web analytics

Category: Conservatism

Categories
Axiology Conservatism Constantine Constantinople Eschatology Hermann (Arminius) Jesus Swastika Tom Sunic William Pierce

After AD: Before and after the Führer

In the thread on Judeo reductionism, Roger commented today:

Think of the fall of Byzantium. This may have been seen as a great calamity for Europe but on reflection, this helped concentrate power in western Europe and reinvigorated it. Likewise, the utter destruction of America may be the best thing for the White Man… but obviously anyone within those territories will have differing views.

Great point on the need of the fall of Constantinople (which, incidentally, was already too mongrelized ethnically by the time when Mehmed’s cannons made a huge hole on its walls).

I have observed, in the three and a half years that I have been active over white nationalist boards, that quite a few nationalists are infinitely more immature than the leaders of the National Socialist regime insofar as religion is concerned. Even long before the Nazis America was larger and more prosperous economically but more primitive spiritually (just compare German to American music). Genuine spirituality cannot be measured through the American way. Believing in traditional religion or new age nonsense is not enlightening but psychological dissociation.

If homo Americanus is indeed homo Judaicus as Tomislav Sunić maintains, the only way that Americans and Canadians change their so-called spiritual ways is that Murka burns after the dollar crashes and all of their worldwide hegemony be lost. In this New World Order scenario the German people will have a last chance to reclaim their (presently) murdered self-esteem, as a blogger of Germanic origin stated in the post that I have linked the most, “The Red Giant.”

After what the Anglo-Saxons did in the 1940s the only way that these people could possibly atone for their sins is to get rid of the Anno Domini calendar, the one that betokens the birth of “Jesus”—a Latinized, post-Exilic modification of the Hebrew Yĕhōšuă, (Joshua)—as a model for Aryans. In fact, they must get rid of the Jewish god altogether and, instead, base history on the death of Hitler—not on the day when he was born—: a genuine human, all too human model for the white peoples. Only thus will the crime that the Allied forces perpetrated in the century when we were born be remembered for posterity. Books like Hellstorm must be expanded a thousandfold by future scholars in landmark works, just as the Gulag Archipelago functioned like a stake through the hearts of deranged French leftists when I was much younger.

I know that on this issue I am alone among the white nationalists of this continent, which are still stuck in Judeo-Christian values. Today, for example, I received an e-mail that Greg Johnson delivered to all subscribers of Counter-Currents’ newsletter that mentioned Matt Parrott. Although Greg is supposedly an anti-Christian and Matt an Orthodox Christian, axiologically these two Americans are almost exactly on the same page. Greg for one claims to be a fascist in his webzine but he de facto functions like a conservative, as I have pointed out in what is perhaps the most emblematic post of WDH. After the death of William Luther Pierce no American nationalist that I know has transvaluated Christian values back to Aryan values, at least not in such a direct and unabashed way as Pierce did.

My philosophy results from my brutal honesty: Don’t take seriously this politically-correct, new generation of American white nationalists. They don’t feel the same hatred towards the New Constantinople that Pierce felt. As long as, unlike him, they don’t bring Nietzschean axiology to its ultimate consequences, they will continue to function as reactionary conservatives instead of genuine revolutionaries.

Pace the American New rightists, the New Constantinople will fall soon. The commenter Deutscher recently linked at another WDH thread an article that pointed out that it is common that dying empires unravel with unholy speed: a single year for Portugal, two years for the Soviet Union, eight years for France, eleven years for the Ottomans, seventeen years for Great Britain… I predict that the United States will fall in about the same time that the other empire that eventually liberated the blacks fell: Portugal. After all, Austrian economists predict that the collapse of the American dollar will unfold very, very rapidly, with hyperinflation leading to the collapse of all of the US government’s power. (If you don’t believe it and want to discuss the issues, please do it in a thread that has received zero comments: here.)

The good news is that imperial decline tends to have a remarkably demoralizing impact on a society especially after economic privation.

Only decades after the coming eschaton and the ensuing chaos and cure for humility for North Americans could a revaluation of all Judeo-Christian values be manifested by means of replacing the Gregorian calendar by the new one. Only such a cultural shock will convey the westerners in general and the North Americans in particular the eschatological sign that the Christian era, which inadvertently had been responsible for the Judaization of the West after Luther, is over. Like the author of “The Red Giant” I believe that the age of all those centuries since the founder of Constantinople handed over the Roman Empire to his bishops is coming to an end. In the new era no more white children will be taught of the feats of Moses and David and Yĕhōšuă (“Jesus”). Instead, they will be taught the doings of Vercingetorix and Hermann and Hitler—even when these Aryans died most tragically while defending their people.

Covington in uniform

Novelist Harold Covington in uniform

For that reason alone, yesterday I added excerpts of a novel that conveys the feeling of what a future Nationalist Socialist Republic would look in the American Northwest, just in case that the Anglo-Saxons do indeed atone for their mortal sins.

In the following days I will be adding more and more excerpted chapters. Enjoy the coming entries or, still better, obtain a hard copy of a novel where the Swastika will be used in the uniforms of the Seattle and Portland military and police.

Ex Gladio Libertas!
Anno Hitleris 68

Categories
Conservatism Eschatology

Amazon comments on Mark Steyn’s book

MS

Steyn begins by showing us the writing on the wall, using the story of Belshazzar’s feast as a framework to show us that we are broke. Not just in financial difficulties or right up against it, but way past a mere spendthrift nation and into a level of debt that will not only bankrupt the world, but generations to come.

Chapter one shows us images of America past and compares it with America present and compares that with late Rome. Rome was built slowly, but fell quickly. America may be in for the same nightmare.

Chapter two shows us what the true American Dream was, demonstrates how we have traded in our patrimony for some magic beans and some Fool’s Gold. Chapter three demonstrates how close we are to the sickness of Greece right here in America. Much closer than anyone admits and Obama’s policies are drawing us and the whole world closer to that abyss. Chapter four takes us through the cultural decay the role the present all-consuming fetish with Diversity has played in making America weak and incapable of response to our present difficulties. He uses the images of Eloi and Morlocks to show the cultural split between American elites and Americans who actually produce. And how the Americans who still do are condemned, mocked, and are being nanny-stated into becoming passive and government approved Eloi.

What a terrific book. I hope you get a copy and read it. And then tell all your friends about it so they can also hear the warning. And get some laughs as they think about the nightmare we truly face. I know it sounds odd. But we don’t just cry at funerals. Sometimes we have to laugh, too.

Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Saline, MI

♣

In November of 2010, bestselling author and radio personality Mark Steyn gave a speech in London, Ontario, Canada entitled “Head for the Hills: Why Everything in Your World is Doomed.” While comical, Steyn put forth a very negative outlook for the West that addressed a lot of the major demographic challenges facing Western nations.

After America: Get Ready for Armageddon (the much anticipated sequel to America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It) focuses almost exclusively on the United States. The country that once shone as the beacon of wealth and freedom to the world lost its way, and Steyn doesn’t pretend that patriotism and belief in American exceptionalism alone can fix the problems plaguing the nation.

Drawing from some of the greatest thinkers of the past and present in his book, Steyn brings home lessons that people should have learned through history, particularly the recent history of Europe’s economic and cultural crash, as well as many anecdotes and chapters in ancient history. Most shocking was Steyn’s use of classic novels to illustrate his points. The shock comes not from an author using fiction to make his case for the decline of America, but that what’s happening in the present day is so unprecedented: plot lines previously thought of as bizarre fantasy have become reality.

Make no mistake: in the author’s eyes, the United States is not facing a decline—the decline is already happening, and has been since mid century. What’s next for America is a fall, a plummet, and the result is not pretty.

♣

His argument is straightforward, and familiar to anyone paying attention to the debt crisis. He claims that America has gone from a nation of producers to a nation of borrowers, as he puts it, “from a nation of aircraft carriers to a nation of debt carriers.” Steyn notes that our debt service alone could fund China’s military—even if China quadrupled its military budget.

He sums up the situation with one great Steynism after another, my favorite: “We’ve spent too much of tomorrow today—to the point where we’ve run out of tomorrow.”

♣

This is probably the only recent book that will have you rolling on the floor with laughter while discussing such a depressing subject (the last such book was Steyn’s America Alone). Steyn takes a hard look at the position of the U.S. today financially, politically and in terms of national security and analyzes these with his deep insight and hilarious writing style. As Steyn would probably say himself: “it’s the end of the world as we know it, but I feel fine.”

♣

PC is the chains that keep the Eloi silent. Government hand outs are what keep the Eloi bound. It works amazingly well. Mark’s goes on to show how absolutely dreadful the Federal and State governments of the USA has become.

Personally I don’t think the USA will just up and go away like old Rome. Instead it will eventually fade into an overworked, overtaxed, and over governed society with indifferent citizens. The person who has correctly predicted the future of the USA was Robert Bork in his book Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline.

♣

His previous book America Alone was about the decline of the western world sans USA. After America is about the impending decline of the United States due to massive spending and growing debt. Steyn warns that fall of the USA will be a catastrophe for the whole world and it will be a nasty thing.

♣

The hot topic lately in Washington is the astronomical debt of the U.S. Government. But Steyn demonstrates that the questions of government debt, overspending, and likely national decline are fundamentally moral questions…

♣

Western civilization, Steyn writes, “is a synthesis—a multicultural synthesis, if you like: Athenian democracy, Roman law, the Hebrew Bible, dispersed by London to every corner of the globe.” In many ways, America is the culmination of this glorious heritage. Unfortunately, America now more closely resembles the newer, degenerated versions of these once-great geopolitical states (Rome, Athens, Britain and Jerusalem) than their celebrated pasts, which so mightily contributed to the founding of our country.

Steyn states what everyone knows but is afraid to say: The welfare state of Europe and, to a slightly lesser degree, America, is simply unsustainable. “When you’re spending four trillion dollars but only raising two trillion in revenue, you’ve no intention of paying it off, and the rest of the world knows it.” The Obama administration, upon taking office, took the average Bush deficit from 2001-2008 and doubled it—all the way to 2020.

America’s debt has other consequences besides just the obvious ones. In 2010, half of our debt was owned by foreigners, and most of that was held by the Chinese. Steyn continues:

“What does that mean? In 2010, the U.S. spent about $663 billion on its military, China about $78 billion. If the People’s Republic carries on buying American debt at the rate it has in recent times, then within a few years U.S. interest payments on that debt will be covering the entire cost of the Chinese armed forces.”

Yikes! And all that, Steyn mentions, while China is undergoing, according to alarming Pentagon reports, a “massive military build-up.” In other words, we are paying what might be our most dangerous enemy to build-up and maintain its military. Can someone say insane?

♣

This is a direct quote from the flyleaf of the book: “What will a world without American leadership look like? It won’t be pretty—not for you and not for your children. America’s decline won’t be gradual, like an aging Europe sipping espresso at a cafe until extinction (and the odd Greek or Islamist riot). No, America’s decline will be a wrenching affair marked by violence and possibly secession.”

♣

Unlike the situation with Europe though, when America collapses there will be no great Western Civ nation to carry the banner and support Western Civ’s ideals in the world.

Don’t read this book if you don’t want to be severely depressed. In fact, I’d most likely recommend this one to lefties. Since they don’t use their brains anyway, and will never absorb any of the truth to bear the burdens of being an adult knowing adult things. They’ll be too busy frothing at the mouth, angry at Steyn for using Obama’s name in a book talking about America’s decline.

♣

Neither Limbaugh nor Steyn have advanced, or even college, degrees. Yet each has more insight, intelligence, honesty and humor each weekday than most Harvard graduates muster in a lifetime. What if they had gone to Harvard? We can never know, but I’m glad they didn’t.

♣

Truth hurts and can also be depressing. Is the reader more ready for Armageddon having read the book? If “ready” means to be not surprised and awake and conscious while facing reality, the read is worth it. If “ready” means spiritually at peace, look elsewhere.

♣

This is a very fine authorship of issues confronting the Western nation economies. Although the title and content certainly focus on America, the overall impact of decades of badly managed fiscal policies has finally caught up with America especially. And what goes wrong here will also go wrong with all other nations linked to the dollar or euro.

The coming Armageddon is an appropriate phrase for the repositioning of western economies into a pattern of insignificance globally speaking. The eventual reality for America is the weakening of our global influence to a level where we cannot do anything more than struggle with a 3rd world level of significance. The fiscal debt and loss of influence will place America in a position of meaningless power.

♣

Mark Steyn is a true patriot that is not afraid to tell the truth and deserves to be read, heard, and recognized as a brave warrior in American politics. The people of America must wake up to the eventual destruction that is propelling us to the brink of cataclysmic uncertainty if we don’t get out of our comfort zone from the distraction of entertainment until it is too late…

♣

A wonderful book. Steyn somehow is able to be very funny on a topic that is disturbing and depressing. The book is not very well organized. It’s a torrent of data about contemporary America, all of it pointing toward an imminent collapse, all of it well documented.

♣

Any English teacher seeking writing samples to illustrate figures of speech—from alliteration to understatement—would find an abundant source here. Steyn is a word artist.

Some (of many) coinages: armageddonouttahere, conformicrats, Eurosclerosis. He turns common phrases upside down and inside out and presents ideas in new, and usually comic, ways. Steyn always provides a fresh perspective on issues, ideas you don’t find anywhere else. And even ideas you have heard before are presented in novel ways.

♣

America Alone warned us; we continue to slide into an abyss of our own making. After America is Mr. Steyn’s red alert. With typical brilliance and humor he paints a picture of a great nation in its death throes.

♣

Mark Steyn, well known radio host and author of previous bestsellers, writes a sobering 350 pages of anecdotes and statistics showing a bleak future for America and the world.

This type of book is becoming more common and more mainstream, unfortunately. Not too long ago, anyone that saw such a dark future would have been called an extremist wacko. Nobody says that anymore. Perhaps the first down-rating of America’s financial picture convince you, perhaps our endless wars and casualties, perhaps our inability to prevent illegal immigration, perhaps our failing cities and states. What Steyn does well is put all of these kinds of trend together in an understandable whole, backed up by extensive documentation.

In addition to the 350 pages, we get 50 pages of footnotes. Steyn’s research is impeccable. The book consists of chapters on economics, culture, demographics and has frequent excerpts from current essays and news reports. Steyn writes clearly and uses humor effectively, but does not resort to simple primal screaming in print.

♣

I figured out long ago that the United States seems intent on committing suicide by government so Mr. Steyn’s message was well received by me.

♣

I just finished Stanley Goldman’s How Civilizations Die. These are both must read books.

♣

In his previous book, America Alone, Steyn argued from a demographics perspective that the Islamic world was taking over the West and that the U.S. was the only nation in the West with a birthrate that didn’t portend a hopeless national death spiral. In After America, Steyn looks at the world through the lens of economics and he determines that the U.S. has joined the rest of the West in a self-destroying debt spiral, one which will result in a short shift of power to countries like China and Russia.

Since Steyn published America Alone, a lot has happened. Obama was voted in by a star-struck, celebrity worshipping, fiscally suicidal U.S. majority who believes that Obama’s personal charisma can underwrite an eternal and bottomless credit line with China and other (often hostile) foreign creditors. But unlike most party-line republicans, Steyn recognizes that, while Obama has done much to worsen and hasten the U.S. fiscal death spiral, he is not the real problem. In fact, the best America could hope for from a majority of republican politicians and presidential candidates would be to slow the car from 90 to 70 miles per hour as it speeds toward the cliff.

♣

My Adorable Husband kicked me out of bed for reading this book—I was laughing out loud at the perfect phrasing and framing of the issues. It was disturbing his sleep.

♣

This book reads like a long Mark Steyn column. Steyn is a great composer of one-liners that induce both thought and laughter. The sarcasm and cynicism that drips through the pages also points to greater sad truths about the civilizational torpor of the West and the sad state of who we have become as a nation.

♣

I finally stopped reading this book for my own mental health. After going through emotions such as anger, then fear, then depression, I was wondering what Mr. Steyn would offer as a solution rather than depressing us all to kingdom come.

♣

If only to further annoy your friends who shun you at cocktail parties as a relentless purveyor of doom and gloom, read After America and burnish your perceptions and arguments. You may at least become more entertaining if not more popular.

♣

A doomsday book ought not to be this much fun to read. Steyn’s wit, erudition, and style are second to none in today’s polemical political punditry, and in his latest book he’s been combining them and using them to the max.

♣

Steyn has a gift for taking a very depressing topic—the decompression of America from superpower to Greece—and making it entertaining and informative. He documents how an entitlement culture has bred dependency and how, in the face of a debt crisis, the government we elected has opted for… wait for it… more spending and regulations!

♣

If you want to get past the noise coming from the media and understand the magnitude of the turd flying towards the fan, this is the book for you. Incisive, witty, thoughtful laying out of the mess we are in and the even nastier one we are heading into. Don’t expect partisanship. Steyn understands that there is plenty of blame to go around and a lack of seriousness on both sides. Even though Steyn doesn’t endorse any politician, after reading this book I wistfully dreamed of a Ron Paul presidency.

♣

Steyn is witty and funny though there is nothing funny about what’s going on in the world as America withdraws and takes its place with those Western nations that dominated a century and then went to sleep: Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Great Britain and now us.

♣

Describes the severity of our financial and cultural problems as the United States nears its end. Essentially, the point is that Americans are dependents of government, the government is run by pseudo-intellectual twits, and there is no possible way our economy can survive the debt crisis.

However, I must dock one star because the author keeps suggesting that some of this might be avoidable. That is hopelessly optimistic. 2012 was the last chance, and America blew it. The Obama administration is now talking about minting trillion dollar coins. Republican “spending cuts” are not only rejected by the Democrats, but are so pathetically miniscule that they wouldn’t do diddly-squat even if implemented. The question now is what to do with your savings… gold? land? ammo? We’ll find out soon.

♣

Outlines a very accurate analysis of our national future. Chronicles how we’re destroying our economy, giving away our freedoms, stripping our national defense and making the future of the world a much less free and much more dangerous and poverty stricken place for everyone.

Unfortunately, if you’re getting government assistance, you probably don’t care.

Categories
Axiology Conservatism Democracy Egalitarianism Enlightenment Evil Individualism Liberalism Universalism

Egalitarianism is evil

Or:

Equality, the immovable object that stands in our way


Now that I am following Tom Sunic in that an egalitarian mindset is behind the empowerment of the Jews, the article “Moral Barriers to White Survival” by Alex Kurtagic published in American Renaissance (reproduced below) makes much sense, in spite of the fact that Kurtagic has been very reluctant to blame Christian axiology directly. He rightfully blames Enlightenment values though, but does not go as far as the European New Right which seems to perceive the root of our woes in our parents’ religion.

Kurtagic

Many race realists are frustrated by liberal resistance to empirical truths. They would like to think that any rational person will study the facts, reflect upon them, and modify his beliefs accordingly—not immediately, of course, nor without a healthy measure of skepticism, but surely over time. Yet, as I have often said, in discussions of race and race relations “the facts” are not as important as we would like to think, because when choosing sides on this topic people are motivated primarily by non-factual considerations. In this essay I will explore the reasons why liberalism, though rooted in the scientific revolution and coming from the rationalist and empiricist intellectual traditions, has proven so impervious to the science of race.

Any facts or arguments that are brought into a discussion about race and race relations are nearly always subordinated to social considerations. Some of these are the need to be liked by family and friends; the desire to be liked by those one likes and admires and by whom one wants to be liked and admired; the need for social status; and ethnic identification. These considerations, because they are important sources of essential human needs, may cause the same set of data to be interpreted by people in radically different ways, including ways that fly in the face of evidence and make no objective sense.

We have an obvious example in the liberal/Left’s assertion that race has no biological basis, when the senses tell us otherwise and there is even race-specific medicine. A liberal/Leftist is committed to a moral system that deems equality an absolute moral good, and in a Western society, his status, particularly among whites, depends on his being considered morally righteous. Therefore, he will readily accept convenient data but dismiss inconvenient data or make it conform to his requirements. Those who accept this convenient data are embraced by whites in Western societies as morally sound, while those who accept inconvenient data are marginalized as moral defectives.

Such bias is not exclusive to liberalism or the Left; it is everywhere. What changes according to ethnic identification and cultural context is the value assigned to a morality based on universal abstract principles: For whites in the West this is very important, for other groups, in the West and elsewhere, it is less so, as their moral systems tend to be particularist and ethnocentric rather than universalist—the good is what is good for them.

In Western societies, whites who hold unconventional views, even views that fall outside liberal morality, are not exempt from such bias either.


Critique of pure empiricism

Race realists are a product of modernity and Enlightenment philosophy. They realize that humans are motivated by moral and ethical sentiments rather than reason, but, at the same time, they act as if knowledge, understood as empirical evidence processed by reason, ought to be the basis for morality. In this sense they are the diametrical opposite of their opponents, for whom what ought to be determines what is.

Put in more simple terms, race realists forget that knowledge does not come into being in a moral vacuum. On the contrary, knowledge is sought and acquired by individuals committed, a priori, to a given moral code, and this knowledge is interpreted, disseminated, and then used in accordance with a moral code.

Liberal morality

The dominant moral system in the West is liberal morality. To understand this system we need to understand the structure of liberalism.

In liberalism, the historical subject is the individual. The individual is the measure of all things. The idea behind liberalism is to “liberate” the individual from anything that is external or transcendent to him, such as faith, tradition, and authority. The transcendent implies hierarchy: subordination of the individual to something higher. Absent this higher something, one is left only with the individual, and without faith, tradition, or higher authority, an individual becomes like any other individual. Thus, equality.

When individuals are equal, they have an equal claim to a slice of the pie. Thus the ideal type of government becomes democracy, in its most radical form. Concurrently, where there is equality, what applies to one individual applies to all equally, everywhere and always. This means universalism.

The abandonment of the transcendent leads to a worldview that is entirely secular, rational, and material. The way to happiness then becomes material increase, pursued by rational means. This results in production, consumption, and economics. It becomes necessary to produce and to find ways to maximize production. Individualism, equality, democracy, universalism, secularism, rationalism, materialism, and economism constitute the foundations of liberal morality.

Not all of these values have equal importance. Two of them—liberty and equality—are privileged above the others, and have produced two strands of liberalism in modern times. The strand that favors equality incorporates the Marxist critiques of liberalism formulated during the 19th and 20th centuries; this is the dominant strand of liberalism today.

The strand that favors liberty is closer to Classical Liberalism, and its purest expression is libertarianism; this represents an important oppositional view within liberalism. It is important to note, however, that both strands regard equality as an absolute moral good. In liberalism, in both its dominant form and its main oppositional form, the moral goodness of equality is taken for granted and stands beyond discussion or criticism. Liberal morality considers the questioning of the goodness of equality a serious moral defect.

Liberal morality therefore deems race realism an evil because race realism asserts the essential inequality of man. In this way liberal morality puts race realism outside the realm of acceptable discourse, and race realists outside the realm of civilized society.

Critiques of liberalism and its effects

During the 19th and 20th centuries, liberalism was subjected to critiques, from both the Left (Marxism) and the Right (Fascism/National Socialism). Liberalism, Marxism, and Fascism/National Socialism are the three primary ideologies of modernity. Fascism and National Socialism were defeated by Marxism and liberalism in 1945, and Marxism was defeated by liberalism in 1989. Of the three ideologies of modernity, only liberalism survives.

Fascism and National Socialism fell into discredit after the war and, due to their being inegalitarian ideologies, became shorthand for evil. Marxism was partially absorbed by modern liberalism because of its egalitarian morality, thus tipping modern liberalism even more heavily toward egalitarianism. As a result, modern liberalism is distinct from classical liberalism.

The triumph of liberalism has, in turn, made it invisible. Russian theorist Alexander Dugin claims that it has long since ceased to be political, and has gone on to become a taken-for-granted practice. We have certainly seen liberals branding critiques of liberalism as “ideological” without any sense that their own worldview is ideological.

Opposition of liberty and equality within liberalism

The triumph of liberalism, and the triumph of equality within liberalism, has meant that now, even liberty is subordinated to the requirements of equality. As communism and the multicultural experiment have demonstrated, liberty and equality are incompatible, so the ever-greater pursuit of equality results in the ever-greater erosion of liberty. A commitment to radical equality results in the proliferation of laws, state surveillance, police enforcement, prosecutions, incarcerations—and bureaucracies to administrate all of the above, and higher taxes to pay for all of it.

This is nowadays always justified with the argument that unlimited freedom leaves the field open to “fascism” (i.e., inequality), and that liberty must be curtailed in order to protect, guarantee, and maximize equality. We end up with a circular argument, then, whereby equality is good because it increases equality.



Immovable object?

Therefore, the single biggest impediment to the cause of Western man in the West is not lack of knowledge about race, but lack of a moral justification for valuing whiteness and everything it entails. Obviously, to value whiteness gives it a special status, which means inequality. In liberal morality, it is not acceptable to recognize whiteness, because it is a category that exists above the individual, and the individual is supposed to be the measure of all things, a tabula rasa, equivalent and interchangeable with any other individual.

In addition, modern liberalism incorporates a Marxist historiography in which whites are an oppressor class and people of color an oppressed class. This is explicitly the historiography of the postcolonial theory that is taught in Western universities, which privileges the voices of the colored “oppressed.” These voices subject whiteness and the West to radical deconstruction and criticism. Whiteness is, in fact, allowed recognition only when it is linked to oppression; in any other context, a black person has the specificity of his blackness, but a white person has the unspecificity of being simply a human, who is no different from or more special than anyone else.

Thus, belief in the moral goodness of equality is the seemingly immovable object that stands in the way. If politics is the art of the possible, then any campaign predicated on values outside the perimeter of what is morally acceptable—i.e. outside liberal morality—will not be politically possible.

The cause for Western man requires a fundamental shift in consciousness that would begin with a thorough discrediting of the notion that equality is a moral good. Until this has been achieved, ethnic politics privileging whiteness in the West will go nowhere, and it will remain easy for the liberals to shut down debate with the simple expression of outrage and name-calling.

Time horizons

Critics of this view may object that while it may be true that a change of politics will require a change of moral system, the time necessary to achieve this is too long and no longer available to us.

This objection assumes that challenging liberal morality is an entirely new project that must begin from zero. In fact, liberal morality, like all ideological moral systems, is merely a transient phenomenon, whose present dominance conceals the long tradition it once successfully challenged. Since ancient times and until the more recent part of the modern era, Westerners have considered quality more important than equality. Consequently, there is a vast philosophical canon to draw from, recover, reinterpret, and adapt to the modern world. Indeed, this has been the project of the European New Right, and The Fourth Political Theory, by Dugin, is an important contribution to this effort that outlines possibilities for a way forward, though any fourth political theory towards a post-liberal West would necessarily need to be home-grown and have a uniquely Western formulation.

The objection also partakes, inadvertently, in liberal cosmology, which conceives historical processes as linear progressions. In fact, as communism demonstrated, when power changes hands, the transition is not incremental but abrupt, with dissent gestating almost invisibly at first, under the surface, before growing exponentially, achieving critical mass, and producing a sudden change in state. This is also the way transformations occur in nature and the universe.

Liberal morality will eventually collapse. The question in the West is whether it will give way to another, autochthonous morality or to the morality of our conquerors. If the former, historians of the future will probably not see us as a rupture, but as yet another reinvention of European man within his wider metacultural tradition; they are likely to see liberalism as a political-moral-philosophical paradigm that came and went, the way others had come and gone before. Historians of the future may mark the periods of history differently from us, and by tracing the origins of our ideas, may decide that this reinvention was the culmination of a process that had begun centuries before.

Conservative commentators, such as Pat Buchanan, blame the multicultural society in the West on the Frankfurt School of Social Research and other such Freudo-Marxist subversion, and place the watershed moment of social transformation in the 1960s. Mr. Buchanan is, however, a liberal, albeit of a more classical or archaic sort than his critics, who are also liberals. We can trace the origins of the multicultural society much further back, to the Enlightenment, of which the United States (but not the colonies out of which it was organised) is an expression. European New Right intellectuals and historians trace it farther back still, to Christian metaphysics, which sees all men created in God’s image, with salvation available to all.

The question in the West is how much territory we will lose before we can successfully discredit liberal morality. Curtailing those losses will require the artificial precipitation within liberalism of a moral and intellectual crisis that puts current morality on the defensive, generates doubt and loss of confidence in its principles, and leads eventually to panic, overreaction, and loss of credibility. The speed at which this can be achieved depends on complex factors, not to mention a measure of good fortune, but modern technology enables us to communicate and disseminate ideas more rapidly, more widely, and more cheaply than ever before.

Theory into practice

In any movement there are five planes of operation: the intellectual, the strategic, the organisational, the activist, and the man in the street. The first four are the movement proper and the latter is its target, which can be divided into three categories: the committed, who cannot be persuaded either for or against; the persuadable, who are the primary target for recruitment; and the conformist, who is apolitical and will follow whomever looks like a winner.

The activist will be useless, even counter-productive, unless his message and his arguments are informed by a sound, appropriate, and articulable moral theory; unless he is organised to operate credibly and effectively; and unless his organisation has strategies that can translate abstract theory into a pragmatic, results-oriented program of action.

The discrediting of liberal morality will need to be a process that begins with theoretical tracts and ends with protests, sit-ins, strikes, boycotts, and a pattern of establishment compromises and capitulation. The general theory will need to find its way into an endless barrage of narrowly defined, single-issue, winnable campaigns. It will be up to each individual to decide his preferred tactic and field of operation, based on his own strengths, weaknesses, experience, and areas of expertise. In this sense the opportunities are endless.

In the battle for the West the main obstacle in the Anglo-American world has been its aversion to theory. Anglo-Saxon man is pragmatic by nature, not given to philosophical speculation. He prefers to deal in the concrete and the factual. This problem is compounded by the fact that the United States—the world’s dominant power—is an Enlightenment project, whose founding documents were formulated by classical liberals in accordance with their philosophy. United States institutions may have fallen into the hands of hostile elites, but the liberal values of liberty, equality, democracy, and progress remain strong, and are, in fact, exploited by these elites to advance their interests. Theory is important. A way around this is to focus on morality, because Anglo-Saxon man is deeply preoccupied with morality.

The breakthrough will have been achieved when homo equalis is filled with deep feelings of shame when he is confronted with his own beliefs.

Caveats

The destruction of liberal morality will cause the collapse of liberalism. However, the collapse of liberalism will not necessarily mean that the individual values that comprise it will henceforth all be beyond the pale. It may be that not all of liberalism is bad and some of its constituent parts can be repurposed within a different set of value relations. If so, they will not be recognized as part of liberalism.

Also, while theory is important, this does not mean that everyone reading this should become a theoretician. For the Marxist, his theory is everything, but the anti-racist thugs who disrupt conferences and other events, while a product of Marxism, are unlikely to have ever read Marx, for they can hardly read their own names.

Final words

Ultimately, the problem of race realism is reducible to a single idea: that it is not the facts, but how people feel about the facts. The barriers that have limited or prevented the communicability of our proposition will only start to fall away when the value of whiteness can be expressed in righteous tones.


___________________________



See also “The liberal axiom,”
which could be used as a corollary to Kurtagic’s piece.

Categories
Conservatism Painting Real men

Hunter Wallace

exchange

Editor’s note: The following exchange between Alex Linder and Brad Griffin (a.k.a. Hunter Wallace) has been excerpted from a long thread on Vanguard News Network forum:
 

Brad Griffin said…

I don’t believe that Jews are 100% to blame for our situation. I believe there are many factors involved and that reducing it to the Jewish Question is simply an oversimplification of a complex process.

 
Alex Linder said…

“Main Jewish Cause” is accurate. “Single Jewish Cause” is a strawman.

VNN focused on jews for two reasons:

1) they are the powers that be, in 2012

2) they are the ones no one talks about

VNN has always mentioned the lesser causes of our racial decline, foremost of which is the jebus cult, which you conspicuously omit to blame at OD [Occidental Dissent]. Without abolitionism, no civil war. Without christianity, no abolitionism.

I have asked to no answer why the Catholic church is far more hostile to nazism than to communism.

Racial and christian worldviews are competitive, not complementary. Race offers a different and superior basis for society, and the church does not want white man to figure that out, as it briefly was under Hitler. The church prefers communism, because as bad as it is, it is temporary, since it runs against basic human nature, and will eventual disappear. Communism is such a repulsive and malignant jewish baby that even the ugly mexican baby of catholicism is appealing beside it. The key understanding is that there is nothing in the jebus cult that has any problem with the white race (or the South, for that matter) disappearing off the face of the earth. If there’s no doctrinal support for whites as whites, the doctrine is bad for us.

Originally Posted by Lew, for Alex:

What, exactly, do you hope to accomplish by attacking Christianity the way that you do? Who is your audience for these criticisms?

Audience is thinking adults. I hope to reduce respect for the cult in general by demonstrating its impotence and delusionality, the jew-obsequiousness of its leaders, and the functional anti-Whiteness of its doctrines. I would like to see the cult disappear among the white race. Christianity is criticized by jews for the wrong reasons, leading unthinking white men to think it must be basically good, just as WN foolishly assume same of Pat Buchanan because jews criticize him. Not so. The cult is a terrible thing—for reasons seldom given. I give those reasons, and I indicate how a race-firster were wise to treat the church, based on real-world evidence.

If a person is a WNist pagan or an atheist (like me), the person doesn’t need convincing Christian theology poses problems for racialists. If a person is a generic Christian, or a Christian with racial sympathies, and they do in fact exist, it doesn’t seem likely your critique will convince them to do anything different.

A christian with racial sympathies is confused and divided of mind, and needs the contradiction brought out so that he can decide which master to serve. And, by the way, as much ego as I use, I certainly don’t expect adult males to bow before me and proclaim me their leader; I expect the power and form of my delivery to put a little doubt behind their facade. And they can think it over privately away and safe from my mocking, which is, yes, quite vicious and harsh.

Related: why is attacking Christianity important when Jews hold much of the real power in society, and to the extent white gentiles hold significant power in society, they are almost all secular liberal egalitarians who reject Christianity?

Those secular liberal egalitarians are almost all christians, in fact. It’s important to attack christianity and conservatism because they are competitors for the minds and support we need for our cause. WN, coming from a Southern conservative background, have not understood this. This is why they freely mix these things. But that’s not what will work. We must distinguish and elevate our racial cause by attacking conservatives as our enemy, as I advocate in my essay elsewhere. Not by mixing with it and drowning ourself in it. We must be intolerant in order to rise, in order to gain the strength to defeat the main enemy—not mushy.

Smoothing over differences doesn’t work. It’s effeminacy. It allows our enemy, jews, to infiltrate and subvert us. It allows our enemy conservatives to steal our men and arguments and fundraising—without ever supporting our positions publicly (perfectly parallel to a girl you would fuck but not introduce to your parents). It creates a gauzy haziness that leaves just WTF we are unclear in the public mind, hence boring and shruggable.

Clarity, distinctions, principles, edges—all these things that are foreign to folks who think that everyone except the principled assholes like me can get along fine under a big tent. Macdonald is politically clueless. Greg Johnson is $$$-interested, and cuts his behavior by his prospects. Our new buddy Jethro [Brad Griffin] inhabits personalities like a hermit crab shells [emphasis added by Ed.]. These don’t get the job done. What does is shown by Golden Dawn, in Greece of all goddam places:

• real men under real names (99% of WN fall off)
• real men not afraid to name the jew and buck jew taboos (100% of conservatives)
• real men not afraid to fight in the street
• real men who spend their time and money helping their people in thousand ways, providing all kinds of services for free, out of love and duty and responsibility

Our situation, in America, is not as desperate as in Greece. So people aren’t looking so much for our leadership. But if they were tomorrow, we wouldn’t have anything prepared. And that’s to our shame, and for the reasons I indicate—we are unwilling to define who we are, and figure out the principles we will back under our real names with our real lives.

This is not a game, just because we treat it like one.

Whites prove by their behavior they support our basic position: they, South and North, want to live among other whites. And not be discriminated against because of their race. And not have the borders left open, and citizenship held cheap. And they want sexual normality, and just ordinary decency on tv, so you can actually watching something in the day or evening that you don’t cringe every fucking five seconds if your parents or grandparents are in the room.

Every fucking one of you knows exactly what I mean. This is the shit-kultur that jews have built—and we let them. And your goddam jesus dick suckers have had 2,000 years to get your shit in order, and you have fucking failed. You are a big plate of stewed cats anuses to me, perhaps tasty to some imagination-free slant-eyed third-shift Kia employee, but unfit for human consumption. Get the fuck out of the way, you fucking jebus nuthuggers. WE will clean up culture; you sad fags aren’t woman enough for the job. I figuratively piss on the grave of your imaginary jewish science-fiction hero.

Just listen to the tone of the MacDonald, Johnson and Parrott conversation. The first two are professionally deformed, per the French expression. Incapable of inciting passion in people by nature of the discipline their background has required of them. Parrott I think has an inkling.

I wish you fags who presume to doubt me would read the Golden Dawn thread, and watch some of the videos. That’s what’s going on in WN. It’s not some 90-yo jerkoff speaking in coded language to old ladies, it’s young men raising arms, flags, chants—roofs, as da niggers say. Figure it out. Jesus Christ, I am so fucking tired of being a remedial common sense teacher I could puke.

 
Brad Griffin said…

Here in the South, the Southern Baptist Convention was the last mainstream institution in the entire country to fall into line with the anti-white mainstream culture. They didn’t figure out that “racism” was a sin until the mid-1990s.

Linder conveniently ignores the fact “racism” was coined by European and Jewish atheists. He ignores the fact that the Soviet Union—which was officially atheist—pushed “racism” into the mainstream through its tentacles in world communism.

He ignores the fact that it was the secular universities, not the churches, where this nonsense got started in America. It was secular intellectuals like John Dewey who fell the hardest for it in the 1930s and 1940s and who made “racism” taboo in the aftermath of the Second World War.

After “anti-racism” had triumphed in the universities and among the intelligentsia in the 1930s and 1940s, then other mainstream institutions began to fall in line with the new consensus. Every single mainstream institution has been infected by this disease and the churches were among the most resistant but for some reason Linder blames the churches instead of the secular intellectuals who spearheaded the movement.

Here’s a reality check for Alex:

(1) You will never guess which state was the first to legalize gay marriage. It was Vermont which is the most secular, the most atheist, the least religious, and one of the least conservative states in America.

(2) The Jesus nuthuggers have gotten out of the way in the Northeast. They have gotten out of the way in Britain and Scandinavia. They certainly aren’t standing in the way in San Francisco.

And the result? It is precisely those places where cultural degeneracy has been taken to its greatest extreme. It is precisely those places where cultural degeneracy is called “progress,” not “worse is better.”

Does anyone know of an atheist country that is “pro-White”? The Soviet Union was officially atheist. Vermont is the least religious state in America. San Francisco is one of the least religious cities.

Alex is always picking on the British: in 2012, the British are thoroughly de-Christianized; in 1912, Britain was thoroughly Christian. Has the decline of Christ-Lunacy in the UK or Sweden or Norway over the past century produced a more racialist society? Is there anyone here who is excited about the prospects of racialism winning a mass following in San Francisco or Vermont?

Religion is a barrier that makes the Jew an outsider.
 

Alex Linder said…

One movement arose to restore white supremacy over a continent; the church opposed. I’m not sure what else you need to know. The top prelate in Greece has also condemned Golden Dawn in Greece.

The church, like the anti-white NWO socialists that spawned from it, is universalist, and universalism is inherently anti-white.
 

Brad Griffin said…

How so?

The church approved of slavery for centuries. The church approved of racialism for centuries.

Is there any historian who argues that Disraeli was anti-White? Every historian that I know of argues that Britain became more racialist after the 1850s.
 

Alex Linder said…

It became less elitist. In his novels he [Disraeli] wrote that blood is everything, and the world is ruled by a tiny minority behind the scenes, and in both instances he meant jews. Britain was already well into universalist fantasies at that point, and guess where those fantasies originated? In the sicko christ cult.

Christianity is liberalism. Or, as Spengler put it, christianity is the grandmother of bolshevism. Without christ-insanity, you wouldn’t have the progressive, secularist, communist garbage—the latter is simply an evolution of the former. They are both anti-white, and no different than the Republicans are from the Democrats.
 

Brad Griffin said…

That’s a stretch.

There is nothing in the Bible about natural rights. There is some talk in the Bible about equality in a purely spiritual otherworldly sense, but there is also talk about genocide and blood and soil and homophobia and patriarchy. The Bible explicitly endorses slavery.

The first thing that Jacobins did in France, who were inspired by the Enlightenment, was to behead King Louis XVI and overthrow the Gregorian Calendar and demonize the Church.

“Liberty” is the most important liberal value. Ron Paul is a liberal. Libertarianism is a species of liberalism.
 

Alex Linder said…

Originally posted by Griffin:

Ironically, it was also Oliver Cromwell who came up with the idea of the British as a superior “White” master race. There wasn’t much talk of “white supremacy” in Britain or Western Europe before Cromwell’s time.

Per E. Michael Jones, protestantism has always been very closely tied to jews. All these sub-cults imagine they are the real new jews. They’re idiots. Dangerous idiots.

The point is, British men came up with this idea of forcing everyone into their system. Everyone wants to be us. Everyone is jealous of us. One size fits all.

That’s why sane men have long observed, if it’s British or chrisitan, it’s usually a pretty lousy thing, and we don’t want it. Look at these creeps have made of the world, working hand in glove with the jew.

The only way out was indicated by NS, and the church you defend specifically, overtly and repeatedly denounced.

Christianity is the author of Europe’s decline. When the church goes, the racial animal will rebound. And that, I fervently hope, is what we are seeing harbinger of in Greece. From my lips to god’s ear that it will be the same in the US when the time comes.

Mississippi christian conservatism—nigger, please. You don’t produce Hitlers down there, you produce Shep Smiths.
 

Brad Griffin said…

Well, Christianity is pretty much dead in Britain and Scandinavia, and behold the result.
 

Alex Linder said…

Originally posted by Griffin:

Surely, you meant to say German supremacy, right?

No, not supremacy, merely leadership. Millions of Europeans understood what Hitler was doing, and felt it was needed and worth fighting for, even though they were not Germans.

Our point here is the church you’re defending did everything it could to destroy Hitler and undermine him. So for you to pose the idea the church is a defender of Europe’s racial health is unhistorical and ridiculous. Quote:

The church approved of slavery for centuries. The church approved of racialism for centuries. Salvation in the next world doesn’t imply racial equality in this world.

Slavery isn’t a pro-White institution. Whites have been enslaved many times. By jews and other muds.

The church’s universalism makes it anti-White. The fact it has not a single expressly pro-white doctrine or dogma makes it inherently anti-white.

The fact is that from day one, what was new and original about the church was that it was for everybody—it cut across all racial and social lines. This is why I tell you that christianity is liberalism. When these progressives go off against the christians, it’s exactly like Republicans doing battle with democrats. A big sham. They agree on basics, and they’re both against white racial solidarity. They both envision a new world order. One will bring about pan-mixian nirvana by digging wells, fixing cleft palates and adoption; the other will bring it about by speech codes and hate crimes laws and drone bombings. They pursue the same agenda by different means and emphases.

The white cause is wholly different.
 

Brad Griffin said…

I’m not seeing this great opposition between Christianity and “the white cause” in the South considering how Christianity and racialism coexisted here for over three centuries.
 

Alex Linder said…

That’s because you mistake mere contemporaneity or correlation for causation, like most of your mental inferiors.

[Quoting Griffin:]

The Church dominated European culture when all this talk about “whiteness” got started in the first place.

The church never spoke a word in racial defense of Europe. The church is international. There are more non-white christians than white christians. In light of that fact, it is ridiculous to say the church is a pro-white institution. It’s a universalist delusion factory. One of the three ugly desert sisters, as has been said.
 

Brad Griffin said…

Fifty years after he first started doing work for the magazine, Norman Rockwell was tired of doing the same sweet views of America for the Saturday Evening Post in the early 1960s. The great illustrator was increasingly influenced by his close friends and loved ones to look at some of the problems that was afflicting American society. Rockwell had formed close friendships with Erik Erickson and Robert Coles, psychiatrists specializing in the treatment of children and both were advocates of the civil rights movement.

His most profound influence was his third wife, Mary L. “Molly” Punderson, who was an ardent liberal and who urged him in new directions. On December 14, 1963, Rockwell did his last cover for the Saturday Evening Post and he began working for Look magazine. Look magazine finally gave Norman Rockwell the opportunity to express his social concerns.

Rockwell’s first painting was The Problem We All Live With, one of his greatest paintings.

rockwellThis painting depicts Ruby Bridges, the little girl who integrated the New Orleans school system in 1960, being escorted to her class by federal marshals in the face of hostile crowds. It’s a simple picture, the disembodied figures of 4 stiff suited men and the vulnerable yet defiant figure of a school age African American girl marching lockstep. To the right is a tomato staining a wall, obviously thrown at the girl but just missing. My eyes focus on the girl and her immaculate white, a contrast to the graffiti stained wall in the background. As a painting it’s a wonder with its composition conveying Rockwell’s message in a few simple figures.

An even greater departure from Rockwell’s usual sweet America paintings is Southern Justice, painted in 1963. Rockwell did a finished painting, but the editors published Rockwell’s color study instead, and I think his color study conveys the terror of the scene more successfully.

It depicts the deaths of three Civil Rights workers who were killed for their efforts to register African American voters. It is done in a monochrome sienna color, and it is a horrifying vision of racism. A look of it can be seen here.

Rockwell’s most optimistic view of the civil rights movement was Negro in the Suburbs, painted in 1967. It depicts an African American family moving into a white suburban neighborhood. The African American children look over by the kids in the neighborhood, with all the children sharing a love of baseball, America’s game. This painting can be found in this gallery.

In that painting, Norman Rockwell depicts an ideal, all-American, high trust, happily integrated neighborhood, which is the polar opposite of the integrated neighborhoods that actually exist.

You could turn on CNN or The Weather Channel or watch any movie in Black Run America (BRA) and you will find the same sort of disingenuous nonsense that Norman Rockwell was peddling in the 1960s.
 

Alex Linder said…

All I see is how easily christian motifs of the sliced savior turn into “civil rights” morality plays and paintings.

Categories
Conservatism Hate Real men

On conservatism

Alex Linder said…

By all means, people are free to waste another 100 years speaking in their indoor voice, raising their niggling finger, and prefacing everything they say with disclaimers. But if you want change, you have to create a national angry groundswell willing to slur and kill and sup on the blood of its enemies, and you don’t get there by appealing to selfish bourgeois cowards…

We gotta be gross large powerful and scary as all fuck, like a great white shark maw coming up out of the water at the slick black jewmud-seal. We need fiery leaders who can orate and organize. And we need ass-kickers who can stomp all who get between our speakers and the ears and eyes of our people.

We get that, we will win.

Categories
American civil war Audios Blacks Conservatism Emigration / immigration Mainstream media

“Once Obama amnesties those wetbacks…”

Rarely do I follow the news in this blog. But the recent Supreme Court decisions against Arizona and for ObamaCare—the Old United States no longer exists: those decisions were the final nail in the coffin—remind me Harold Covington’s scolding of coward conservatives:


Note of May 12, 2015: The thoughtpolice at YouTube censored this clip.

Categories
Conservatism

Conservatives are about to be mugged by reality

I’ve just read “Destroy White Nationalism,” a rant written by Brett Stevens last year where he quotes from other critics of white nationalism, especially critics of the vanguard:

The vanguardist is a peculiar species of White Nationalist with a range that extends across cyberspace. This political animal has a number of discernible, trademark characteristics. Specifically, a “vanguardist” is someone who believes:

(1) Conservatives are worthless

(2) Ordinary people are lemmings

(3) Worse is better

(4) The system is broken

(5) A collapse is coming

(6) They will benefit from this collapse

(7) A massive Jewish conspiracy is responsible for their plight

(8) Revolution is the only solution

No need for a point-by-point rebuttal of Stevens’ screed of which the above is just a quotation. I only look forward that conservatives who believe that “racism is some sort of perverse desire” will soon be mugged by reality—as can be surmised in the recent reviews of Schiff’s book on America’s coming bankruptcy.

Categories
Christendom Conservatism Real men

Alex Linder on Christianity

The spiritual universalism in christ-insanity and the political universalism in the Enlightenment are both examples of hubris.

The last thing we need is more politeness, more gentlemen, more codespeaking male swells with soft hands and gentle words. These are the men who will regain us our White sovereignty? The South isn’t ideological or fanatical? Quite right. And that lack of impersonal, principled ideological fanaticism is precisely why it loses.

Fanatical ideology requires brains, dedication, perseverance, unwillingness to give up—the sort of thing we see in winners, not Southerners. Southern culture can be called conservative, but another word for conservative is just plain dumb. You believe what you’re told. You go to church. You respect authority. You know your place. The South doesn’t even have the brains to see that eventually demographic decline will insure there are no whites left in the South, and that means no South. Naw, suh, we got ouah niggers under control.

The hell you do.

Fanatical dedication and ideological rigor are sine qua non in defeating the jew. And you can’t get those qualities at Piggly Wiggly.

♣

Nothing Is More Moral Than Race War. Nature demands it, and any subspecies that is unfit to acknowledge that demand will rightfully be erased from the pages of history.

I’ve never understood why WN [white nationalists] who remain stupid christians don’t pick up on this and run with it.

An Aryan baby… Naive, naked, defenseless—that is the Christian ideal itself. Lest ye be as children and all that.

That’s why the jews always win.

Christian “love” is a disorder, and our social order today reflects that disorder. They are System conservatives—our enemy, not our ally, not us.

♣

You all can cry and cavil till the last chili bean is farted back to jebus, but it won’t change the fact that christ-insanity has not a goddam fucking thing to do with our race except give it an upset stomach from too many sleeping pills.

♣

Christ-insanity is not conservative, it is liberalism itself.

How funny is it that the tryhards on the pallid right defend endlessly “what joe calls” the local and traditional, yet when it comes to religion, why, no local and traditional gods for them!, no siree. They go big, when it comes to gods, by god. They go general. Catholic. Universal. And the contradiction never even makes an appearance in their waking consciousness.

Christianity is not conservative, christianity is universal—abstract, liberal, ideological. That makes it intrinsically anti-White, because it forbids the spiritual aspect, as well as the racial aspect, of Whiteness from being identified, which in turn prevents it from being preserved.

♣

Consider this commentary culled from a poster off some blog:

I know of a Catholic family, that produced two amazing little White boys. Their Priest told the congregation to Go Forth and Multiply with Guatemalan orphans. So they did. They adopted a Guatemalan female toddler Orc in. The mother can’t stand this child. The kid is not terribly bright—but extremely aggressive.

So—Haughty Blonde ran into this family a few months ago. What have they done now? Why—they adopted a Somalian!

This is not merely crazy – it’s evil.

It’s not about White self-loathing, or “White guilt”. It’s about White arrogance, and egoism. These “Liberal/Conservative” Yankee Christian-baptised Whites really truly believe that if they try hard enough, and they give enough—they can “crack the code”—and get Blacks and other non-Whites to be just like them. White.

It’s now Revealed Wisdom with my fellow PA Whites that the very worst, deepest Sin is to consider the possibility that racial differences exist and are real. They are perfectly virtuous because they refuse to admit, or even consider, for a single second, that racial differences even exist.

And that God knows, in their hearts, that they really really really don’t mind when that kind-of trashy fast-mouthed Black Boy paws heir pretty blonde daughter—scause that would be wrong. That would be racist.

Capiche?

Yeah, no, this kind of creature we must walk on eggshells around. It would be crazy to treat them as the open enemy they are, we must pretend they’re on our side and suck up to them.

It’s later than some of you think.

♣

Your point above [a commenter at Majority Rights, Silver] is the same fallacy we hear from the christ lunatics claiming their cult is pro white because whites lived along in harmony for centuries under christian dominion. If those whites conquered the continent for racial reasons, then, those racial principles would have preserved the conquest. Instead, those racists forgot everything Silver lies they knew, and quickly lost the continent back to jew-led savages. So clearly the original Americans were not racialists in any other than a direct, immediate sense—i.e., fight off the scalping indians next door. There was never enough thinking put into race in any section of the country, and that, combined with christian lunatical universalism, and the later influx of anti-white communist jews, sealed the deal for anti-Whiteism.

No future in Republicans. No future in conservatism.

Make this your mantra: If it’s christian, conservative or Southern, it’s a non-starter.

That’s the truth.

Categories
Axiology Christendom Conservatism Egalitarianism Friedrich Nietzsche Liberalism Reformation Roger Devlin Tom Sunic

Sunic, Devlin & Johnson on Christianity

A couple of recent articles and threads at Counter-Currents about Pierre Krebs’ Fighting for the Essence reminded me what we are now calling “secular Christianity”:


Tom Sunic said…

This book is important because it advises the reader about how to decipher the causes and consequences of our decadent age. Being himself a disciple of European heavyweights such as Homer, Nietzsche, and Heidegger—to name only a few—Krebs correctly traces the root of the problem of White racial decay and cultural decadence not to liberalism and multiculturalism, but to the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Above all, Krebs focuses on the destructive forms of the monotheistic Judaeo-Christian mindset which prevails among both the so-called Leftist and Right-wing intellectuals and their respective disciples. In fact, by using quotes from and commentaries concerning many important, albeit deliberately ignored European scholars, Krebs demonstrates that all political concepts that we take for granted today are basically modified ideas, myths, legends and impostures that originated in the Middle East and that are now making headway into our secular, godless society.

Krebs aptly dissects the discourse and the mindset of modern Marxists and liberals who, in spite of the fact that they often profess to be atheists or agnostics, nonetheless adhere to the monotheistic conceptualisation of the world that was handed down by the Judaeo-Christian tradition, through its secular and postmodern offshoots. In the same vein, Krebs adroitly warns against those modern political neuroses which appear quite often among many so-called Right-wingers, which causes them to rely too much on blaming all the problems of Whites on outsiders; or, in a grotesque flip side, to embrace outsiders at the expense of one’s own. Both manifestations are wrapped up in the same Judaeo-Christian package. How can a White nationalist, a racialist, or a traditionalist, or whatever he may call himself, and regardless of whether he lives in Europe or America, successfully combat hostile and alien worldviews and adopt different methods of conceptualisation, while at the same time revering these same alien referents and the same paradigms which are, ironically, part and parcel of the same non-European mindset he wishes to reject?

The matrix of the West, as Krebs argues, is no longer territorial or political. It lies in the White man’s experiment with Christianity, which began as merely an obscure Oriental cult—a cult which has absolutely nothing in common with the spiritual homeland of the White man: ancient Greece.

The answer Krebs offers to intelligent White readers in America and Europe who are seeking an exit from the modern multicultural straitjacket and the conceptual mendacity of liberalism is simple, although it will require a great deal of courage: the return to our lost pre-Christian European roots. Novus rerum nascitur ordo.


Roger Devlin said…

But Krebs names the heresiarch Pelagius as one of his heroes. In his view, the egalitarian lie is to be blamed not on any perversion of Christianity, but on Christianity itself—or, as he invariably writes, “Judeochristianity.” He cites Nietzsche’s observation that

Christianity, which has sprung from Jewish roots and can only be understood as a plant that has come from that soil, represents the counter-movement to every morality of breeding, race or privilege—it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence.

From this Krebs infers that

every discourse which calls for a European Renaissance without separating itself from Judeo-Christian civilization, its dogmas and its rituals, is condemned to failure in advance, since it is enclosed within the very matrix of decline.

It is a familiar observation that enlightenment thought amounts to a secularized version of Christian doctrine, a displacement of its eschatology into the realm of politics. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is just one example of a Christian conservative who stressed this connection, citing the Latin proverb corruptio optimi pessima: “the corruption of the best is the worst.”

But Krebs the admirer of Pelagius cannot mean this; his explicit positions would force him to deny that the secularization of Christianity is the essential misstep. Instead he must hold that (1) Christianity itself is responsible for the specific way in which it was negated by the Enlightenment, and that (2) Europe has been in a state of decadence since at least the fourth century AD. This bold interpretation of European history may deserve consideration, but the author has hardly made a case for it in the brief manifesto under review.


Greg Johnson said…

In response to Devlin’s remarks, yes, Krebs is committed to the claims that (1) Christianity is responsible for the trajectory of its secularization, and (2) that Western Civilization has been ruled by decadent values since the fourth century, when the Christianization of the Roman Empire received state power from Constantine. Both of these claims are defensible in Nietzschean terms, and Nietzsche is Krebs’ prime source here.

(1) Christianity is responsible for the trajectory of its secularization, because secular liberalism represents a triumph of Christian values over Christianity itself. Nietzsche argues that the Christian valorization of truth as something worth dying for was turned against the supernatural, faith-based elements of the creed. And once the supernatural, “pie in the sky” elements of Christianity are discarded, then nothing stands in the way of the progressive/utopian realization of Christian values in this world, values like the worth of every human life.

(2) These values were dominant in the West beginning with Constantine, but they were never really taken all that seriously. Spengler is right: the values of the New Testament are the Bolshevism of antiquity, and Christianity was as devastating to ancient pagan civilization as the Bolshevism of the 20th century. But once in power, the church readily compromised with pre-Christian values and social forms because of its essentially otherworldly focus. And they condemned as heretics those who demanded that the Church live by the values of the gospels. When the Reformation triumphed, however, and Christians started actually reading the Bible and thinking of ways to live by it in this world, the corrosive power of Christian values became fully liberated to do their work.


Kim Petrusson said…

Quite evidently it is since Europe was quite fine under traditional Christianity, but have crushed down under the gnostic modernity.


Greg Johnson said…

What you dub “gnostic modernity” is merely Christian axioms being taken to their logical real-world conclusions. And “gnostic modernity” is a rather marginal phenomenon considered alongside the modernizing thrust of the Reformation. What you point to as the heyday of European Christianity was merely, from a Christian point of view, the hypocritical compromise of the church with pre-Christian sensibilities and social forms. When the Reformation actually got Christians reading the Bible and trying to take it seriously, decay really got underway.


Johnnie Appleseeds said…

Greg, I think we need a strong philosophical refutation of Xtianity that is not perceived as vitriolically and mean-spirited as that of Nietzsche. I agree with Nietzsche, but his language turns people off.


Greg Johnson said…

Maybe you are right, but if Nietzsche is right, there is no pretty way to describe the ugly psychological processes that gave birth to and sustain slave morality.

Categories
Conservatism Egalitarianism Joseph Goebbels

Linder’s worldview

(part 2)

 

Editor’s note: For the first part click here. Indented paragraphs are quotations of those commenters to whom Linder responds.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

The Weimar Germans just came out of a nationalistic world, were proud to be German and had a 1000-year-old history. Americans have to deal with 60 years of mass egalitarian / multicult indoctrination. The first task is to build up race consciousness among Whites.

Without tv it’s a losing battle, given demographics. We’re doing what we can on the ’net, but it’s not enough and can never be. The need is to get power, then you can take care of the rest in short order. It’s like if someone is pouring water on you, you’re advising people to dry off instead of taking the hose away from the guy.

The contexts of America today and the Weimar Germany couldn’t be more different; it’s moronic to treat Mein Kampf like some sort of roadmap to American problems.

Nope, sorry Fred. It’s a power struggle, plain and simple. There’s got to be a team. It’s got to be White. It’s got to focus on the jew. Otherwise, nothing.


Posted by Lew:

Alex Linder: [Southerners] simply aren’t smart or quick enough to do battle with jews. Indeed, it is the hardest thing in the world to teach a Southerner basic facts about anything.

Hey, Deep Southerner here. I resemble that remark about dull Southerners. Keep in mind David Duke is a Southerner.

I happened to see the Duke campaign up close and worked for Duke as a low-level volunteer. White people in Louisiana turned out in droves for Duke.

In the early 1990s Jews did indeed unleash all of their power on Duke short of assassination, which might have been their next move had he won.

But it was local business interests backed by the organized Louisiana Bar and the Chamber of Commerce that were decisive in defeating Duke, not Jews and their media. A lot of Whites who didn’t give a shit about the media were told by their White bosses that if they voted for Duke, they would lose their jobs. In the end, it scared off enough people to make the difference. Duke later called that tactic economic blackmail.


Posted by Linder:

Hey, Deep Southerner here. I resemble that remark about dull Southerners. Keep in mind David Duke is a Southerner.

I generalize and overstate. Verbal caricature is a very good way to see what’s right or wrong about a proposition. I’m no footnoter. I’ll never go back and issue disclaimers—you know how to read it, you’re smart. You can read the motive. I don’t care about anybody’s feelings, including my own. We’re too womanly on that stuff. Politics aint beanbag.

Notice I don’t unload on Duke, and that is because he meets my litmus test: openly pro-White, openly anti-jew. He has truly shown the limits of the controlled electoral process, so he deserves respect.

But it was local business interests backed by the organized Louisiana Bar and the Chamber of Commerce that were decisive in defeating Duke, not Jews and their media.

You, we, must have principles to get anywhere. And the very first principle, in any pro-White organization, must be VNN’s slogan: No Jews. Just Right. They must be completely excluded. That I have to state this boggles the mind. That I have to tell MacDonald this blows the mind.

The CMS, NPI, AP3, alt-right continuum are pitch perfect for attracting disaffected people (in my opinion) away from the American mainstream and toward racial nationalism.

Not so. As I’ve pointed out, conservatism, functionally, has nothing to do with politics; that’s just the field in which it is deployed to raise money.

However, these entities appear to be tangled up with Jews at the highest levels.

Correct. They’re unprincipled, or they have the wrong principles. They will reap the predictable result.

Interesting how these liars come out of the woodwork to exculpate jews. MacDonald says that jews alone were responsible for the 1965 immigration act. Before that change, America was 90% white.

Corporations had nothing to do with opening the borders, and these woodwork liars know it. But their mission is to confuse. To make complex what real political thinkers like Hitler knew must be made simple enough that the lowest person in the crowd could understand. Politics is not about intellectuals, it’s about basic propaganda as a means to a group-desirable end.

It is all-important that average white men be taught that jews are responsible for every major social problem in the west. Of course that is a simplification. But it is essentially true and politically the sine qua non of any kind of substantial racial regenerative effort. The truth remains that jews are behind all upheaval movements in the West dating back at least to the French Revolution.

Chechar’s interpolated note: I’d need a source for the French Revolution claim.

Just as Churchill wrote as a journalist about communists back in 1919, jews were the driving power. Investigate whichever radical movement you like and you’ll find the same thing.

Only one policy cures jews and the trouble they cause: No jews. Just right.

* * *

And the maestro [Goebbels] expounds:

“The battle against indifference is the hardest battle. There may be two million people in this city who hate my guts, who persecute and slander me, but I know that I can win over some of them. We know that from experience. Some of those who persecuted us and fought most bitterly against us are today our most determined supporters. You see that the important thing for propaganda is that it reach its goal, and that it is a mistake to apply critical standards that are irrelevant.”

Does the average man know the white racial cause exists? He does not. He knows white racialism is something to beat up Republicans about.

We must make a party. And we must make a name for that party. The way to do that is clear, and I’ve laid it out in my strategy piece.

* * *

My country is called America. My ancestors came over on the Mayflower. My ancestors fought with Ethan Allen in Vermont, and George Washington to establish it. Their offspring did all they could to keep the filthy niggers you 90-IQ crackers imported to do the work you were too lazy to do yourselves, and so you could have someone around dumb enough you could plausibly look down on them.

Who are the #1 political winners of this day and age? The jews. Who are the most paranoid, obnoxious and disagreeable people on earth, hands down? The jews. But I’m sure we’ll lay them low with our big grins, friendly handshakes and genial online logrolling.

In light of jews’ success, we can conclude that paranoia, obnoxiousness and disagreeability in no way impede political success and may well be essential to it. My view is that all serious politicians must either be paranoid or synthesize the ability to think like one. Paranoia is nothing more than highly tuned, or overtuned, enemy recognition. The problem whites have as a race is they aren’t naturally paranoid. They are not naturally xenophobic by comparison with all other racial groups. They can’t even get a feel for their enemies after it is pointed out exactly what their enemies are doing. Whereas jews seem to have feelers, so in-the-blood is their hateful suspicion of all others.

In real politics, paranoia, real or acquired, is essential to success. Stalin was paranoid. Jews are a paranoid race. As I’ve said many times, shrewd people see 90% of what’s there. Paranoids see 110%. The non-paranoids in a movement can use the paranoids to pick up that last little bit they don’t catch themselves.

I can’t avoid the conclusion that most WNs [white nationalists] simply don’t believe their own bullshit, when it comes to jews.

* * *

You don’t like me or what I say when I attack Jared Taylor. Because you like him personally.

But objectively, allowing jews and apologists into our movement will render it stillborn.

How do I know it’s objective? Because the exact same thing just happened to professional conservatism in the 1960-1990 frame. Today professional conservatism celebrates commie rapist MLK [Martin Luther King] as a hero. In 1960, professional conservatism wrote about him publicly in nationally distributed publications pretty much the way we racialists do today.

You let someone like Jared Taylor into the White movement, you are guaranteeing that in twenty years, so-called White Nationalists will be saying the same things about MLK that Newt Gingrich and Glenn Beck say today.

The odd irony is that you who respect Taylor actually have less respect for him than I do. The reason for that is that you don’t understand him or the danger he presents and represents.

Ferris Bueller (something like that): “So—how do you put this into practice, apart from talking to yourself and a handful of misfits on the internet? That’s the question, and I bet you have no answer.”

Are you people on drugs? Have I not on this very thread given the basic strategy, or at least link to it? It’s not hard to do theoretically, it’s easy. It’s hard to do practically because the men to do it aren’t there. How to get them? That’s the question. It has to start with military vets at this point. And a nucleus that can data-protect itself to a level equal to the FBI-ADL. On the soft side, white curriculum, white “hilfe” stuff like Parrott talks about. I could repeat what I’ve said hundreds of times, but you’re not really listening anyway, or you’d know my basic strategy.

Haller: Why not use your talents in a more persuasive way than spending a decade of hurling abuse around the internet? I don’t know how you support yourself, but you obviously have free time. Why not use that free time to gain some real, objective academic expertise in the field of Jewish Studies? Even if you didn’t wish to return to grad school, as I’ve now done with Catholic Theology (and that PC world probably would not accept you), why not subject yourself to a disciplined course of study in Jewish political involvements (as Kmac did), and then write a book on your political strategy re dealing with Jewry and allied issues?

An academic understanding of jews and a political movement to oppose them have nothing to do with each other. Anyone new to the idea that jews are a collective bad rather than good can verify the claim in no more than a night or two of reading. Knowing more than that about jews is nice but not necessary—from the strategic political standpoint. It is the work of the enemy to make it seem as though our cause is more complex than White-good / jew-bad. It’s not.

And advanced academic degrees are no proof against political unwisdom. Look how unthinkingly MacDonald participates in and validates by his presence the Charles Martel Society, which admits… jew-apologists. MacDonald by his actions confuses followers about whether jews are the problem or part of the solution. He confuses us with them in the eyes of onlookers, thereby vitiating a racial cause. “Each man kills the thing he loves,” wrote Wilde.

This world is set up so that it is as easy to produce the opposite of our intention as what we intended. Extremely careful attention must be paid.

Leon, I don’t think you’re capable of grasping certain things. It’s imagination and emotion that move the world, not footnotes and studies. You think that an academic has more credibility than an effective wit. It is not so. It is the opposite. Sometimes the two are united in one man, as in Goebbels; more frequently they are separated. Hitler achieved his deeper-than-MacDonald understanding of judaism not in college libraries but on the streets of Vienna.

The way to a man’s heart is through his marrow, not his mind.

If the book were sober, factual and free of invective,

it would be boring as all fuck and mere repetition of what 100 more academically inclined writers have said before.

Don’t you see, Haller? You’d have me throw away my real skills to become a third-rate repeater—repeater of a message better men have already laid before us a dozen times. “Sober, factual and free of invective” are the opposite of what produces political change.

You really are almost a caricature of the bourgeois mind. I almost would suspect you of satire but not quite.

Leon—have you never read George Lincoln Rockwell? He has your type nailed. Go read on him on his political progress through conservatism. Absolutely nails what’s going on. He skewers your POV [point of view] and the type that holds it. Again, it’s the MacDonald mindset too. That we are going to outrespectable the yid-led left to victory. Outmanners them. Outnice them. This view is not merely crazy, it is probably unique in world history: that an oppressed minority that accurately perceived its opponent as mendacious-aggressive nevertheless believed it could triumph over that vile criminal set with nothing more than facts and reason.

As Rockwell said, the delusion that the masses can be moved by facts and reason is the eternal stumbling block of the right. You, in telling me to become a shitty academic, would have me throw away precisely what it is that I have that potentially could cause the jews serious problems—invective, verhetzing as they call it in deutsch. I know how to get in people’s marrow, and that’s knowledge you can’t learn in any school. Go back to school? Other than weedeat mosquito-filled swales, there is nothing I would less rather do than go back to where the snakey-snidelys snit and snoot at the non-semitophilic.

Doing what you’ve been doing seems like a waste, merely talking to other talkers.

It does not seem so to me.

I think progress has been made in the last decade. More men understand the jewish root of our problem; more sites expound on it. I’m happy to continue widening the circle.

Alex, Jared Taylor has been doing his thing for over 20 years—and nobody’s burning incense for MLK. It didn’t happen.

Of course it hasn’t happened—yet. It’s a long play by the jews. They have pre-infiltrated WN so that if WN takes off (and jews know it well could, because they know what they are doing to our race, and how a section of that race must inevitably respond), then they have long in place extremely skillful, appealing men to mislead the angry mobs, and channel their anger in a non-jew-hostile direction. This is the purpose Jared Taylor exists to serve. William F. Buckley served it before him, and Taylor has said he wants to be the WFB of white nationalism.

It’s not what WN is today that worries the jew—all the reports put out seemingly monthly are pure bullshit—it’s what it could be if it ever takes off.

Alex, none of these people would find you tolerable in the least. You think P.J. O’Rourke, who was married to Lena Horne’s granddaughter, would want to have lunch with you?

Funny for a number of reasons.

1) such a womanly way of thinking: ooh, mrs dallypimple wont have snickers with me at forenoon.

Honest to god, get off the net and go buy maxipads, girlie. I care about effects and how they’re produced, not whether these people would go to McDonald’s with me.

2) How the hell do you possibly know how dead people in different nations would react? What’d you convene a quickie séance and poll them? I love how people just grant themselves all-knowledge of things no one could know.

Why do so few of you study the Civil Rights Movement’s history, and learn from its methods?

Because they only work if you control the mass media.

The suggestion of this false model usually signals the voicer is an anti.

The whole notion of duplicating the black-privilege movement is so ridiculous on the face of it that I assume the person advocating such is either a blockhead or an anti.

Claims that we can and should copy the ’60s jew-organized niggers, regardless of the intent of the advocate, play into the jewish lie that it was the “morality” of the anti-White movement that won whites over rather than raw jewish legal and media power.

Good example is Knoxville. The media treated us Whites sticking up for Christian and Newsom as hostile outsiders bent on stirring up trouble. Trolls on here repeat that lie. But when the jew-fired radicals went down to the southern region in the sixties, they were treated as jesus figures come to the benighted land to spread love and justice. The locals were the haters.

What’s the common denominator? Anyone sticking up for whites is the bad guy, and anyone pushing the jew agenda is the good guy.

The “civil-rights” strategy can’t work unless your side has the courts protecting it and the mass media marketing for it. Only simpletons and antis masquerading as WN can’t understand this. The more I read Haller, the more his denseness seems deliberate.

Haller: Heretical as this will sound to Linder, I’m not convinced that Jews can’t be brought to a new, more constructive relationship with Aryans.

How do you propose to bring them, lacking any power? They’ll laugh at you. They don’t care about reason or morals, only power. And you don’t have any. That’s why all this talk of secession or separatism or forming Republics is ridiculous. Rather than empty, foolish talk about secession, Republics, separatism and the like, we must worry about much more basic things: a) defining who we mean by “we”; b) defining who we mean by the enemy, them; c) forming a national political vehicle; d) choosing a strategy to acquire power; e) employing the strategy and actually acquiring that power. Then and only then can we force the jews to deal with us, or die resisting.

The people are already with us. What does that mean? It means if “we” that great undefined are anywhere near equal in power in relation to ZOG’s official parties, or even merely appear to be heading toward it, the people will side with us because we represent what their actual behavior shows they already appear: closed borders, free association, execution of nigger criminals, gun right, end to foreign wars/aid.

Our strategy cannot be based on appealing to people or teaching them because we don’t control the high points. It’s like a guy with a single used car trying to outsell some massive car lot. We have to assume the people are with us based on their deepest behavior—where they move, who they marry. And assume they are not heroes, and will not take serious risks short of emergency conditions (massive social breakdown), but will follow the forces of white normalcy we represent if the social costs of that following are anywhere near equal.

Linder’s model—an anti-localist national approach…

My approach is not anti-local at all; local is quite important. My strategy correctly recognizes that the power suppressing our racial interests emanates from D.C., not from some hamlet in rural Wyoming, Arkansas or South Carolina. It’s like some of you aren’t capable of reading the papers. We must persuade people! We must do things in Our Town and never lift our heads! And what happens? You do anything serious, the feds coming marching in with the civil rights tyrants and jail you, sue you, or abuse you in the press. You can’t even run classified ads discussion who you want to rent a room to, because that’s a federal civil rights violation. There’s no way to change that locally, it’s a national issue. There has to be a competing, oppositional national body facing up to the jews in order to take that power back from them. Local stuff is important for other reasons, only secondarily for political reasons. Most white-majority areas don’t have any serious political problem, and if they do, say black crime or illegal-alien-caused problems, it’s precisely because the feds won’t let them deal with them. Who sues the small town in Pennsylvania that passes some tiny measure to discourage illegal aliens? The Justice Department. Not out of Feral Hogg, Ala., but out of Washington, D.C. Again, I can’t help but see deliberate denseness here on the part of these anonymous mouthers.

We need power. Power means national power. There’s no such thing as state and local power in the USA in 2011. Not when a federal judge can simply toss out the legitimate vote of a large democratic majority. And the media always side with the judge.

The only portion of KMD’s A3P discussion that was a big disappointment to me was this: he mentioned an internal debate about whether the A3P should be an explicitly or implicitly White vehicle.

Imagine Hitler and the National Socialists internally debating whether they should be explicitly pro-Germany or implicitly? A kosher-salted garden slug would be a good symbol for A3P.

If this is true and there is actually disagreement within the A3P on this basic question, it does not seem likely the national A3P plans to do what I have been hoping for — making confrontation Jews in a rational, founded and reasonable way using KMD’s own research and findings part of their activism.

There’s nothing wrong with rational criticism of jews, but it belongs underneath the gaudy flowers of vicious emotional attacks for the harm they’ve done our race. That KMD et al. don’t get this is why they aren’t worth following. Emotion is where the winning lies, not in reason. In the heart, not the head.

It is an infallible mark of the fool or the liar that the jewish “thing” can’t be understood by normal people without years of training, prayers and handholding. Garbage. Any person of normal intelligence and most people of subnormal intelligence can be taught the jew thing in a couple of minutes.

The correct strategy is to attack the conservatives as cowards and weaklings, which they are. Take on their standard-bearer directly, the worst of them all: Pat Buchanan.

Chechar’s interpolated note: A recent TOO article deals with Buchanan’s most “valiant” book (here), which will be published next month. According to the reviewer, Buchanan doesn’t mention the Jewish Question.

* * *

Somehow the jews took power without ever troubling themselves in the slightest with Flyover. Hmm… now how did they do that? Oh. They bought up the mass media, they paid off the politicians, and they took over the law schools. But we’ll get ‘em back by…running candidates in local dogcatcher elections. Yeah, thatz the ticket!

Wandrin: “Jewish media and legal power specifically played on White concepts of universal morality. It didn’t work on everybody, especially not those with a lot of personal experience of living among blacks, but it worked on enough White people to tip the balance. Films like To Kill A Mockingbird and all the others like it were enough on their own to start the multicult in places like Sweden.”

Yeah, but that’s a deeper problem—christ-insanity. And still you’re evading and failing to counter my point. Morality is not some independent abstract thing that is undeniable, in many instances, if not all, it’s a matter of interpretation.

Are they civil rights workers? Or jew-led, jew-instigated anti-White troublemakers pursuing a genocidal agenda?

You see how easy that is? It is purely a function of who controls the media, who gets to define who is who. They simply map on their political concerns to existing mores and, yes, as you say, they fit them to christian morality. Child’s play to cunning kikes.

We can’t simply copy what the jew-led nigs did because our cause will not be played the same way in the media. We will be played as the bad guys. The evil outside shit-stirrers. I’m not theorizing, the framers interviewing people in Knoxville were taking great pains to ask about where everybody was from so they could make precisely that point: “outsiders bringing trouble.”

Media control is damn near everything. What part of that is too hard to figure out?

You can’t reverse engineer it without controlling the institutions. To succeed at cultural marxism requires a verbal ability our side doesn’t possess. Look at how many of us use the enemies’ terms unthinkingly. MacDonald uses “racism” and “Holocaust” and “anti-semitism” like they’re meaningful words representing perfectly valid concepts, rather than attacks on the cause he thinks he is defending. If our smartest guys are clueless, are the dumber ones any better?

Look… a hostile minority took over this country. It did not do it by voting. It did it by legally and sometimes illegally acquiring the mass media, and simultaneously taking over the money. It uses its immense and growing power to create a false reality, a false consensus reality, as has been well said. No “hey kids, let’s put on a show” counter effort is going to defeat that. A lot of you don’t seem to grasp that. The only possible thing that can defeat that is extremely organized, life-and-death loyal opposition. And 90% of you don’t even agree on the necessity of keeping to a political. Some of you, pretending to be us, actually brag about being stupid, indoctrinaire, contradictory. Let me tell, my pudgy little friends. The jewish cunt will not fucked with that tiny pecker.

* * *

By all means, people are free to waste another 100 years speaking in their indoor voice, raising their niggling finger, and prefacing everything they say with disclaimers. But if you want change, you have to create a national angry groundswell willing to slur and kill and sup on the blood of its enemies, and you don’t get there by appealing to selfish bourgeois cowards.

Anger is good for our cause. Reason is merely necessary.

Teaching people about jews in the bloodless, carefully emotionally controlled academic prose is fine for a book, but not for practical politics. To make CofC’s lessons real, vibrant, meaningful and effective requires someone doing more or less exactly what I said. Only emotion will get us where we need to go. Reason shows the way and the how, but emotion is the means.

Wandrin: “The essence of cultural marxism is simply relentless attack on every critical aspect of the dominant culture until it collapses from exhaustion at which point you can replace it with something else.”

Yeah, but you can’t do that without controlling the high points: the pulpit, the press, the law schools, the academies. Especially not if what you’re preaching is hugely and ridiculously anti-majority.

They required great verbal ability because they were selling poison. We don’t need as much because the multicult is one big genocidal double standard and we’re selling the cure.

Yes, that’s true, to an extent. But still the basic problem remains: unless you own the mass media, you’re shouting in the wind. And the jews operating our power institutions are not going to allow themselves to be displaced or infiltrated. Their control mechanism is extremely strong, and their threat-paranoia is impeccable. I really believe that it’s late enough in the day that only a counterforce that begins with soldiers has any serious chance. Or we can’t wait until ZOG collapses of its own internal contradictions, as a marxist would say. But I actually believe if we had even a few hundred, say, veterans, and they stuck to a defined political line and pursued a solid strategy they could become a national force in short order.

Remember the mantra: smart people always undersimplify. Let’s not make that mistake.

Our people need know only that jews are bad and Whites are good. Everything the majority of our people hates we peg to the jews, and quite justifiably so. Everything they love we tie to the existence of a racial-oriented state.

Simple, simple, simple. Emotional, emotional, emotional. Repetitive, repetitive, repetitive.

We don’t control the mass media. That is the most important political fact we face. Like birds in a north wind or salmon headed to spawn, we must face that north wind, that cascading water, directly. Directly is the only way to cut or knife through it and get where we need to go. Three quarters wont do it: 3/4 gets blown over bowled over, sucked under.

Just say no to cleverness!

Attacking the double standards and moral inconsistencies of the multicult will reduce its power over the audience you’re addressing.

No. It will not. The leftists already know about the double standards and don’t care. They like seeing white males punished, and love o hear them whining about it.

If complaining about double standards and unfairness did something we wouldn’t be in this mess because that’s all conservatives have ever done. It never has worked and never will work. We’re not in a debate. We’re in a monopoly harangue where we have no loudspeaker and our opponent has 1000. The question is how do you do something about it. For that the conservative has no answer. He just keeps appealing to the very power that created the unfairness in the first place. How crazy is that? Like the judeo-left doesn’t know what it’s doing, intend it, and enjoy it? You have to be insane to be a conservative. It’s simply a way to avoid fighting. It’s a euphemism of a political position: we just mass-aggree to operate on the delusion that our enemies are rational and fair-minded folk, even tho a child of 2 could see they’re wicked liars. We don’t need more conservatism, we need a party for serious adults.


Posted by Trainspotter:

Linder: “They don’t care about reason or morals, only power. And you don’t have any. That’s why all this talk of secession or separatism or forming Republics is ridiculous.”

Any more ridiculous than speaking of world conquest during an era in which we are not allowed so much as a racially exclusive donut shop?

We’ve now got well over 100 million non-whites in this country. We have an enemy entrenched in all the high points of cultural and political power. The Jews were able to simply buy up these levers of power, or pursue the long march through the institutions. We are allowed neither of these options; the doors are closed. There will be no long march for us.

So we can’t replicate what the Jews did. We also can’t replicate what the NS did in the twenties and thirties. For all the talk of Weimar decadence and Cabaret style indulgence, Germany was still a fundamentally sound society, at least in the sense that it was 98 to 99 percent white and the broader culture leagues above what we currently endure. They faced a small and rotten alien elite combined with a relative handful of German lickspittles. Smash that small and alien elite (we’re talking a total population of just a few hundred thousand), and you pretty much had a healthy nation again.

That’s a long way from where we find ourselves today.

While we can take lessons from successful movements of the past (both pro and anti-white), we in many respects are in uncharted waters. We’ve got to figure it out ourselves, because no one has or will do it for us.

At the end of the day, I think most serious thinkers agree that there is no peaceful way out of this situation, at least on this continent. That is mere foretelling, not advocacy.

Given that situation, the question then becomes how exactly do you motivate enough people to take enough action to gain…enough? Who the hell is signing up for world conquest when we can’t even control a truck stop? At this point, who is signing up even for removing 100 million non-whites from the North American continent? Who is signing up for the polarization strategy, when the end game is… what exactly?

We’ve got to come up with something that is at least remotely viable. The idea of the White Republic is an attempt in that direction. If we can turn this into an idea that has legs, that gets some traction, you’ll soon enough get all the polarization that you like.

We can critique, deconstruct, and mock our opponents (however they are defined), but unless there is an end result that a lot of people can sign off on and get passionate about, it’s just not going anywhere.

And while it falls somewhat short of “world conquest,” a decisive result on the North American continent would be of immense benefit to our kindred peoples in Europe and across the globe. Some form of secession may well be the answer, and at least has the potential to serve as a galvanizing point. Most people won’t fight, or even take risks, over mere vagaries or seemingly impossible scenarios (religious nuts being an arguable exception here). But if you’ve got something that they can wrap their minds around, then you’re either fer it or agin’ it. That’s your polarization right there, all the polarization that you’ll ever need. It will be obvious, and it will matter.

In other words, and for all its faults, our movement has done a pretty damn good job in terms of critique, but it has done very little to offer a tangible way out of our predicament that seems even remotely viable. When people see no way out, can they be blamed for simply keeping their heads low and muddling along as best they can? Going along to get along? Can they be blamed for enjoying Buchanan who, giving credit where it is due, is both a good and informative writer? What’s the harm when there is no solution anyway? “Hey, I don’t know where this is going. Maybe Buchanan does!”

You speak of polarization, but my argument is that will take care of itself when we solve a more fundamental problem: how to galvanize. There is plenty of physical courage left in our people. Huge numbers are willing to risk life and limb for their country. Hell, the empire can still get an awful lot of people to go off and die in third world shitholes. Our challenge is to develop and spread a vision that people will actually be willing to fight for. We haven’t done that, and until we do, polarization isn’t going but so far.

When nothing is worth fighting for, we can either be sewing circle faggots and engage in silly internet drama on the one hand, or we can be gentlemen and agree to disagree on the other hand… but so what? To what end? Until we have a meaningful focal point that really has some traction, it doesn’t matter much one way or the other, at least in the minds of most.


Posted by Linder:

Trainspotter: “You speak of polarization, but my argument is that will take care of itself when we solve a more fundamental problem: how to galvanize.”

Polarization is a political strategy… for a group with a purpose. We have to start by organizing in our own name—on a racial basis. That’s what we don’t have now. For crissake, even MacDonald’s vehicle can’t decide whether it’s openly white or not. The political point any sane White party would recognize is whites have no interest in political association with jews or the muds… Therefore they organize on the basis of race. Not region. Not religion.

Greg Johnson: “My main problem with you is that you make shit up. You pass off hypotheses and likely stories as truth, e.g., your claims about the motives of people you do not like, i.e., that certain people are sellouts for money and social status, that Jared Taylor is running a false opposition for the Jews.”

Whether AmRen was set up that way, became that way at a point, or has been entirely under Taylor’s control the whole time, it has in fact served in exactly the same capacity as John Birch Society, a front group known to false opposition formally controlled by the jews paying Welch’s salary (claimed by Revilo Oliver). AmRen encourages harsh criticism of muslims and blacks, but forbids any criticism of jews and Israel. That is, Taylor is deliberately encouraging whites to blame themselves.

And when I claim that no, that is not what Taylor is up to, you falsely claim that I am motivated by personal considerations rather than impersonal principles. For you, “impersonal principle” seems to mean, in part, making judgments about persons without any actual knowledge of them, which just boils down to you brazenly passing off speculation as facts up and waving away inconvenient criticism as sloppy and unprincipled.

Apparently my point is too subtle for your to grasp. I don’t need to know anything about Taylor other than the positions he takes. His positions are illogical and contradictory. For example, he says jews are whites. And whites should blame themselves. But you [can’t] blame jewish whites at AmRen. He further says he doesn’t take position on the jewish question, but much of his editorial space is taking up with muslim-bashing. Yet, as I said, he will not allow any criticism of jews. When it comes to race, he’s against open border, but he’s also against printing the fact that jews alone drove the 1965 immigration act that opened them. When it comes to solutions, he demands the restoring of free association, but never mentions it was organized jewry that destroyed that civil right in the name of civil rights.

Boy, he’s a bait can full of slippery contradictions to anyone with a working mind. Greg Johnson’s mind usually works pretty well. It goes on tilt when it comes to Taylor. What could account for that? It is reasonable to suspect that personal affection accounts for it. Particularly when in this very bit Johnson says I can’t judge Taylor because I don’t him personally. But you don’t need to know someone personally to judge them when you have their contradictory words in front of you, alongside their proven record over time.

At present, our movement is confined to the internet and our only real strength is our credibility, which we have to preserve carefully, especially since we are already so heavily handicapped by trolls, whether calculating or merely psychotic, and webmasters who give them free reign.

I agree. That’s why intelligent men should not let a fraud try to get away with claiming he separates the jewish question from the nigger question, which is as ridiculous as separating the dancing monkey with the cup from the organ grinder.

Okay, but more to Trainspotter’s central plaint, How to galvanize the White masses? Take over tv and broadcast non-stop “Knoxville Burnings.”

According to your tastes…

It isn’t my tastes but my perception of fact. I could be wrong, but it’s certainly not my tastes. If my tastes had anything to do with it, the masses would be attracted by witty vicious essays, and stimulated by them to go out and make the world anew. Turns out it doesn’t work like that—with the masses. You need tv. I didn’t say video, either. A video on youtube with a million views is still not tv. You need tv.

the clear answer would seem to be an ideology to galvanize the White few who would do the work of galvanizing the White many with muckraking.

If you don’t have tv, and we don’t, nor have we any prospects in near-medium future, then best you can do is come up with strategy and sell it to winter patriots. Make the difficulty of the cause the appeal, if appeal you must have. That’s how you attract the few and the strong. Once you have those, and I think a few hundreds would be enough to get it started, as long as you had a good number of vets in there, I think it would snowball, even without tv. I think if this group were following the strategy I indicate—a very simple and clear one—you could quickly attain national prominence as the one group that actually means it, apart from the jews.

How long do you think it would take to become a thing? Men who actually organize around (white) race—the thing that scares the establishment the most—and who wont back down when called racialists? I suggest to you that the minute words gets round that one of those is back in town, then it just might take off. And if that happens, you begin to get the point where that sitting judge is, let’s say, less likely to obstruct the will of the democratic majority for simple animal fear of his own ass.

Mob: “It stemmed from his deep-rooted Catholicism, which apparently teaches that Jews can and should be converted to Catholicism. In this, he resembles both Buchanan and Sobran.”

Yes. It’s the special horror of Catholicism. It simply defines the jew problem (the race problem) out of existence. But that doesn’t mean the problem goes away. It just means the catholic can’t acknowledge it. It also means that the catholic is the practical as well as theoretical enemy of the man who isn’t afraid to acknowledge it. The racist is “immoral” according to the Pape and his disskirted lessers.

As Philip Dick said, reality is that which doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it. By that standard race is real and jesus isn’t. Catholicism is fundamentally and unavoidably anti-White because it denies reality.

* * *

Of course, the posers at alt-right [Alternative Right] have no problem working with jew Gottfried. If you’re neither fish nor fowl you’re foe.

Yeah, another example of the one-way street that is the pale right’s dealings with jews. They subsidize, flatter and fawn over their controllers, namely jew Gottfried; in return they are enjoined to observe the same taboos the neo-jews insist on. The ICs [implicit conservatives] have much intellectual understanding, no political understanding, and a positively feminine concern with how they look to others.

[In the] NPI, which is a good proxy for CMS, you have it loaded with jew apologists like Taylor and outright jews—Stix and Rubenstein. So if there are technically no jews in CMS, which I do not assert, it remains true that there are certainly multiple people in CMS who are jew apologists and, in the case of The Turd, jew employers.


Posted by Mob

It’s distressing that the subject of Jared Taylor is still or again being discussed.

Back in January of 1999, when many of us were on both the original (not the present) AmRen elist and the CofCC elist, a huge problem arose when it was suggested by one of the contributors that David Duke, campaigning for Congress, should run for President in 2000 on a Buchanan/Duke ticket. I remember suggesting it be a Duke/Buchanan ticket instead.

Two sides rapidly developed, pro-Duke and anti-Duke. Some of the antis were Jewish, but some, like John Killian (dispensationalist Christian) were not. The thrust, though, was that there are “valuable Jewish members” of CofCC and AmRen—more valuable than Duke, who they would not want to associate with, and who would turn outsiders against the groups.

The outcome was that both of the heretofore very active and quite high quality lists were closed down, the same day, supposedly because of high traffic, but really because of the Duke affair. This was 1999, seven years before the Duke-Hart episode at the 2006 AmRen meeting, after which JT [Jared Taylor] sent out his formal letter, which I think I mentioned earlier in this thread or the Elitism thread.


Posted by Linder:

Jews are brought into the organization. This has only one meaning: American Renaissance is a jewish operation.

It should be treated that way. But it’s not. And those who say it should be are transformed into the bad guys by the WN who think principles don’t matter. It makes our cause a joke to say the things we do about jews—then turn around and give a loving embrace to someone like Jared Taylor who welcomes them into his fold.


Posted by Jimmy Marr:

Greg Johnson on Jared Taylor: “he also might believe that it is important to separate the race issue from the Jew issue”

I suppose it’s possible that Jared Taylor could actually believe such a thing, and I suppose Greg Johnson might actually believe that its harmless to believe such a thing.

But I believe no such thing, and I believe that believing such a thing is murderous (pre-meditated or involuntary).

My belief is supported by James Bowery’s theory of Jewish virulence.

A theory of Jewish virulence put forth by James Bowery is that it evolves from horizontal transmission of Jews between nations, in the form of repeated migration, since at least Babylonian times. Moreover, since diaspora Jews have become dependent on virulence for survival. They promote immigration and naturalization laws that are friendly to horizontal transmission more generally (here), resulting in virulence evolving in other populations.

This makes Jewish virulence more analogous to immuno-suppression virulence, such as HIV creates. This theory of Jewish virulence is complementary to both Kevin MacDonald’s thesis documented in The Culture of Critique and to Richard Faussette’s Niche Theory.

Under Bowery’s hypothesis, Jewish virulence evolved from the following horizontal transmission cycle (see Faussette’s Niche Theory for a possible starting point):

1. Hyper centralization of net assets (communist, capitalist, monarchy—doesn’t matter)

2. Social breakdown as middle class (Yeomen) are unable to afford subsistence

3. Grab and convert wealth in easily transported forms (gold historically, diamonds more recently, etc.)

4. “Virulent antisemitism” breaks out

5. Emigrate leaving behind less “savvy” Jews to take the heat

6. Cry out for help to elites at destination nation while offering concentrated wealth to enter new cycle (see step 1).


Posted by Lew:

It would be one thing for Jared Taylor to distance himself from the unhinged Jew obsessives, the simple-minded Single Jewish Causers and the irrational Jew haters on the White right.

Unfortunately, Taylor does not do this. He distances himself from those who fit that description and those on the White Right who are simply responding to ongoing Jewish aggression against White people.

Based on his public actions, Taylor recognizes no meaningful distinction between the former and the latter.

Taylor’s stance can be accurately summarized as follows:

“If you regard Jewish influence as one problem among the many problems that White people are facing in this world, fine; you are welcome to work with me as long as you check your concerns about Jewish subversion at the door.”

It’s not as if Taylor has an audience of millions like Pat Buchanan. It makes perfect sense for Pat Buchanan to cut things off at a certain point in order to keep his visibility in the mainstream and send books with vital information to the top of the best sellers list.

But Taylor has no visibility to preserve, his books will never appear on that list, yet he embraces Jews anyway and does so despite the fact that Jewish influence is the main reason he is a marginal figure.


Posted by Jimmy Marr:

Haller: “Alex Linder writes with a shotgun. Some of the pellets are made of steel; some lead; some cookie dough; and some shit.”

If the above is any indication, Alex’s writing is also having a salutary effect on your prose, Leon. Nice work.

Thanks for the kudos upthread. I deserve no share of credit for Bowery’s Razor. It reflects a level of creative insight of which I am wholly incapable if left to my own means.

Lew: “The people who bear the burden of explanation are the Jew-wise nationalists who work with philo-semites like Taylor and / or who also work with Jews.”

Yes. If we apply Occam’s Razor to this equation, the burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of those attempting to justify a more complicated explanation than Bowery produces in 50 words.

When the jews were coming here in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, why didn’t alarm bells ring?
Was the history of the expulsions suppressed? Would Americans have allowed entrance had they full knowledge of jew chicanery?

I don’t know, but if we assume I’m correct in my assertion that the Jewnome is host-specific to Europeans, it brings up another question: Why are they trying to blend us into other races?

The next question: how to break this cycle.

Alex’s proposal, unless fully executed, will ultimately serve to perpetuate the cycle. James Bowery mentions “blocking metabolic pathways” in the later part of his interview with Jim Giles.

It seems to me that whether we treat the Jewish problem with Zyclon B or through legislation designed to disable the inexorable logistics of their vampiric porosis, all will be equally and rightfully genocidal in their eyes, because they cannot survive without a racial host and they are host specific to Europeans.

So, regardless of proposed solution, Jews can be rightfully expected to sabotage the process at every opportunity, and must therefore be barred from any participation in the project.

NO JEWS. JUST RIGHT.


Posted by Hunter Wallace:

As I have described above to the best of my ability, the doctrine of the Single Jewish Cause is false, and so is the doctrine that “all White people are on the same side.” Both of these old WN chestnuts are easily refuted by history.

The truth about the Jews is that Jews are a contributing factor in our racial decline. It is one factor among many other factors—the salience of the Jewish Question also varies across countries—with Jews having the greatest impact in the United States, Britain, and France after the Second World War.

In the American North, there is a mythology that has grown up among WNs that “Jews made us liberal.” Every Southern historian howls with protest: what about John Brown, William Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Frederick Douglass, Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner and the rest of the Black Republicans and the Wide Awakes who were behind Reconstruction?

As a matter of fact, it was the North that invented Jim Crow in the Antebellum era. The North had black codes that fined or outlawed black settlement in states like Illinois, Oregon, and Ohio. They also [had] anti-miscegenation laws in most of the Northern states.

Well, in the aftermath of the War Between the States, the North repealed the black codes, repealed the anti-miscegenation laws, and banned segregation in hundreds of state statutes in the Northern states… by the year 1900.

That’s a historical fact. Look it up.


___________________

Chechar’s note:

I’m not sure if Linder believes in a single cause of Western malaise since he himself blames “Christ-insanity” as a contributing factor. What is clear to me is that without the French revolutionaries’ blunder of granting full rights to the Jews, Europe would have been eventually spared from Bolshevik genocides and the Gulag (see here). And America would have been spared from the pressure Jewish groups that opened the gates for massive, non-Aryan immigration into the US—among many other calamities wrought by the tribe.

For those unfamiliar with MacDonald’s trilogy I’d recommend this Preface. For those already familiar with the JQ, James Bowery’s theory of Jewish virulence—Jim Giles’ interview of Bowery already linked above—is worth listening (Bowery proposes a solution to the Jewish problem different from Linder’s exterminationist standpoint).