment to higher ideals, including the perfection of one’s character. Being concerned with happiness all the time — one’s feelings — is self-defeating and unmanly.

Now, there are women who respond to true Uranian masculinity. Men who do not seem to need women, who think there is something higher and more important in life, are actually more attractive to women than men who are womanizers. Most women despise other women (sexual competition). And they despise any man who puts too great a store in other women.

Savitri Devi said she could not love a man who loved her more than he loved his ideals. And I know other women like this in the WN world today — women who are also young, attractive, and unmarried — and committed to the same goals they would like their men to pursue.

In my piece about the Woman Question, my recommendation is that the movement as a whole (which is now predominantly male) should focus on our ideals and goals, and when the movement begins to make progress, women will join it.

The same goes for individual men: focus on your higher goals and ideals first, and the right kind of woman might very well take an interest. And if she does not come along, well, in the sex department you would be no worse off than if you swore off dating simply out of the frustrated pursuit of happiness.

And morally speaking, you would be far better off, because you would have acted to assure your worthiness of being happy and to fulfill the highest masculine duty, which is to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children, even if none of them are actually your children.

Categories
Videos

“When treason prospers, none dare call it treason”

or

Why every decent American should become
an anti-Semite: Third reason

Why Americans have no clue about Israel’s terrorist attacks on Americans? In his YouTube channel Dave Duke has dozens of videos that purport to function as a redpill for those who are sleeping in the Matrix. The key to understand the Matrix is the question that Duke has repeated over and over in his videos: “Who controls the American media?”

Here I’ll use a single example of those videos, the attack on the USS Liberty:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvItZ2GS88A&w=560&h=349]

In the last century many people have disbelieved the cover-up explanation, that the Israeli attack was an unintentional blunder, but have been unable to rebut it. However, in the present century the BBC documentary Dead in the Water uses new evidence to reveal the truth behind the attack.

It now seems that Israel’s strike against USS Liberty was intended to draw the US in a war against Egypt by making the US government believe that the Egyptians, not the Israelis, were the perpetrators of the attack.

President Lyndon Johnson’s cover-up of the incident was obvious treason. And Duke must be certainly right that to support a state that militarily has attacked Americans, as most congressmen do today, is itself treason against the American people.

Categories
Egalitarianism Francis Parker Yockey

How the Jews took over America

or

Why every decent person should become
an anti-Semite: Second reason

A must-read piece by Francis Parker Yockey that I’ve just read thanks to Counter-Currents Publishing (here) throws incredible light on the Jewish Problem. He published it in January 1955: ten years before the 1965 Immigration Act (the subject-matter of a coming entry).


The early American arrived at a land of which he knew nothing. He did not know its geography, its fertility, its climate, its dangers. In the North, he encountered forests, rocky soil, and winters of a rigor he had not known before. In the South, he met with swamps, malaria, and dense forests. Everywhere he encountered the hostile savage with his scalping knife and his warfare against women and children. In little groups, these early Americans cleared the forests, and built homes and forts. The men plowed the fields with rifles slung over their shoulders, and in the house, the wife went about her duties with a loaded weapon near at hand. There were ships to and from Europe, and the colonials could have left their hardships and gone back — but they would not admit defeat.

Out of these colonials was bred the Minute Man. Minute Man! These American farmers were ready at a minute’s notice to abandon the plow and seize the gun. They knew that the hour of their political independence was at hand and instinctively they prepared for it. When the moment arrived, with a British order to arrest two of their leaders, the Minute Men assembled before daybreak at Lexington to face the British force sent to seize them. Though heavily outnumbered they stood their ground in the face of Major Pitcairn’s order to disperse. “If they mean to have a war,” said Captain John Parker, leader of the Minute Men, “let it begin here!”

Begin it did, and for eight long years it continued. Concord, Bunker Hill, Boston, Ticonderoga, Quebec, New York, Long Island, Harlem Heights, White Plains, Fort Lee, Fort Washington, Valley Forge, Trenton, Princeton, Brandywine, Saratoga, Stony Point, Savannah, Camden, The Cowpens, Yorktown — these names recall at once the terrific odds against which the colonials fought, the low points to which their fortunes reached, and the silent and steadfast devotion of the troops. At Valley Forge, the men were but half-clad, and rations, when there was food issued at all, were slim. Sickness was rife, and mortality was high, Yet no one thought of surrender. General Washington said of them: “Naked and starving as they are we cannot enough admire the incomparable patience and fidelity of our soldiery.”

No nation has produced individual soldiers to excel Nathaniel Greene, General Know, General Sullivan, John Stark, Nicholas Herkimer, Anthony Wayne, Daniel Morgan, John Paul Jones, nor greater patriots than John Dickinson, Richard Henry Lee, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Rutledge. These are but a few. The spirit which animated these heroes is part of the white race, and it will last while this race lasts. It waits for its reawakening upon the coming of great events to American soil once more. When the fields of this continent are visited once again by the stern creativeness of war — war for the independence and the liberation of the pristine American colonial spirit — the world shall see that Americans are not the weak-willed, self-interested, pleasure-mad morons that Hollywood has tried so desperately to make them.

It was the individual imperialism of the frontiersman-type that actually opened up and conquered the North American continent. Explorers like George Rogers Clark and John Fremont preceded the frontiersman into the wilderness, and he followed into the hostile land with its lurking warlike savages. With slung rifle he took wife and children and all his earthly belongings into the land ahead, unknown, unsettled, unplowed. Daily he surmounted a thousand dangers, he lived in the face of Death. This intrepid type who was at once explorer, warrior, minister, doctor, judge, and settler, advanced until he reached the Pacific, and then he looked toward Alaska and the westward islands.

The tragic defeat of the Federalists by the less worthy among the post-Revolution generation made it possible for sectionalism to arise in America, and out of sectionalism issued the disastrous “War Between the States.” That war proved only that the heroic type of American occurred everywhere in this broad land. The only lesson we can learn from the sacrifice is that big-mouthed agitators of the vicious stamp of Theodore Parker and Horace Greeley are capable of consigning nations to the flames in order to actualize their fantastic egalitarian theories.

During the conquest of the continent, small carping voices were continually raised against the heroic performance. Congressmen laughed at the idea of governing a region so far away as the distant Pacific coast. The Poets Lowell and Whittier and the agitators Garrison and Phillips did their best to bring about a sectional war during all of the 1840s and ’50s. Calhoun’s attempt to annex Texas was defeated by the Congress. Small minds were against the Mexican War and the acquisition of the Southwest. They opposed the acquisition of Hawaii, of the Philippines, of the Cuban protectorate. After the War Between the States, this type of mind, represented by men like Summer and Stevens, wanted to treat the Southerners as an alien and inferior people and to gloat over them while placing the conqueror’s foot on their necks.

This type of mentality still survives in America. Today it still fights against greatness and heroism. Today it teaches the doctrine of liberalism with its pacifism, its love for the inferior and misbegotten, its internationalism which makes a virtue of treason, its hatred of all who possess strong national feelings, its toothless desire for racial equality, and its tolerance of everything and everyone, particularly the alien and the unfit. Today this type of mind — namely, all those to whom liberal doctrines appeal — are working for the anti-American forces, whether consciously or not. The sub-Americans are in the service of America’s inner enemy.

We have seen the spirit of the white race: the spirit of divine discontent and self-help, the spirit of self-reliance, of fearlessness in the face of great danger, the feeling of racial superiority, the urge to great distances and the will to conquer all that lies between, the spirit of the Alamo. To the true American, his is a living, organic, white nation, and not a set of principles, of “four freedoms” or a “world-policeman.” Of this feeling was every great American: Washington, Hamilton, Henry Clay, Robert E. Lee, Sam Houston. The American soldier shows in every war that even today this true American type survives.

But today the true Americans, the former great leaders, have been displaced by Morganthaus, Ezekiels, Paswolskis, Cohens, Frankfurters, Goldsmiths, Lubins, Berles, Schenks, Edelsteins, Baruchs, Goldwyns, Mayers, Strausses, Lilienthals, Hillmans, Rosenmans, Lehmanns, Rosenbergs, Eisenhowers.

We know the true American and we know the liberal — the sub-type within the white race. Let us now look at the third group which came here only yesterday and which today is linked with the liberals, the internationalists, the class-warriors, the subverters, of America’s white, European traditions. This group makes use of American slogans and American ideas, but that cannot conceal its alien provenance. Let us measure the significance of the newcomers and examine their history.

The History of the Jew

The culture which produced the Jewish nation arose in Asia Minor around 100 B.C. This culture produced many nations, all of them, so far as we are concerned, similar to the Jews. These “nations” were not nations at all in our sense of the word, for they had no homeland. Citizenship in this alien type of nation was gained by being a believer in the religion of the group. Jews, Marcionites, Gnostics, Mohammedans — all these were nations, and to all of them membership in the nation was gained by being a believer. Intermarriage with non-believers was forbidden, and this inbreeding for two thousand years has made it possible today to pick out the Jew by his countenance. Thus, for the Jew, race and religion became identical, and if the Jew loses his religion, he loses little for he still remains a Jew by race. The unity of the race is not destroyed even though the great masses of the Jews become atheists.

After the dispersion of the Jews throughout Europe and Russia, they were entirely cut off from any contact with nations similar to themselves. They shut themselves up in the ghettoes of the cities and lived completely unto themselves. There they had their own religion, their own law, their own language, their own customs, their own diet, their own economy. Since they were nowhere at home, everywhere was equally home to them.

The early European nations felt the Jew to be as totally alien as he felt his surroundings to be. The Anglo-Saxons, the Goths, the Lombards, the Franks, all despised the usurious infidel. A popular rhyme of Gothic times portrays the three estates as the creation of God, and the usurious Jew as the creation of the Devil. Crusaders on their way to the Holy Land carried out wholesale massacres of Jews. Every European king at one time or another robbed the Jews and drove them from his domain. For 400 years the Jew was shut out from England. When he was allowed back, centuries more passed before he acquired or wanted civil rights of Englishmen. This persecution of the Jew that went on for 1,000 years took different forms — robbery through forced fines, extortion, exile, massacre — and it has had one determining, unchangeable result: it has reinforced in the Jew his original hatred for Christian civilization to the point where it is the sole content and meaning of his existence. This hatred is the breath of life to the Jew. He wants to tear down everything which surrounds him, every Western form of life, every Western idea. For a thousand years he cringed before the European master, who was so unassailable in his superiority. The figure of Shylock, drinking his gall and biding his time, taking his usury and saving the coins which represented to him the means of his liberation — this is the symbolic figure of the Jew for a thousand years. This consuming hatred on the part of the Jew is one of the most important facts in the world today. The Jew is a world power. How did this come about?

The Rise of the Jew to Power

It was the Industrial Revolution in Europe and America which enabled the Jew, from having been Shylock for a thousand years, the despised and cringing usurer, to become the type of the modern Jew, the cinema dictator, the tyrant of the inmost thoughts of 100,000,000 Americans. The Jew had been thinking in terms of economics and money for a thousand years before Europe and America began to develop a money civilization. Consequently when money stepped out as the supreme force, the Jew shot upward like a meteor. There was still a barrier however to his complete conquest of power. The heathen, the outsider, was still barred from civil rights. Of old he had not sought them, but now they were necessary if he was to conquer the master of yesterday. Nation after nation succumbed to the principles which the butchers of the French Revolution preached, and which the Jew took up and excitedly shouted over the world. A money civilization wants no aristocracy to stand in its way, so Money and Jew preached equality. Nor must there be any barriers to the employment of money, so the Jew preached liberty. He sought to lose his mark as outsider, for in his new role he wanted to be accepted as a member of whatever nation he might be among, so that he might conquer the power for his revenge. So he preached fraternity for others and the brotherhood of man.

But his “equality” meant only a new inequality — the dictatorship of the Master of Money over the economic slave tied to his bench with a wage-chain. His “liberty” meant that the Jew was free to squeeze out the life-blood of nations through usury and financial dictatorship. The “brotherhood of man” — that meant that the Jew was to be accepted as an equal — but that he was to maintain his ancient unity and desire for revenge. Now the point has been reached where he steps out and asks for special privileges — and gets them! Yesterday he denied aristocracy — today he affirms it — and he is the new aristocrat!! Did not Albert Einstein, before whom Americans are supposed to bow and scrape, write in Colliers Magazine an article entitled “Why the Jew is Superior”? And did not the white Americans afraid to think for himself any longer, read it and believe?

The Jew did not conceive nor organize modem industrialism. No more did he organize liberalism. But when these two things had become realities, he cleverly insinuated himself into the new social and economic fabric which arose, and he has now identified himself with the rapacious capitalism of the sweatshops and with the dishonest and revolting “democracy” of the type where Tweedledum opposed Tweedledee, and the Jew cares not which wins for he nominates them both.

There was a great danger to the Jew in this removal of all barriers between him and the host nations. This danger was assimilation of the great mass of Jews. If this were to occur, the Rothschilds, Baruchs, Frankfurters, Rosenmans, Guggenheims, Schiffs, Lehmanns, Cohens — all these would be leaders without followers. They would lose their trustworthy followers who could penetrate everywhere and spread the influence of the Jew. One fruitful source of taxation would be gone. So the word “assimilated” became a term of contempt used by arch-Jews to describe other Jews who were losing their Jewish feelings and instincts. The Jew, with his two thousand years behind him, was faced with a perilous situation. No mere money manipulation could cope with this emergency. In this situation, the Jewish leaders invented Zionism.

Zionism and the Pinnacle of Jewish Power

It was a political master-stroke on the part of the Jew to bring out the movement known as Zionism. Its ostensible aim was to seek a “national home” for the Jew, a plot of ground to which all Jews would theoretically return and there settle. Since the idea seemed to be to make the Jews into a nation like America, one with geographical boundaries, it seemed a praiseworthy movement to Americans. It seemed to promise the end of the Jews as the shifting sand dunes among nations, and to herald their establishment as a civilized nation. Hence unlimited Zionist activity and propaganda could be carried on among the Jews by their leaders, and no suspicion was aroused in the minds of the host nations.

But the real aim of Zionism was merely to save the Jew, wherever he was, from assimilation by the Western peoples, the European and American people. It enabled their leaders to unite the Jews firmly, to prevent assimilation by giving the Jews a political aim to follow. The spurious quality of the movement is shown by the fact that almost no Jews were moved to Palestine. A few only were moved, for commercial and political reasons and to conceal the Zionist fraud, but the millions remained in America and Europe. The real aim of Zionism — to reaffirm and perpetuate the solidarity of the Jew — has been successful. Zionism has become the official policy of the Jewish entity, and its ascendancy means, as far as the simple, ordinary Jew is concerned, that he is an utter slave in the hands of his leaders. It is probably superfluous to mention that no leading Zionist has gone from his position of power in white America back to Palestine. Nor need it be pointed out once more how few out of the millions of Jews driven from Europe have gone to Palestine. Almost to a man, they have come to America, their land of promise, the last base for their power, the last place for their revenge.

The invasion of Palestine, strategically important though it is, nevertheless stands in the shade of the vast invasion of America. During the short half century since Jewry adopted Zionism, some ten millions of Jews have been dumped on the shores of North America to displace Americans biologically and economically, to live parasitically on the American organism, to distort the social and spiritual life of the nation. The volume of the invasion has been such that even the slumbering, politically-unconscious white American has begun to blink his eyes and look around him in amazement, as he becomes gradually cognizant that his native land has passed into the possession of scheming, power-hungry, money-grubbing, total aliens.

The alien has his own press, in which he reveals those things which the democratic-liberal press dutifully conceals at the behest of the Jew. Pick up at random an issue of the Contemporary Jewish Record — that for June 1941. On page 282 we are told how Jewish educators are combating successfully “the un-American movement of 100% Americanism.” On page 259 a member of the American Jewish Committee joyfully reports that because of the hostility between American and Jew the successive waves of Jewish immigrants “will develop into a cohesive American Jewish community.” The article “The Jewish Emigrant — 1941,” describing the arrival of the Jew in America, says: “Our sole conclusion is that when the emigrant has finally arrived at his destination, he can consider himself at the entrance to Heaven” (sic).

Seven million of these immigrants have arrived at their “entrance to Heaven” since 1933. There is admitted hostility between them and their host-people. The Jew opposes 100% Americanism. Yet he calls his arrival here his “entrance to Heaven.” How is this?

The Rising Influence of the Jew in America

The North American continent was discovered, explored, cleared, plowed, and settled by the individual imperialism of members of the European-American white race. The political independence of America was won, and the industrial-technical system of the continent was planned and built by the white race. The American merchant marine was built and sent into the seven seas by white men. Every creative idea in whatever realm — political, economic, technical, religious, legal, educational, social — that has been brought forth on this continent has originated with, and been developed by, members of the white European-American race. America belongs spiritually, and will always belong, to the Western Civilization of which it is a colonial transplantation, and no part of the true America belongs to the primitivity of the barbarians and fellaheen outside of this civilization, whether in Asia Minor, the Far East, or Africa.

And yet, even though the Jew was not present at Valley Forge, even though he was not at New Orleans in 1814, nor at the Alamo, nor at Bull Run or Chancellorsville, nor at Guantanamo Bay or Manila, even though he took no part in the conquest of the continent — in spite of this complete dissociation of the Jew from the American past, it is a stark and gruesome fact that America today is ruled by the Jew.

Where Americans hold office, they hold it at the pleasure of the Jews and use it in deference to his policy. Baruch argues with Roserman on the steps of the White House — once the residence of Washington, Madison, Adams — and the policy of America is thus determined. LaGuardia calls Lehmann by a Yiddish term of abuse in public. As lawyer, the Jew brings in excessive litigation; as judges he imports chicanery into the administration, and has the power to pronounce rules of law for Americans. A rabbi states: “The ideals of Judaism and the ideals of Americanism are one and the same,” And the Jewish Chronicle (April 4, 1919) says: “The ideals of Bolshevism are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism.” The notorious rabbi Wise announces, “I have been an American for 67 years, but I have been a Jew for 6000 years.” The Jewish Chronicle tells us: “The Jews in America are 100% Jewish and 100% American.” These schizophrenic percentages resolve themselves into the thesis of the rabbis that Judaism, Trotskyist Bolshevism, and Americanism are one and the same. The synagogues have a parade of liberals — sub-Americans with defective instincts — come before them to parrot back at them their own view-point.

The Jew numbers approximately 10% of the North American populations but in the Second World War, a war fought solely for Jewish interests, a war of his fomenting, a war to increase his power, the conscripts in the American Army were only 2% Jewish, according to official records. Neither in his assumed role of American, nor in his actual status as member of the Jewish Culture-State-Nation-Race-People, was he willing to risk his blood, even in his own war. In the fighting forces he limited his participation to the administrative branches: Judge Advocate, Medical, Quartermaster, Finance. In the American Army Jewish conscripts have an unconditional right to a furlough for Passover, for Yom Kippur, for Rosh Hashanah. The induction of Jews into the Army is delayed over Jewish holidays — “to avoid undue hardship.” The Central Conference of American Rabbis in the 47th annual convention in New York addressed a resolution to the American Congress asking that Jews be exempted from conscription “in accordance with the highest interpretation of Judaism”!

In the publicly supported educational institutions for higher learning, the Jew is driving out the native American student. In the free universities, such as Wayne University and City College of New York, the Jew’s possession is complete. The Stock Exchange presents a similar picture. The New York Exchange is dormant on Jewish holidays. The Officers Reserve Corps is ever more penetrated by the Jews. The police forces of the large cities are under his control, and the Federal secret police enforce his bidding. He commands the National Guard in the populous states.

How has this come about? How has the native American been driven from the positions of representation, of power and respect in his own land? How has he been chased out of the professions, out of government, of the universities, out of the sources of public information? How did the interloper from Asia, the ghetto-creature from Kishnev, attain to his eminence whereupon he holds in his hands the decision of war or peace, and decides who are America’s friends and who are America’s enemies?

Two things are responsible for this situation in which America finds itself serving as a mere tool in the hands of an alien. First is Liberalism — the enemy of national greatness, the virus that eats up national feelings. Liberalism is the doctrine that everyone is equal, everyone acceptable, the doctrine that the botched, the misbegotten are equal to the strong and the superior, that there are no foreigners and no distinctions. Liberalism gnaws away at the structure for which patriots and great leaders gave their lives and fortunes. To Liberalism, America is a “melting-pot”, a dump heap for the world’s human refuse. When the white race in Europe drives out the Jew, he goes to America where weak heads and inferiors who are jealous of that to which they are not equal have laid down for him the red carpet of Liberalism, and on this carpet, the Jew has advanced to supreme power in the short half a century since he first discovered that America is a fine host for an enterprising parasite. Liberalism is the inversion of that 100% Americanism which the Jew hates.

But mere Liberalism alone does not account for it. The second factor has been the aggressive unity of the Jew, his cohesiveness born of hate, which has welded him together and organized his forces for his mission of destruction. By virtue of the cohesiveness of the Jewish entity, at once Culture, State, Nation, People, Race, Religion, and Society, the Jew conquered the cinema industry, the news-gathering associations which controls all “news” and journalistic opinion, the periodical and book press, and the radio networks. When it became obvious the “Republican” party was about to lose the 1932 election, he cleverly insinuated himself into the “Democratic” party, and placed his candidate in the Presidency. This was the Revolution of 1933, but since it had occurred in the form of a simple change of parties, the politically-unconscious American remained unaware.

In 1933, there descended upon Washington the swarm led by Baruch, Lehmann, Morgenthau, Frankfurter, Niles, and Rosenman. In their train were thousands of Paswolskis, Messersmiths, Lubins, Berles, Fortases, Lilienthals, Cohens, Ezekiels, Silversteins, et al., and bringing up the procession came enough lesser Jews, deracinated liberals, technocrats, and aliens to double the population of the capital city within a few years.

Between the cracks in the pavement the Jew recruited a thousand sub-Americans as “radio commentators,” newspaper “columnists,” and professional propagandists to disseminate the world-outlook the Jew considered appropriate for the American. A multiplicity of government bureaus came into existence, necessarily staffed with Jews. The Jew sought to bring under his control every factor of public expression and influence, thus to make sure that never again would there be a free national election for he did not intend to relinquish his power, so long dreamt of, and now at last real, through the free play of any constitutional game of parties and majorities. He purged the central government of whoever could not be led by the nose, or bought. Who opposed was shouted down, smeared with vile labels, and so silenced.

Thus America was given a semitic countenance.

Categories
Feminism Marriage Real men Roger Devlin

A final solution to the feminist problem

Roger Devlin has been publishing another series of insightful anti-feminist articles at Counter-Currents, of which I would like to pick up just a few sentences of his latest article, “The Feminine Sexual Counter-Revolution & its Limitations, Part 2”:


Sharon Stone during the interrogation scene in Basic Instincts, just before showing her pubic hair to the male interrogators.


A man should never base his self-image on what women think of him in any case, because women’s concerns are too materialistic and self-centered. (“He that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife,” as St. Paul put it.) The men who have accomplished the greatest things for our civilization have not, by and large, resembled the heroes of women’s romance fiction; indeed, they have been disproportionately celibate. Once a man realizes what triggers female attraction, and understands that women’s judgments of men are largely rationalizations of this attraction (or its absence), he will not be inclined to overvalue their opinion of him.

As far as I can see, if we are unwilling to hold women strictly accountable for their actions, we have only one logical recourse available: a return to the ancient Roman legal doctrine that a woman is a perpetual minor. This would involve an end not merely to contemporary “women’s liberation” but to an entire legal tradition that has developed within Christendom over centuries. For starters, it means women could no longer be permitted to hold property or enter into contracts.

In the America of the 1950s—the baby boom—the average age for women at first marriage sank as low as 20. I emphasize the word “average”: plenty of girls were younger, marrying right out of high school or even before. To this day, marriage at 16 is legal for girls in all 50 states (with parental consent). During the Christian Middle Ages, a bride was often a bit younger still. Most Americans today have no idea how bizarre their horror at “teenage pregnancy” would have seemed in other times and places.

On a final note, and as a service to The Last Ditch’s female readers, I would like to reveal what makes a man commit. It is in fact an extremely simple matter, although carefully unmentioned in women’s magazines: children. A normal man feels morally committed to a woman who is bearing him children he can feel certain are his. The survival of our civilization may depend upon women’s speedily reacquainting themselves with this ancient and timeless reality.