web analytics

Category: Conservatism

Categories
Axiology Christendom Conservatism Deranged altruism Friedrich Nietzsche Judeo-reductionism Liberalism Michael O'Meara Protestantism

The Jewish Question revisited

Note of September 2017:
The first half of this post,
“Wuthering Heights,”
has been relocated: here.

 

In a recent radio podcast Mark Weber, a revisionist historian and current director of the Institute for Historical Review, said (ellipsis omitted between unquoted sentences):

Americans pride themselves of not having an ideology (“We are not fooled by fascism, communism or Nazism or any other ‘isms’”). Well, in fact, America does have an ideology. It has a kind of core idea and a core narrative of itself that is widely accepted by Americans, whether they call themselves conservatives or liberals. And it is so engrained in the American mentality that it is not often expressed very openly.

The core of the American ideology is in the birth certificate, as it were, of the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence. You all know that the Declaration of Independence lays out, I think, what Americans assume about what this country stands for, what it really means and in cases of doubt we turn back to it: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And to this end “Governments are instituted.”

Now that’s an essential kind of belief that Americans more of less accept. Liberals emphasize much more than conservatives the equality part of that. And conservatives tend to emphasize the point of individual life, liberty and the pursue of happiness. That is a very core kind of thing and with that there is a kind of narrative of American history.

The narrative of American history is that although it’s true that we didn’t have real equality when America was founded that is what we are aiming for: that’s our goal [emphasis in Weber’s voice]. And it is true that our founding fathers did not practice it well. But we are all trying to practice it. We are trying to reach that goal, that goal of real equality.

In his speech Weber also said that in keeping with that goal, in the past Americans decided that distinctions between Christians and non-Christians were not very important and stopped discriminating against the latter. Also, in keeping with the very same principle of non-discrimination, according to Weber the equality between women and men was enshrined. And the same could be said about how Jews and blacks got fantastically empowered in the US.

The social engineering that has transformed the West in general and America in particular has at its core this idea of equality and its corollary, the principle of non-discrimination as the most unquestioned, inviolable axioms of our moral universe. For example, Weber also noted that nowadays no conservative would ever dream of taking away the women’s right to vote. On the contrary: the equality commandment has now metastasized beyond unthinkable limits for our grandparents and, Weber pointed out, many are now saying: “Well, the next bastion is to make sure that gay people are equal too,” always in an endless pursuing of an amplifying spiral for an ever more encompassing equality.

This is a narrative “not only for liberals but of conservatives too,” who “may resist in one point but once it’s in place [women’s rights/affirmative action/Jews controlling the MSM] they don’t object it.” To boot, in the academia and in the mainstream media, including the film industry, this spiraling axiology is been made retroactive, and presently the world of my beloved grandmas is increasingly demonized precisely because even conservatives accept the narrative. Just compare this suicidal ethos that both liberals and conservatives subscribe with what I say in the manifesto: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that men and cultures are created un-equal, and that only an ethno-state will save our race from extinction.”

Christianity and Secular Christianity are based on the inversion of the most vital values. An ethnostate, by definition, would not only revoke the non-discriminatory principle but transvaluate it. Discrimination would be, again, considered the most basic, commonsensical ruling principle of our society. Hence the Nietzschean call for an Umwertung aller Werte, or transvaluation of Christian values back to Greco-Roman values: the only way to place, again, axiology upright.

After listening to Weber’s speech several times, I found it impossible not to think in my recent posts where both Christianity and what we are now calling Secular Christianity are harshly criticized. Which brings me to the Jewish Question and, specifically, to my debate with the monocausalists about whether or not the Jewish problem is the only causative factor of Western malaise.

Five months ago Michael O’Meara published what has been perhaps the most controversial article at Counter-Currents, “White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism”, of which O’Meara commented in the discussion thread:

“I’m certain most people read my piece with a good deal of negative emotion. But re-read my piece without emotion and look at what I actually try to say.”

As to Jewish monocausalism is concerned, in the threaded discussion O’Meara said that he could make an equally convincing argument to “prove” that, say, Catholicism and Protestantism “were more influential in legalizing the formal de-Europeanization of the American people.” This, of course, reminds me Hitler’s criticism of Christianity. Readers of his table talks are always amazed by the fact that those who knew Hitler intimately often listened harsher words from the Führer’s lips directed against Christianity than against Judaism itself. See for example my latest post quoting Hitler’s private talks here.

Uncle Adolf had a point. For instance, it would be nonsense to say that Mr. Earnshaw loved Heathcliff and altruistically punished his eldest son “as a result of Jewish influence in early Victorian England” (even Kevin MacDonald would agree with me that that sort of behavior, however fictional, would qualify as “altruistic punishment”). And the same could be said about Catherine’s lasting infatuation with the dark-skinned gypsy. Both attitudes symbolize the westerners’ fondness for the “New Jesus,” what I am starting to call Secular Christianity. Or at least they symbolize what they are failing to do: an outright, revolutionary repudiation of the intruders and the traitorous elites. This is what Hindley intended in his early teens before his father irreparably damaged the emotional state of his most natural, legit heir by means of a series of altruistic punishments that ended in that the gypsy inherited the entire estate of Wuthering Heights. (Reread Brontë’s novel. The plot moved me to constantly swear, in exasperating soliloquies, against the deranged altruists of the Yorkshire.)

Yes: it is time for westerners to give up their self-destructive philo-Semitism. But Christianity and its secular incarnation that mandates us to love these later-day “gypsies” as the First Commandment must be torn to pieces too. Perhaps it’s suitable to end this post with the opening words of chapter 56, “Old and New Tables” of Thus Spake Zarathustra:

Here do I sit and wait, old broken tables around me and also new half-written tables. When cometh mine hour?

Umwertung aller Werte!

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
Americanism Conservatism Egalitarianism Michael O'Meara Toward the White Republic (book)

Toward the White Republic

Or:

The United States can only be repulsed
as an alien body-snatcher

The below essay, “Toward the White Republic” by Michael O’Meara, won in 2009 The Occidental Quarterly essay contest on secession. It is now the title essay of O’Meara’s book Toward the White Republic, available from Counter-Currents Publishing here.


Young Irish warrior

“Breathes there the man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!”

—Walter Scott


One.

Some time in the second half of the 1990s, a terminologi­cal change occurred in the racially conscious community.

Many who previously identified themselves as White Power advocates, segregationists, separatists, supremacists, survivalists, neo-Confederates, biological realists, etc. started calling themselves “white nationalists.”

At the time (and I didn’t know much about these things then), I thought this reflected a changing political con­sciousness.

For what began after 1945 as a “movement” to maintain the integrity of America’s racial character and prevent alien races from intruding into its various “life worlds” had, by the 1990s, ceased to be a realistic project—30 years of Third-World immigration, “civil rights” legislation, and various measures imposed by the federal government to subordinate white interests to those of non-whites had ir­revocably transformed the American people so that it was increasingly difficult to characterize it any longer as a majority-white population.

For this reason, “white advocates” in the late 1990s started making traditional nationalist claims for secession and self-determination because the United States, in their eyes, had become a threat to their people’s existence.

Two.

This interpretation was not at all unreasonable. But, alas, it didn’t quite accord with the facts.

I’ve since learned that those calling themselves “white nationalists” are not necessarily nationalists in the sense of wanting to secede from the United States in order to form an independent ethnostate. Most, I think it’s fair to say, are racially conscious conservatives who want to work through the existing institutions to regain control of the country their ancestors made—in order, ultimately, to dismantle the present anti-white system of preferences and restore something of the white man’s former hegemony.

By contrast, white nationalists in the strict sense (i.e., those favoring secession) have no interest in restoring the old ways, let alone regaining control of the central state, whose authority is already slipping and whose rule is in­creasingly dysfunctional. Indeed, the American state sys­tem, as its more astute supporters acknowledge, is beyond reform.

Instead, white nationalists aspire to create a counter-elite to lead disaffected white youth in a movement to found a whites-only nation-state somewhere in North America, once the poorly managed enterprise known as the United States collapses in a centrifugal dispersion of its decaying and perverted powers.

Without an organizational presence in the real world and a “public” largely of computer hobbyists, white na­tionalists have no hope at present of actually mobilizing whites in opposition to the existing anti-white regime (even if they seek to influence whatever social currents might run in their general direction). Rather, their immedi­ate goal is to prepare the way for the development of a revolutionary nationalist vanguard to lead the struggle for white liberation. They aspire thus not to recapture the rot­ting corpse of the US government, but to free themselves from it—in order to be themselves, in their own land, in their own way.

White nationalists, as such, politically define themselves in wanting to create a sovereign state in North America. They endeavor, therefore, not to “put things back the way they were,” as conservatives wish, but to rid themselves of them completely.

A National Revolution, they hold, will alone restore “the white man to his rightful place in the world.”

Inspired by the birthright handed down by the blood and sacrifice of ancestors, their project, relatedly, is not about restoring the Third Reich or the Confederacy, as left­ists imagine, but about creating a future white homeland in which their kind will be able “to pursue their destiny with­out interference from other races.”

Three.

White nationalism is a variant of historic ethnonational­ism, what Walker Connor calls nationalism “in its pristine sense.”

All three—racial, ethno, and pristine nationalism—de­fine the nation in terms of blood.

The creedal or civic nationalism of the present regime, which makes loyalty to the state, not the nation, primary, is by contrast “nationalist” only in a narrow ideological sense, confusing as it does patriotism (loyalty to the state or affection for the land) with loyalty to the people (nationalism). It thus de­fines the nation in terms of certain abstract democratic principles, seeing it as a collection of individuals, each more important than the whole.

Though ethnonationalists privilege the nation’s spirit above all else, they nevertheless define it organically, in terms of blood, as an extended family, an endogamous kin group, or a genetic commonwealth.

Unlike European nations, formed around long-established ethnic cores (which had developed in the Middle Ages, as Germanic and other tribal confederations evolved into larger political, regional, and cultural identities), American national identity was defined, historically, in ex­plicitly racial terms.

As Sir Arthur Keith characterized it: “In Europe the stock has been broken up into local national breeds; in America the local breeds have been reunited.”

In both cases, a national identity grew out of a real or imagined blood relationship linking the nation’s members to inherited customs and institutions.

Because the American form of racial nationhood lacks the ethnic dimension distinct to European nationalism, it is a source of some misunderstanding, especially in its purely negative expression as anti-Semitism or Negrophobia.

For example, even Euronationalists who struggle for a continental nation-state tend to dismiss white nationalism —because it seems to imply the typical American leveling of cultural and other identities by subsuming them under a homogenizing biological concept that negates the particularisms of European nationhood and subjects them to an­other form of Anglo-American hegemony.

In this, however, our European cousins misunderstand the aim of white nationalism, though some white national­ists in their one-sided reaction to non-whites or in their “numbskull Americanism” may, admittedly, have given cause to this misunderstanding

White nationalism is a distinctly American (or, better said, New World) nationalism, not a European one, and the two are analogous only at the highest level, where the na­tional community, defined ethnically or racially, affirms its right to control its own destiny. Its highest loyalty, as Fran­cis Parker Yockey held, is to the destiny of its mother soil and father culture: Europe.

This is not to say that American racial nationalism—which makes white European racial ascriptions the basis of American identity—has no ethnic or historic component.

The country’s original settlers were largely of Anglo-Protestant descent, and this had a formative effect on American institutions and folkways.

The organic basis of the American nation, however, was less English ethnicity than “whiteness.”

Even before the War of Independence (the first Ameri­can war of secession), more than a quarter of the popula­tion was of non-English, mainly North European stock: Scots-Irish, German, Dutch, French Huguenots, etc. By about the mid-18th century, the “American English” were increasingly referred to as “Americans,” a people “selected by a whole series of ordeals which [had] killed off the weak and worthless” and conferred a distinct vitality on their laws, attitudes, and local institutions.

The bitterness of the War of Independence and the War of 1812, US-British acrimony and rivalry extending late into the 19th century, in addition to the “normal” nationalist compulsion to celebrate an American identity independent of the English—all tended to minimize the significance of the colonists’ original national origins, as they were reborn as pure Americans.

American nationalism arose in fact on the basis of a cer­tain popular revulsion against the English.

Nevertheless, English-Americans were the original na­tive Americans, and all the rest of us have since become American by assimilating something of the ethos derived from their unique genos.

Though Anglo-Protestant ethnicity continues to animate the inner reaches of American culture, it wasn’t the phenotypical basis of American identity. Rather, it was the ra­cial experience of transplanted Englishmen in 17th-century Virginia, then the “exotic far western periphery… of the metropolitan European cultural system.”

In the New World part of this system, the ever-looming presence of African slaves, considered “by nature vicious and morally inferior,” and “savage” red Indians, who posed an ongoing threat, could not but foster an acute ra­cial consciousness.

Given that economic opportunities, vast expanses of vir­gin land, and new fortunes prevented the old European so­cial hierarchies from re-establishing themselves, these ra­cial bearings would serve as the one fixed hierarchy or­dering colonial life.

Forged, thus, in conflict with non-whites, the colonists’ early racial consciousness served to mark the boundaries of the emerging American identity. The historian Winthrop Jordan claims that “Anglo-Americans” were already identi­fying themselves as “whites” rather than “Englishmen” as early as 1680.

National or ethnic differences in this racially mixed en­vironment were simply less meaningful than differences between Europeans and non-Europeans.

These differences were subsequently institutionalized, once the American colonists declared their independence, for they declared in effect their intent to become a self-determined people in the evolutionary sense, by becoming a nation, an organic body with its own sovereign state and its own laws of growth.

Then, following the revolution, as republican principles were gradually extended to all white males, the country’s Herrenvolk democracy posed an insurmountable obstacle to the extension of these principles to non-whites—for the new, explicitly white nation was based not on the liberal fiction of “humanity,” but on the assumption that human nature is a product of blood and race.

Indeed, the white egalitarianism of the early republic, shaped largely in opposition to the Toryism of anglophile Federalists (who represented the bourgeois interests of lib­eral market society and its connection to British commerce) was premised on the Negro’s otherness and the primacy of white racial ascriptions, all of which further contributed to the nation’s self-consciousness, coherence, and communal­ity, as British and European Americans, largely under the leadership of Indian-fighting, pro-slavery, and expansionist Southerners, came to share not just the same horizontal sense of right and identity, but the same vertical qualities and dignities of their racial stock.

In ways different from ethnicity, race formed the psy­chological bonds that joined American whites and differ­entiated them from non-whites, just as the language, cus­toms, and early institutions of the original Anglo-Protestant settlers established the cultural-linguistic framework in which white Americans became a self-conscious nation.

Four.

The ethnogenic process that gradually imposed a com­mon culture and identity on the former colonists, as they became Virginians and New Englanders, and more gener­ally, Americans, was interrupted in the 1840s by the mass influx of Irish and German Catholics—the former seen al­most as an alien race. Then, in the late 19th century, this was followed by a second great immigrant wave, from Southern and Eastern Europe.

Today the Third World invasion is taking the ethnogenic process to a new extreme, as the state, with its inorganic definition of the nation, endeavors to “transcend” the per­ennially white, Christian character of the American people for the sake of its oxymoronic “universal nation.”

At each nodal point in this demographic transformation, except the most recent, native Americans, however resis­tant to the newcomers, succeeded in assimilating them on the basis of their racial ascriptions, as the Anglo-Protestant character of American identity became progressively more “ecumenical.”

Indeed, it’s increasingly difficult today to talk of “hy­phenated-Americans,” given that the different European ethnic strains making up the white population have so ex­tensively intermarried that many now no longer know their ethnic origins, European hybrids that they have become. As one historian writes: “Ellis Island whiteness” has come to replace “Plymouth Rock whiteness.”

There were obvious limits to assimilation, though. As Woodrow Wilson put it: “We cannot make a homogenous population of a people who do not blend with the Cauca­sian race.” Against this view, many “new,” especially Jew­ish immigrants, advanced the cause for greater ra­cial/ethnic diversity, as if America’s vocation was to be­come a boardinghouse to all the world’s peoples. The Old America, though, would have none of this, and, in Stoddard’s words, dismissed such claims with the insis­tence “that America is basically ‘made’—and that it shall not be unmade.”

Then, later, when the post-1945 National Security State, armed with its newly acquired “mandate of heaven,” en­deavored to turn Roosevelt’s liberal-managerial state sys­tem into a world empire, premised on the belief that it was based on an idea, not a people, it launched what amounted to an assault on America’s historic identity—an assault whose overarching aim was to undermine the population’s racial consciousness and promote ethnocidal practices fa­cilitating its “demographic” reconstitution.

The state’s “anti-racism” came thus to serve as an in­strument of its social engineers, who sought to turn whites into herds of “tamed sheep [who] care not in which flock [they] are driven.”

It was only natural, therefore, that once the shearing got under way the most racially conscious whites began to see themselves as an oppressed nation in need of their own sovereign state.

Five.

Numerous have been the criticisms that racial conser­vatives make of nationalists advocating secession from the United States. The most common of these—made in a pe­riod which has witnessed successful secessionist move­ments (in the former SU, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc.), as well as other popular movements resisting a despotic, leveling centralization in the name of regionalism, devo­lution, and the defense of historic identities—is that the prospect of creating a white ethnostate in North America free of the United States is totally unrealizable… a fantasy… pure and utter folly.

But this, they fail to realize, is hardly criticism at all.

For those with the courage of their convictions, it’s never a matter of calculating the odds and going with the win­ning side, but of doing what needs to be done—like that Roman soldier cited by Spengler in Man and Technics, whose Aryan sense of duty kept him at his post, doing what had to be done, as Pompeii was buried in the ash of Vesuvius.

The secessionist, then, is not another party politician loyal to Washington’s New Class establishment, but a na­tionalist loyal to his nation—and thus to whatever political imperative the nation’s welfare demands.

He has, moreover, no illusions about what this entails.

As the Euronationalist Jean Thiriart put it: “One does not create a nation with speeches, pious talk, and banquets. One creates a nation with rifles, martyrs, jointly lived dan­gers.”

Six.

Viewed “objectively,” neither secession nor a white con­servative reconquest has a chance, not one in a universe of infinite possibilities. Both are figments of a few white minds troubled by the prospect of their people’s imminent demise.

But that’s the way all great movements begin.

If a presently unattainable ideal is not first articulated as a mythic possibility, it remains unrealized, for its idealiza­tion is part of the process that quickens its realization (sic volo, sic jubeo).

In 1774, only a few believed in American independence, but after 1776 it was a critical mass.

Secession, as such, cannot be submitted to the usual criticism, for it’s not a fact or even an idea so much as it is a way of being—or of wanting to be.

Central to its realization, therefore, is not the objective forces opposing it, but the subjective will seeking its triumph—the triumph which comes, as Evola says, whenever “a heroic vocation awakens as an irresistible force from above and… is animated by a will to keep on going, over­coming every material or rational obstacle.”

Many things, of course, would have to change before either secession or reconquest are remotely realizable (though our postmodern age, the Kali Yuga of the Tradi­tionalists, is an interregnum in which time and events are greatly accelerated, as all things hurtle toward the inevita­ble crackup, the Ragnarok, which precedes every rebirth).

The thought, nevertheless, of whites breaking free of the United States, in this period when the multi-cult empire is experiencing what may be the first of its death agonies, seems, from a secessionist perspective, somewhat less of a fantasy than trying to reform it, which 60 years of ex­perience suggest is unreformable.

Seven.

Almost every criticism that can be made of secession is to be found in Sam Francis’s “Prospects for Racial and Cultural Survival” (1995).

Sam, to whom I have paid high tribute in these pages [Chechar’s note: The Occidental Quarterly], was an important transitional figure in the devel­opment of white nationalism.

Though one of his feet was solidly planted in the racial­ist camp, the other, however, was never quite freed from his former “new right” and paleocon beliefs. Divided, his critique of secession reflected an old-fashioned patriotism unwilling to break with the US—though, perhaps, if he had lived, he might feel differently, now that the dusky helms­man has begun steering the ship of state perilously close to the shoals of what promises to be an even more horrendous fate.

As an anti-secessionist, Sam considered separation from the United States tantamount to surrender—surrender of the country his ancestors created, surrender of its history, traditions, interests.

But Sam was wrong.

Secessionists surrender nothing but the slow death of their people. For among other things, secession is about survival—and the prospect of being able to fight another day.

To do that, one must live. But where, how?

For all practical purposes whites have lost the United States. Though still a near majority, they are surrounded by armed forces seeking their destruction, they are running out of ammunition, and the ground troops are being sent in to clean up the remaining pockets of resistance. It looks as if they’re doomed.

Secession is a way of avoiding the deadly pincers closing in on white life. It is perhaps the only way.

In the last 60 years, it bears emphasizing, absolutely NOTHING—not one little thing—has been accomplished to interrupt the programmed destruction of European America.

Nevertheless, the critics of secession drone on: “Why give up the country when you can take it back?”

These two-fisted patriots, who think this is the most powerful argument against secession, are likely to be sing­ing the same song in the not too distanced future, when colored novelists start writing about “The Last of the Euro­peans.”

But even if feasible, what self-respecting white man would want to take back the United States, this monstrous, bureaucratic Leviathan whose Jewish, race-mixing, homo­phile, feminist, fraudulent, anti-Christian, and degenerate practices stand as an affront to everything his ancestors stood for?

The hard truth is that it’s gotten to the point where the US can no longer be defended as “my mother, drunk or so­ber,” only repulsed as an alien body-snatcher. [Chechar’s note: for an explanation of this metaphor, see this article.]

To this end, secessionists emulate the proud Danes, who said after the loss of Schleswig-Holstein in 1865: “What has been lost externally will be gained internally.”

But more than refusing to abide the state responsible for their dispossession, secessionists see this “abomination of desolation” as their principal enemy. Only by freeing themselves from it and acquiring their own land under their own sovereignty do they see a future for their kind.

One might call this “surrendering large parts of the country to non-whites”—though these aliens already oc­cupy large parts of it and will continue to do so until whites are completely replaced.

The secessionists’ ultimate consideration, then, is not what will be lost, but what gives whites the best chance to survive.

“Any proposal for separation,” Sam argued, “would simply alienate the most patriotic and nationalist loyalties of American whites and lead them to see separatists as un-American.” Most whites would also “refuse to abandon their allegiance to the US or forsake its territory.”

Here Sam confused loyalty to the state with loyalty to the nation, paying tribute, in effect, to Caesar in his own coin. One cannot wonder, moreover, how patriotic most Americans are going to be once they discover that their grandchildren will be paying off the debts of the present US government—at a time when American citizenship is likely to be little more than a form of Chinese peonage.

Secessionists care not in the least if most whites would refuse to abandon “their” country. Most whites, de-Ayranized as they are, allowed a Negro to become president.

Only those who care for their kind and are willing to fight for them can possibly found a new nation.

The flag-waving, Constitution-worshipping types—who know nothing outside the ideology of liberal democracy, old (“conservative”) or new (“progressive”), and who be­lieve that there is something sacred about the unholy United States—will never be mobilized for the sake of “ra­cial preservation”; that ship has sailed.

In secessionist eyes, it’s better to lose a bit of territory and shed the race’s detritus than to lose whatever remains of the white nation—especially in view of the coming age, which is certain to be filled with cascading catastrophes, set off by the imploding contradictions of liberalism’s dysto­pian regime.

As for being militarily crushed by the US, another fre­quent objection, anti-secessionists seem not to have heard of fourth-generation war, just as they conveniently forget that the only country the United States has truly defeated in the many wars of choice it’s waged in the last 60 years is the tiny Caribbean nation of Grenada. As one Russian observer notes, the US “military does not know how to win… [only] how to blow things up” (a Second Generation Warfare practice which the US Army learned from the French in WW I and continues to teach in its academies, as it justifies the Pentagon’s vast budgetary appropriations). It’s consequentially incapable of “prevailing over any en­emy, no matter how badly armed, demoralized, or minus­cule”—because it only knows how to fight standing armies in “conventional” wars, where firepower is paramount.

Both militarily and politically, it would seem a hundred times easier to secede from, than to retake, the United States. Concentrating their forces at the enemy’s weakest link—a concentration of what would be a growing base of support, once the United States starts its slow slide into the abyss of insolvency and tyranny—secessionists would need only to pene­trate the enemy’s porous lines, disorganize his rear through an “open-source insurgency,” and then sue for formal sov­ereignty over a collapsed or ungovernable part of the United States.

In the context of such a possible development, Sam wondered how the races could possibly be separated and what would prevent them from “unseparating.” Here again he didn’t see what was coming. Since the end of the Second World War there have been numerous population transfers by partitioned states (the most important of which were sanctioned by the US). These transfers occurred in the recent past, will undoubtedly occur again, and already oc­cur in little ways every day in the US, as non-whites force whites out of their former neighborhoods.

Secession implies both population transfers and territo­rial partition—historically justifiable measures, sanctioned by US precedent, and executable with a minimum of force, unlike the pipe dreams of anti-secessionists, whose imag­ined “reconquest” would be of a state with a hundred mil­lion non-white citizens, all with their hands out.

In its desire for cheap labor, Sam thought a separate white nation, would simply repeat the process that got whites into the present mess—as if the struggle for seces­sion (and all it entails) wouldn’t lead to an explicitly racial definition of nationality, to an inversion of the market’s primacy, and to a spiritual triumph over the materialism that has corrupted so many whites.

As a conservative, he couldn’t see that white secession (unlike the secession of the Confederacy) is a revolutionary project premised on a rejection not just of the illegal alien­ations of the federal government, but of the entire social, economic, and moral order sustaining its ethnocidal rule.

A white breakaway state, Sam also claimed, would be surrounded by hostile powers, vulnerable to invasion, and unable to defend itself against the rising demographic tide outside its borders. Again, these are non-criticisms. Any region seceded from the United States would have its own arms stockpile, including nukes, and would likely be sup­ported by Russia and other powers having scores to settle with Washington’s New World Order.

More crucially, the racially homogenous populace of a seceded white republic would be imbued with the nation­alist fervor that is the inevitable offshoot of newly forged nations and armed not simply with the technologies of mass destruction, which are now accessible to small states, but also with a society-wide system of local militias, like the Swiss.

To think that a mutilated United States, with its warring racial factions, welfare politics, and rubber-spine army would be able to crush an armed, autonomous white re­public is to abandon the realm of logic. Even at the height of its expansionist powers, National Socialist Germany never thought of invading tiny, mountainous Switzerland, where every citizen was armed and ready to defend his nation. The US Army, need it be said, is no Wehrmacht.

Eight.

European Americans will not survive another genera­tion under the present Judeo-Negro regime.

Racially-conscious conservatives are counting on a fu­ture white backlash to mobilize in defense of white inter­ests. Through such a mobilization, and a much discussed though little practiced, “march through the institu­tions,” they hope to raise white racial consciousness, counter the demographic threat posed by non-whites, and introduce reforms that will curtail non-white power—all of which, of course, are totally desirable.

But they expect to arrive at this Utopia without ex­plaining how they would counter a population half of which will be non-white in 33 years (2042); with­out explaining how they would challenge a government that criminalizes white dissent; without explaining how a system can be fundamentally changed without fundamen­tally changing the institutions and powers that govern it and make it what it is; without any of these things, racial conservatives mock the notion of secession, as if their own not particularly successful project is the sole conceivable alternative.

Nine.

Unlike their conservative critics, secessionists have a plan, a simple, straightforward one, that offers whites an alternative to an unreformable system and an inescapable death.

This plan has the advantage of being (a) eminently po­litical, (b) based on proven historical precedents, and (c) imbued with the power to generate a will to nationhood.

Given the increasingly totalitarian nature of the existing system, where the mere mention of “race” can be taken as an incitement to crimes against humanity, this aspect of se­cession, ought, perhaps, to be discussed in historical rather than explicitly programmatic terms.

Much of the history of European nationalism speaks to the American situation today, especially (in my admittedly partisan view) Irish nationalism.

In the 1870s and ’80s, a generation after the An Gorta Mor (the Great Hunger), revolutionary and conservative na­tionalists agreed to be allies in the common struggle for Irish nationhood. The revolutionary Fenians, preeminently in the form of Michael Davitt’s Land League, which led the rebellion in the countryside, gave the constitutionalists in Charles Stewart Parnell’s Irish Parliamentary Party the social leverage to force concessions from the English at Westminster—con­cessions that eventually won back many Irish lands. Then, once the constitutionalists had gone as far as they could, by about 1911 or so, the revolutionary, physical-force wing of Irish nationalism took over to complete the nationalist project.

We American secessionists want whatever works best for the future of our people. If our “constitutionalists,” per­haps in the form of a third party, are able to create dissen­sion and vulnerability among the “English” in a way that promotes white interests, they are to be supported. But once they fail, we will need to turn, as did the Irish, to the methods of Connelly and Pearse.

Those who know Hibernian—or any other European—nationalist history also know the immeasurable power of the nation, especially the nation rising to nationhood.

This is the spirit we secessionists hope to stir in white Americans.

The situation today may, therefore, be totally grim, but politically there is no more feasible or marketable strategy to awaken our people, especially as they become aware of their approaching minority status and all it implies.

Imagine, then, for a moment, a white homeland in North America, free of the Jew-ridden US government, with its colored multitudes and parasitic institutions: In my mind, this one image says everything, explains everything, promises everything.

The powerful imagery of an autonomous white nation possesses, as well, the mythic potential that the General Strike has in the thought of Georges Sorel.

All great movements, Sorel saw, are driven not by ra­tional arguments or party programs, but by their myths (which “are not descriptions of things, but expressions of a determination to act”).

For it is myth—and the memories and hopes animating it—that shape a nation, that turn a “motley horde” into a people with a shared sense of purpose and identity, that mobilize them against the state of things, and prepare them for self-sacrifice and self-rule.

A Sovereign Independent State, as the Irish called it in 1916—the White Republic, as I call it—is a possible seces­sionist myth to symbolize the determination of white men to assert themselves as a free people somewhere in an all-white America.

_____________________

See endnotes here.

Categories
Conservatism Egalitarianism Joseph Goebbels

Linder’s worldview (part 2)


For the first part click here. Indented paragraphs are quotations of those commenters to whom Linder responds.



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).

Categories
Christendom Conservatism Joseph Goebbels Real men

Linder’s Weltanschauung

“Why so hard!”—said to the diamond one day the charcoal; “are we then not near relatives?”—

Why so soft? O my brethren; thus do I ask you: are ye then not—my brethren?

Why so soft, so submissive and yielding? Why is there so much negation and abnegation in your hearts? Why is there so little fate in your looks?

And if ye will not be fates and inexorable ones, how can ye one day—conquer with me?

And if your hardness will not glance and cut and chip to pieces, how can ye one day—create with me?

For the creators are hard. And blessedness must it seem to you to press your hand upon millenniums as upon wax,—

—Blessedness to write upon the will of millenniums as upon brass,—harder than brass, nobler than brass. Entirely hard is only the noblest.

This new table, O my brethren, put I up over you: Become hard!—

Thus spake Zarathustra



It is a pity that Alex Linder believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories, the subject of my previous entries, because his brutal honesty is so brilliant… Although he is not a Nazi, Linder is surely right by constantly quoting Hitler that the world is not for cowardly peoples—read: conservatives—. If whites are to survive we must become as hard as diamonds, as Nietzsche put it in his most poetic work.

Below I excerpted to a little more than ten thousand words the substance of what Linder recently said in an extremely long thread at Majority Rights, including a few quotations and full responses from those who didn’t agree with him (no ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs):




The solution is not to mix and mingle with conservatives, as politically naive MacDonald imagines, but to separate from them and attack them. It is an incredible political mistake to tolerate Jared Taylor or any of his mini-mes in the White movement. That’s how the conservatives got coopted.

Having it both ways, which is the real subtitle of the Alt-right crowd, never has worked and never will work. Sam Francis’ career is proof.

The right way to go is define who we are, who’s our enemy, and keep the line indelible. Then attack the conservatives, polarize the nation until White and jews are seen as the only true and real political divide, and then fight it out until we win.

Anything Southern, christian, or conservative is a non-starter. These groups have all proven their utter incompetence to do anything but sit down and go backwards.

Attack the conservatives, don’t fawn after them—that’s the idea that will bear sweet, sweet fruit.

* * *

We must be a jealous cause, and destroy all competitors. And our only competitors are on the right. Once they’re gone, we’re ready for the big time—the jews. Well, in reality we fight both fronts simultaneously, but the fight that matters most first is against the fake opposition on the right—the professional conservatives.

* * *

If you disagree with my political argument that jews should be exterminated, as it is the only way to solve the threat they have presented to the White race for over 2,000 years, then make that case directly rather than attempting to character-assassinate me.

* * *

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.

* * *

What if we had a party called the Racist Party? What if every one of us were a member? What if we mass attacked the right, especially the paleoconservatives and the WHINOs? We attacked Buchanan and the rest of these jew-bought or jew-feared clowns with intent to destroy? We attacked Jared Taylor and the others traitors who sold out to the jews? We attacked the conservatives in the Tea Party for being weaklings, and we attacked Ron Paul for cowardly running away from his own words in his newsletter?

What do you think would happen? If we all did. Me. You all here. MacDonald. Johnson. Everybody out there who wanted in.

What if we forced every last excuse-maker to come down finally on side or the other. Are you a racialist or a religionist? A racialist or a regionist? A racialist or a Republican? Which is it. Make a choice?

What if we actually meant what we’re saying, and proved that by our verbal actions (to set the very first, very lowest standard)?

Soon enough we would have a reputation; I think we would run through the weak right like butter. We’d be well on the way to a serious polarization between the judeo-left and the mean-itz whites.

I repeat again: What if we actually meant what we said about race? And didn’t make excuses for people couldn’t / wouldn’t / shouldn’t say wht needed to be said? At some point, there is no more equivocation possible. Look how free you all are with the attempted character-assassination of the tiny minority who aren’t using fake names. Do you honestly believe you aren’t worms—those of you who aren’t veiled antis, head cases or undercover cops?

I have never in my life seen such a collection of excuse-makers as the race crowd. Edwards is a fangirl; Spencer and Taylor are shirtfronts. There is nothing serious there. Serious men would laugh a clown like Buchanan off the stage, not brag about getting him on their radio show.

Racialism is not ready for prime time, and it never will be until it learns to see professional conservatives as the enemy rather than as movie stars.

* * *

The Jews are playing for millennia. They’ve defeated all of their enemies.

Bingo. We have a winner. The jews enemies aren’t defeated, they no longer exist. They’re extinct.

And they’re working on the same for us. But oh no, we must never even hint at the same for them. That’s crazy talk!

You kiddie-clowns, not one of you with the balls to run your lies under real names while yapping about me being abnormal, many of you with more personas than sybil, not a friggin’ clue in the world who you actually are or what you believe, would, if you had any integrity, meet my “death to the jews” head on.

It is my considered intellectual opinion, formed on the basis of close reading (and as deep thought as I can muster) of E. Michael Jones’ two giant tomes about jewish radicalism and 2,000 years of jew-goy relations. I believe it’s the only rational conclusion an honest man studying the material can come to. As such, it simply must be put on the table. Our cause is that serious. The funny thing here is at least two of you jokers actually were literal nazis, or adopted that persona, whereas I myself have never been such. Nowhere is there a picture of me, as there is of Duke, wearing Nazi gear, because I’m not one. I believe in a racial dictatorship combined with a diversity of microstates, and I would prefer to in the most libertarian one that can be devised. And that has been my position from day one: racial dictatorship + decentralization for non-racial matters.

Who is serious here, me or you?

The answer is obvious.

* * *

Linder’s Strategy: Attack the Conservatives.

This is the struggle against the struggle for survival. It’s Jewish. It’s Satanic. It’s spiritual poison. Any race of people who endorse it will die.

All christians are spirit-queers. Homosexuals of the spirit, if not the flesh. Of course, many of them are flesh queers too, especially the priests.

If the Jewish method is to kill us while lying that they love us, wouldn’t the Aryan response be to kill them while admitting we hate them?

Exactly. It’s a little thing called style.

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. Buchanan, their holy figure, is not us. The idea that I have to tell racialists that a Catholic who believes racialism is immoral and selects a female black for his running partners is in fact not a White nationalists is past irony, isn’t it? But I sure do have to, don’t I?

I’m calling into question here that people traditionally thought to be on our side are not on our side, and that bothers people because they 1) haven’t thought about it; 2) don’t like me; 3) do like the people I say aren’t us. It’s all just personal touchy-feely stuff, with no one seeing any need to be clear and precise and ideological.

Is it not evident after 100 years of failure that conservatism cannot defend our race?

How did Buchanan treat Duke? Just like the jews did at the AmRen conference—he attacked him.

Are we on the same side as Buchanan?

No. We are not.

Linder apparently defines anybody who fails to be anti-Jew as a potential target and anybody who fails to be pro-White as a potential target.

Quite right. You polarize by forcing people to choose. And you make the split one you can win on.

You like fags? jews? multicult? niggers? mexicans? bureaucrats? warmongering? minority welfare? hip-hop? drive-bys? abortions?—then side with the judeo-left.

You like white people? normal sex? self-control? minding our own business internationally? low taxes? —then vote for the White Party.

The media will always back even a Buchanan over the real thing (Duke). The System will sustain itself by protecting itself, and gelded conservatives, to be redundant, are every bit as much a part of the White-oppressive System as nigger welfare recipients and jewish warmongers.

Buchanan is the bushel over our White light. Get the right-wing conservatives out of the way, then suddenly Whites are the option to the hated judeo-left. Then we’re getting somewhere. Because unlike the Buchanans, we actually mean what we say.

The point is, if we think like this, we know exactly who our enemies are, and we know how to attack them (as fakes, liars, opportunists and career girls). We must drive the can’t-say-thats and the don’t-mean-its off the world stage and make way for Whites.

Look Matt, if I may. If there’s one fundamental characteristic of the right, it’s weakness. The way we treat the gelded right is simple: we just bulldoze them.

It is always a mistake to “appeal” to weak people. Rather you overawe them into submission. You “appeal” to their natural gutlessness by bulldozing them. And what the hell? Let their fear lead where our minds have already gone. We’re right. They just need to shut up and get on board. They can figure out why we’re right later, like an abducted bride.

It will move thru the rest like butter. It will attract a hell of a lot to its side, and scare the rest into submission. Strong men and the right strategy will get us what we want. Right now we’re lacking strong men. We have lot of smart men, but most of them, still, are confused. I write to clarify things for these smart, confused men.

This sort of polarization both imperils Race Realism’s utility as a gateway and squanders resources which could be invested in more useful attacks on neocons.

You wouldn’t have to attack neocons if you were an honest White rather than playing around with faggotry like “Alt-right.”

I actually believe if you could get a charismatic veteran with hundreds of troops willing to kill and die for the cause, and you pursued the strategy above, you would attract millions, as the Tea Party has.

Radical separation from conservatism is the only way that can work. We must be jealous. You’re either with us, fully, or you’re our hated enemy.

Isn’t it funny? Even we supposed hard-core “Nazis” are at bottom just a bunch of pussies. We can’t even separate verbally, rhetorically and politically from the limpdick right. If X believes jews are whites, that’s cool man. If Y believes, well, no jews aren’t white, but we can still be friends and party together, that’s cool too, man. In fact the only thing that’s not cool is someone insisting that, yes, it really does matter whom we consider our friend, and whom our enemy. He’s the bad guy, for crissakes. My god. It’s not like we don’t have 100 years of conservative failure and 20 years of Nazi success in Germany staring us right in the face. That doesn’t mean we have to be nazis or call ourselves nazis, just that we ought to copy their techniques in dealing with jews where we can, since the jews used the same techniques yesterday against Germans they use against Americans and Europeans today.

It is pathetic that I need to explain this. But no, no, what and who individuals “like” is all that matters. If it feels good, do it. Bunch of hippies, we are. Where has this brainlessness ever led? Nowhere. Why not try something different from what traditional conservatism has offered, since traditional conservatism has 100% record of failure? Why not step outside the box and try something truly radical? Something principled and ideological, instead of mushy and personal? My god, it might actually work.

And that begins by identifying who we are and who is the enemy, and what we demand. Otherwise the vehicle will be taken over by jews we took in as allies and they will redirect it to their racial destination.

The topic of “why white nationalism has no decent political representatives” is worthy of an entire essay itself. (Short answer—whites are not allowed to organize themselves racially. It is de facto illegal. The recent AmRen conference is yet another example of this.)

You got it, Sam. And then when those who soft-pedal or abandon jew-crit are able to pull off events without problems, it strengthens the “we’re doing it to ourselves” lie—and it strengthens the belief that letting jews into our politics is the right way to go.

But really, party politics is not what to worry about right now—defining ourselves, our vehicle, and attracting support from men with guns willing to use them is where we should begin.

If voting is all that matters, then would have already won. Indeed, we never would have lost. Brown vs Board wasn’t voted in, it was reverse-interpreted. All these votes from Alabama to Indiana to Arizona re illegals are voted exactly the way WN would have them voted. And judges just throw the ruling out.

The enemy doesn’t follow the law. But we Whites are so weak we pretend the enemy’s ignoring the written rules means we just need to work harder appealing to people who already voted for what we want! Get a clue, Leon [Haller]!

Until we have the ability to punch back, we’re just going to keep getting punched. That’s where we are. Voting has almost nothing to do with it. We win more votes than we lose, if you look back over 50 years, yet only the enemy’s agenda is ever enacted—never ours.

Now what does that tell you, bright boys?

We need a Hitler. What we have are Mississippi Leghounds, Virginia jew-fellators. Instead of the veterans of the SA we have Buchanan’s all-male drill team. “Pat! Pat! He’s our man! If he can’t do it, Jared can!”

* * *

I personally find it more thrilling to be part of the line descended from the original creature with blue eyes than the crank all-in-all you find in the bible. The bible is just crappy jewish historical and science fiction; the anthropology stuff, the being part of an eternal physical chain, that to me is the thrill. I get the same christabel matthews thrill up my leg that the japanese do when they see a round blue eye. They could give two shits about our sad and stupid faith in the bible; they want our eyes! And when I look in my relatives’ eyes, which are all blue, I see what they mean.

Only a sicko like a catholic could think that the transient thoughts running through our heads matter more than the blonde hair and blue eyes—by which I mean the heads themselves. It just rasps their vanity that what we are matters more than what we think. (I mean no nordicism, just using what is most physically distinctive about our race, at least in terms of color.)

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.

* * *

It was one of the two most instructive moments in US political history in the last 30 years, the other being the reaction to Duke’s senate campaign, with all parties and media joining up to defeat him.

Within one 24-hour cycle the Republicans went from praising Buchanan for his “Culture Wars” speech to blasting him and running away from it. Complete flip. Why?

Because the kikes had the fuck scared out of them by this very, very modest approach on the castle they live in. Buchs ever so barely feigned at lifting the cover on the real thing underneath, because he is so skilled with words, and because there is a hell of a lot of white hot justified racial anger, you could see hear and feel the boil underneath. The forces waiting, just begging, to be tapped. You could just see what a real man like Hitler could have done with it.

That whole speech and reaction is worthy of a book.

But no, little glibster, I have always said Buchanan is not one of us. He is a catholic. Not a racialist.

Treating Buchanan with respect is treating our cause and ourselves with disrespect. He always sides with the more powerful authority.

* * *

No one’s scared of men who are rational and reasonable. They’re scared of Charles Manson.

Reason is for boys; emotion is for men. Academics fear emotion because it’s not part of their world.

Real politics has nothing to do with reason, it’s in the marrow—the fear and the thrill.

Like I said, just imagine what a Hitler would have done in Buchanan’s place. That’s the distance between a man and a Catholic; between a man and a conservative.

A very lean and ideologically rigorous national organization is instantiated with the purpose of providing local workshops with the strategies and resources they need to succeed. These workshops will focus on pursuing two distinct goals: evangelizing potential activists with our undiluted message and engaging the surface area of state and local politics to promote the White agenda. Our message to “the masses” is that we are their most dedicated, reliable, and effective advocates. We do not lie or equivocate on our core ideology, but our interface with the masses and the political process will be one of goal-oriented Plunkittry.

Our historical moment will arrive in the form of a Legitimacy Crisis. WLP [William l. Pierce], GLR [George Lincoln Rockwell], and Metzger weren’t buffoons (though I would quibble about their methods). They were torchbearers who carried our cause through its darkest decades.

At that point, a polarization strategy will be necessary in order to assure that imposters and showmen (like Sarah Palin and Donald Trump) don’t usurp our political capital.

My god. There’s actually some thinking in this, altho I’d like to see exactly what your ideology is. Ok, Parrott. I’m granting you provisional respect (pardon my Haller impression). Christ, you sound like an American national socialist with some Winterhilfe / hamas-type ideas.

Is there a Parrott primer where you’ve expounded all this to the limit? I vaguely know you have some Hoosier thing.

Anyway, thanks for laying that out.

* * *

We need fighters. Lots and lots of fighters. Without physical force on our side, we have nothing real to rely on. What did the man say? The truth is neato, but without a sword it can’t do much.

Hitler: The mass, the people, to me is a woman… Someone who does not understand the intrinsically feminine character of the mass will never be an effective speaker. Ask yourself what does a woman expect from a man? Clearness, decision, power, action…

For when a people is not willing or able to fight for its existence, Providence in its eternal justice has decreed that people’s end.

The world is not for cowardly peoples.

Conservatives are simply cowards. This is the reality of the situation, described by George Lincoln Rockwell:

As long as the right-wing confines its fighting to being “nice”, the great masses of the public will bow down like the sheep they are to the left-wing which is not nice. The force is disguised, of course, in checkbooks, judges’ robes, rigged party conventions, etc., but it is still force or the threat of it which has America down and afraid. No amount of papers and pamphlets, were they all masterpieces of propaganda, and no amount of talk and meetings can stop this growing left-wing force and power, and the fear it inspires—much less drive it back and destroy it.

See the Rockwell quote above. The left wins by intimidation. Not by legal or rational means. And our “best” minds are out there doing what? Trying to influence the Republican Party. This is not leadership. This is not serious politics. It is kibitzing. Womanly, effeminate. Remember what the real leader, Hitler, said: the masses are like women.

How can Hitler be a better analyst of our times than we are if he’s not right? How can a man writing in ’30s Europe be a better analyst of 2011 America than we are unless he has nailed something essential that persists through time and across place?

This guy nailed it. It is clear as a bell. Anyone who has dealt in nationalist and conservative circles for even just a few months can see exactly what he’s talking about.

Isn’t that humiliating? But is it not true? Is he not demonstrably and observably right in what he says about revolutions, jews, bourgeois conservatives, the way to conduct meetings, and the rest? My god, we see it carried out before our eyes every single day of the year.

Conservatism has no solutions because conservatives are self-interested, self-protecting cowards. They are the upper-middle-class bourgeoisie. They provide good writers, and quality entertainment, that’s all. They are respectable, responsible, appropriate—and there it ends. They will never, ever, ever condescend to actually fight over anything because… that’s not what they do. Only crude proles are low enough to actually say what they mean and bust knuckles over it. Not us turtleneck-wearing, hair-fixing better-thans. As a class, these bourgeois conservatives are, in relation to our racial cause, summer patriots. They’ll join the White cause when it’s 99% of the way to victory, and nod to themselves that they were with us all along. It’s just how they are. There is no leadership in them, just fundraising for more of the same kind of political entertainment they prefer—Vdare is a good example.

Trust me, guys. We get a party, a national party, do activism around hush crimes, and attack the conservatives like Buchanan with all our might, in very short order we will become a known force on the national scene; we will attract more support than we can handle, and we will drive the fake right out of the field, leaving us racialists alone speaking for White normalcy, with the cowardservatives either shutting their whineholes or joining us. Normal white people have supported Republicans and conservatives who didn’t mean it for decades. Do you think they’ll be less enthusiastic about supporting Whites who do mean it? You ever see the pictures of people when Hitler came to town… riding open in a car?

“The only thing that gives orders in this world is balls.” —Tony Montana. It’s true. You know it’s true. Our cause has failed because we lack balls.

Just look up and down this thread at all the bitching, whining anonymous faggots, and then ask yourself why the jews are running things. Not hard to see, is it? The jews have balls. Big fucking balls. Lie-about-anything, fuck-anything-up balls. Our “best” men are scared even to mention what’s going even among ourselves, where there’s most need to be serious.

No, no, let’s retreat to the fantasy where we’re going to argue our way to victory… by rational persuasion!

Dreamworld, man. Pure fantasy.

I’ve opened thousands of pieces of mail from people writing into conservative magazines; I know how they think. They will take our leadership, whether we are nazis or white nationalists, just as they now accept the leadership of neoconservative jews. The masses are feminine, they can do nothing but follow. The only question is whether we are masculine enough to lead. Taylor, Spencer, MacDonald and like conservatives are not. Not me saying that, or, not just me saying that, it’s Hitler and Goebbels, men who proved it in the field.

* * *

Why do you think I’m typing here? Because there are smart people here, and I want to influence them to see things the right way. Without a very large number of people all pushing the same way, nothing gets done. Just, as Goebbels said, “piecework” that is easily destroyed by the enemy any time he desires to. But if you have that group of people, all vitally committed, and on the same page ideologically, then you have a real shark pack that can take out the enemy.

It’s good to be a divisive asshole right now. Because it destroys the illusion we’re united. Our cause must be a jealous cause. It must destroy all competitors. Why are we putting eyes on Itz Pat’s pages, and pelf in his pocket? Is he us? Then why are we making excuses for him? He’s our enemy. Our competitor. And all you guys can say, à la Spade in Tommy Boy, is “mmyeh, he seems nice.” Grow up, you fruits. This woman is eating our lunch, and we’re fetching him a beer and asking for an autograph. Christ, I can find garden slugs that understand politics better than 2/3 of you.

We think that liking someone = us being on same side. It’s a female way of understanding the world, and boy is it ineffective.

Consistency is what attracts serious men—it is what made me curl my lip at professional conservatism and drew me to William Pierce. He didn’t change his position to fit the tides.

Let’s get serious… with the agenda written in stone. Let’s take the world and make it our own.

Southern types… They 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. It honestly is about one degree easier than teaching math to a nigger. A few of the lawyers can get it; beyond that the South is intellectually inert. But that’s ok. Our problem now is getting physical fighters, not thinkers and yappers. Southerners like the military. We don’t need mouths from the South, we need fighters. The problem in the North is the opposite: you get the bourgeois pantywaists.

So we rile, roil, and rhubarb until one tendency wins out. It’s going to be mine. Not because I advocate it but because it’s right.

But yeah. In our racial state, of course, anyone trying to disrupt the racial basis of the state, or profit by undermining it, will be executed. There will be few jails. There will be only some second chances and no thirds.

I don’t mind if people want to live as Catholic delusionals. We can’t be that liberal on race because other whites’ desire to live with or among muds does affect all of us in ways we, at least, are not willing tolerate. As for me, I’m not even willing to live in a white welfare state, I’d fight over that too. I’m going to live in the most libertarian microstate possible.

* * *

If you read the Patrick Casey article at Alt-right, Casey depicted Sobran as literally sobbing over the death of Irving Kristol. Even though Sobran himself and his family were essentially made homeless and impoverished due to the actions of the Kristols and the other vicious, hate-filled neocon jews who got him fired.

I guess that’s loving your enemy. I guess it’s fair to say Sobran stayed true to his principles. “Some principles” is the only way a rational man would respond. But every christian gets to be a heroic mini-me jesus in one way or another, I guess.

From where I sit, Sobran just looks weak as hell. Is loving your enemies really an improvement on hating and fighting them? I don’t think so. I actually think a fair deal less of Sobran, as a man, after reading the article, which I’m sure was not Casey’s intention at all.

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.


Posted by Trainspotter:

Anon/uh: “In other words two impossible conquest scenarios. Expulsion is extermination-lite. (Trainspotter, I am not ‘attacking’ you here.) Some guys just can’t accept that their bargaining terms are too high.”

Equating things as disparate as total world conquest / extermination with the establishment of a White Republic is silly, not to mention harmful. That’s precisely what our enemies do: if you care about white racial preservation, you are a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

Look at a map of the world. How many racial/ethnic groups have successfully established sovereign nations? Plenty. How many have managed global conquest with extermination and total removal of all of their enemies? None.

Regaining sovereign white territory is entirely possible, it’s only a question of how much or how little. World conquest, on the other hand, is not on the table.


Posted by Linder:

Look at a map of the world. How many racial/ethnic groups have successfully established sovereign nations? Plenty. How many have managed global conquest with extermination and total removal of all of their enemies? None.

No. None yet. The powers that be very clearly believe in global political conformity. Once you have executive mechanism to enforce that, you have the technical means of genocide. And if you haven’t noticed, the array of tools for spying and shooting people in 2011 is nothing short of awesome, and will only grow more so over time. Technology is one of things where looking forward helps more than looking backward. We know from ex-Mossadist Ostrovsky our worst has been working on ethnic bio-weapons for decades. Global extermination is completely thinkable to our worst enemy—he studies it daily in his science labs funded with white-taxpayer money, and he celebrates near-genocidal past successes in his holidays.

Regaining sovereign white territory is entirely possible, it’s only a question of how much or how little. World conquest, on the other hand, is not on the table.

World conquest is quite possible. And if regaining White territory is “entirely possible,” feel free to explain how we do it.

* * *

America is, what? 90% christian?

But don’t you be caught praying in public schools! That will not be tolerated!

You know what is tolerated in these public schools? Queers! The creatures the bible says should be shot on sight. Little christ-crank children are taught that homosex is good, not destructive. They’re taught to be promiscuous themselves, if they can’t quite make it all the way to sainted queerdom. They’re encouraged to form “Gay-Straight Alliances” and speak out against bullying.

Yes, all this in a Christian nation. Led by brilliant heroic politician-writers like Patrick by god Buchanan.

I don’t understand? How could this happen?

What a bunch of sad weaklings. Of course, Pat Buchanan doesn’t have any children. He’s married, but he may well be a homosexual, like so many other conservatives, including the weirdo-of-some-sort Sam Francis.

My god. If Pat Buchanan is a “leader,” then black is white and up is down. It sure explains the wormly qualities of his defenders, though.

But no, let’s be fair. Itz Pat! has lots to be proud of. Stuff all racialists can support:

• helped Dick Nixon save Israel—helped institutionalize affirmative action—picked a black woman (no kidding: look it up, he really did) to be his running mate

Boy, it sure is hard to see why things are going so wrong in America, isn’t it? With all these bold, valiant conservatives and christians out there, real men of principle, we must be on the verge of the happiest, healthiest, Whitest society ever.


Posted by Trainspotter:

Linder: “None yet”.

Correct. Which equals none.

Linder: “World conquest is quite possible. And if regaining White territory is ‘entirely possible,’ feel free to explain how we do it.”

World conquest is theoretically possible, but nobody has pulled it off to date. Even granting its possibility in the abstract, if we haven’t even retaken a handful of small countries first, I don’t see how conquering the world is even on the table. First things first, and perhaps last.

An ethnic group grabbing a chunk of real estate, on the other hand, has been achieved time and time again throughout history.

As to how we do it in our particular circumstances, that of course is the rub. You make the point that we have to agree upon who “we” are. We also can’t even agree on what we want, and where we want it, much less how to go about getting it.

Even for those that can agree on an all white nation in North America, where is it going to be? The Northwest? Most of America? All of America? The friggin Yukon?

This is one reason (of many) why white nationalism still flounders around. Out and out suppression is of course the biggest factor, but we can’t even focus the resources that we do have. Many have called for some sort of organizational infrastructure, but what exactly would its goal be? Where are we going with this? What’s the end game? Does it inspire?

I believe white nationalist ideas are spreading, but until it gets some sort of focus, it’s not really going anywhere. At the present time, the only person even trying to provide focus is Covington with the Northwest, and while I’m a fan of his novels, I’m not yet sold on the idea. I will, however, grant that he has breathed some life into it with good old fashioned fiction. And while I have no interest in various movement squabbles of long standing, it would appear that Covington himself is a limiting factor, talented though he may be in certain areas. But hey, at least we know exactly what he wants, and it’s small enough for the human mind to wrap itself around, yet big enough to inspire. He’s onto something there.

In any event, our approach must be two pronged. On the one hand, we must continue to intellectually attack the system, laughing at it, scoffing at it, pissing on it. Fortunately for us and given our meagre resources, the system is doing a lot of the work on its own—but WN have helped it along. You’ve definitely done your bit on this front, and many of your insights and critiques have been devastating. Really great stuff, the sort of thing that doesn’t just change minds, but changes minds… if you get my meaning. Electrifying parts of the brain—I’m sure some know what I mean.

On the other hand, we must decide exactly what it is that we want (it might be nice to actually have a single nation before we indulge in dreams of broader conquest), and start building up a positive vision of that nation to be. Covington has given us a taste of the power of fiction, but we could expand on that so much more. Art, music, and so forth (another drawback with Covington, he’s still too caught up in the 1930’s rut).

Anyway, people gotta feel it.

I doubt we’re going to get the polarization that you seek until we have this strong and positive vision of something we really want, something inspiring but tangible and remotely viable… and then our enemies spit on it. If we can get to the point where we really believe in the coming White Republic, that would be a game changer.

Oh, Ron Paul supports our quest for the White Republic, even though he wouldn’t want to live there himself? Well, maybe that’s o.k. But Ron Paul opposes our White Republic because it would inevitably violate some of his precious libertarian dogma? Fuck him, the piece of shit. Same goes for the more moderate race realists that you attack. Once we’ve actually built up a credible vision of the White Republic, and then Taylor wishes it well, says he might live there himself? Great guy. But he scoffs at it? Fuck him, the piece of shit. Anyone who opposes us is like coming between a dog and his meat. Fuck ’em. Easy.

But we don’t feel that way now. We don’t see the meat. We can’t taste it anymore, we’ve forgotten—or we never tasted it at all. We’ve learned to live on gruel instead.

You get the idea. Once we have something viable to fight for, friend and foe will reveal themselves quite easily, and the passions will be aroused. We just aren’t there yet. We hate what the system is doing to us, but it all seems so hopeless and theoretical to most. People gotta believe too. Why should people box themselves in when nothing seems viable? Can we really blame them for not taking the White Republic all that seriously at present (or insert your litmus test here), when we’ve barely (perhaps) gotten it past the initial silly stage, with plenty more ridicule to come?

Once more… this time with feeling. That’s just the way humans are built.

We’ve got to focus on something great enough to inspire and excite, but small enough to appear at least remotely viable and doable. Otherwise you lose most people, if not for one of those two reasons, then the other.


Posted by Linder:

“It does not matter how clever it is, for the task of propaganda is not to be clever, its task is to lead to success.”

Thanks for digging that, Sam, and that is a fantastic piece of advice and expertise from Goebbels, well worth rereading for all of us. I still think I’m remembering something else. Something specifically contrasting bourgeois cleverness with Nazi seriousness. The point of the part of the piece I’m remembering is that the bourgeois writers are all striking poses to impress each other—the MacDonald milieu in a nutshell; whereas by contrast the Nazis are dead-seriously winning people over—concerned only with the effect their reception has on tuning the message and the form of its delivery.

…which began with him being ignominiously arrested within 5 minutes of his Knoxville rally kicking off [this commenter refers to the arrest of Linder during a street manifestation].

Go vote Republican, you middle-class hair-primping pants-wetter.

Omigod. Did he make a–? Oh. He did, didn’t he? He made a scene. Unfrigging believable. We don’t do that. We don’t make scenes in public. The respectable people will write us off. When the God-created negroes see fit to rape, torture and murder our beautiful life-starting young men and women—fuck them up the ass, light ’em on fire, cut ’em into chunks and throw ’em out in garbage bags—we will remain appropriate, respectable and tasteful in our reaction. We will buy candles. We will march in condign and seemly order down a block or two. We will sing a nice hym, and wipe a tasteful tear. That’s how you do it. That’s how it’s done. What we will not do is raise hell in the streets, and talk to the people with anger in our eyes and strong words from our heart. We will never, ever lynch the niggers who committed the hush crime, nor lynch the jews who produced it with their media-legal structure.

Remember our holy trinity. It must be:

Tasteful
Appropriate
Respectable

Or it cannot work. That is my religious view, and my religious view is reality, because it guarantees my mental equanimity and physical safety, so how could it be wrong?

Let Hitler judge:

“The course of a people’s history can be changed only by a storm of glowing passion, but only he can awaken passion who carries it within himself.”

Oops. Hitler just said MacDonald, the a3P [American Third Position Party], James Edwards, Richard Meh-Spencer, Jared “Polished Turd” Taylor are unqualified to lead us to victory. Not that you couldn’t see that yourself, but it never hurts to ask an expert. But I mean, shit—what does he know? He doesn’t have a Ph.D. Some of his speeches are disturbingly close to be passionate rather than tepid. Never a good sign in a would-be revolutionary. They call it reason fluffing, not rabble-rousing, after all.

* * *

What if everyone at my rally had followed me into the streets? What if instead of ~100 activists we had 5,000? And they all went in the street with me? Can you imagine? What? You’re not willing to risk a misdemeanor charge on your “permanent” record. So then how serious are you? Not at all, right. Can you face that in yourself? That this is all just entertainment?

I went in the street to talk to the public directly. Because I know I can win over the neutral elements. And I can make the antis look more ridiculous than they make themselves (a tall brag considering in this particular instance they dressed as brides). There’s not a doubt about it. See, that’s the difference between a White Nationalist man and a niggling, remonstrating conservative mouse. The mice only speak indoors to people who already agree with them. They pay for a room to hold press conferences that only they attend, and then fly home talking about their great victory. It really is to laugh over. They never get anywhere.

Go read the Hitler stuff at calvin.edu. You purblind English idiots are the most blinkered, bigoted fools on earth. Get over yourselves. Your stinky island is the measure of nothing these days, serious-change politics last of all things. Get over your hatred of Germans and just imagine Hitler and Goebbels as intelligent men writing stuff that fits in perfectly well here at Majority Rights. I mean, if what they say is wrong, reject it. But how can you say that—honestly? Read it—it’s so point-pertinent it stings. They’re describing our exact situation. Look at this:

Some believe that we are using methods in this battle that are too harsh. We reply that our attacks and methods in this battle cannot be determined by our way of thinking, by whether we find them ugly or harsh, but rather we must use methods in our attacks that are appropriate for the opponent that we are attacking. One cannot battle the Jews with the politeness of the noble Aryan soul, for which he as no understanding. We need only think back on the methods that the Jew used against our movement during the period of struggle. No lie or slander was too crude to be used, to be seized and passed on by the Jews and their Jewish lackeys with eagerness, enthusiasm, and Satanic joy. We would have had little success replying then with refined arguments. It is just as impossible today to combat this creeping, subterranean danger with methods that the Jew would only laugh at.

We’re in a fight. Not a debate. Not a game. A fight. Why aren’t we fighting? Where are our fighters? We try to turn our potential fighting men into middle-class ineffectuals like our thought-leaders. This is wrong. This is pathetic. 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.

Quit acting like our cause is silly. Or this is just entertainment. Or we can’t win.

Our “appeal” is Shackleton’s: Because it is hard. Because it is awesome. Because it is glorious.

“Mmmyeh, he seems like a nice guy.” That is my Spadey sneer at your utterly, utterly more foolish than you can imagine stupid puppy eyes at butt-asses like girl Taylor and toodlesome Meh-Spencer. To hell with your conservatism, your excuse-making faggotry. If you’re not White in public, and you don’t despise the jews as our worst enemy, you’re a big old nasty queer with political Q-RID, and should fuck off and die.

Our cause is a jealous cause, not a tolerant cause. We want fighters; high-spirited men, not abject catholic catacomb-crawlers / cabalists of sodom.


Posted by Wandrin:

Hitler just said MacDonald, the A3P, James Edwards, Richard Meh-Spencer, Jared “Polished Turd” Taylor are unqualified to lead us to victory.

Hitler wasn’t in the same situation. He was operating in an environment where most of the necessary meta-political foundation was already in place: anti-Jewish, anti-capitalist, anti-ruling elite, anti-communist, anti-banks etc. He had millions of people to work with who were already proto-radical looking for a flag to follow. His tactics revolve around how to make an impact in that context not how to create that context from scratch.

The context he was operating in may come about automatically in America after the banking collapse—if it gets that far—or it could conceivably (hopefully) come about through cultural warfare but what any budding Hitler needs to get started is a context where there’s millions of proto-radicals.

It’s a two-step.

So the question is are the people you list suitable for the first step—meta politics aimed at creating the right conditions. They may or may not fit the second step if and when the conditions are right but we’re not there yet.


Posted by Linder:

Graham Lister: “Whatever you all have been up to really hasn’t worked has it?”

No, it hasn’t. The important thing is to understand precisely why that is. And the right answer is that white organizing is forbidden by the System. Not legally, of course. But the System always manages to cut it down, sometimes by hook but usually by crook.

And it’s not just White organizing, it’s any organizing that threatens the jewish interests that determine the underlying agenda of the System they refit to their purposes. Catholic Coughlin and black nationalist Garvey got the same treatment too—all the way back 100 years ago! So although in the deepest sense we whites are of course responsible for any failure, in the ordinary sense, our failure is not our failure to organize but our failure to prevent the System from preventing us from organizing, which is a huge difference. It is enemy propaganda repeated, dare I say parroted, by too many on our side that “we are doing it to ourselves.” Oh nonono. We are not. It is most assuredly being done to us, and the real challenge we face is how to overcome that Systemic undermining. Because once we do that, we’re on the road to victory. Because our views are the mass-majority views among whites. That’s the reason the jews have to lie-cheat-murder in the first place, the reason they have to seize all the System choke and control points.

The way that hasn’t been tried, in America, is to use the thinking, approaches and tactics the NS used, which I’ve quoted samples of above. Instead we’ve gone with the polite approach, which does not work. Let’s call it the conservative failure pattern. Our enemies are the biggest liars, cheaters and mass murderers in history. Yet our common assumption seems to be that staying safe, legal, mannerly and polite will defeat them. It will not. I always feel like I’m saying the sky is blue, but there sure seem to be a lot on our side who think it red.

See the thing is, as one of your emotional spasms above shows—the emotional inability to handle something outside the conventional democratic-electoral box—we are psychologically in two camps: thinking in the normal democratic, electoral vein, while speculating in the radical-violent vein. We are loathe to part with the illusion that the normal democratic change channels are open to us. They appear to be open. That’s a crucial part of the System—maintaining the illusion that the processes are neutral machinery open to all. But in fact they are closed.

Look at the votes, in America. If votes mattered, we wouldn’t have forced race-mixing, anti-White job discrimination or open borders. No white majority has ever supported these things. Yet we have them—everywhere. So we kidding ourselves that voting matters. We are playing along with a genocidal lie when we pretend it’s true. The truth we are trying not to see, or reacting emotionally too when it’s stated to us is that voting will only work for the White man when he is physically able to threaten the judge or official or police who try to steal, blunt, queer, reinterpret or reverse the outcome.

Free association, which is the practical legal basis of communal self-defense was lost as a result of a judge reversing settled law. Law that had been in place for decades, duly voted in and adjudged back in the 19th century. Yet a bunch of judges simply reversed it because it thwarted the jewish anti-white agenda of race-mixing. Another 100 examples of legal illegality like that could be cited. But from that point on, the jews were simply big-dogging us. Daring us to do something about their brazen cheating.

That’s where it stands today. We’ve ignored their challenge. And we have seen our societies destroyed due to our lack of intellectual integrity and physical courage.

* * *

Like the other conservatives you see yourself as the servant of the public, the public as some sort of queen, and you the waiter with the silver salver in waiting to bring it some cat food or caviar. Think of yourself and our cause rather as the master of the public. Its leader. But needing the public. Just as Hitler would play it: the future of your (nation) (race) is tied up in whether you personally join us. Look in their eyes. Mean it. No bullshit about “appealing to women” or likesuch horsecrap. We aren’t pandering. We aren’t procuring. We’re fucking leading. That petty political Rep-Dem lying money-shuffle is 100 miles away from this stuff.

It’s the meta-message that matters. Yeah, those cheap weakling cads like Buchanan used and abused you for your money, but we mean it. We will stick by you thick and thin (Parrott hit on this the other day). You can trust us. We won’t run at the first sign of trouble like other conservative cads who sorta sound like us do. They are cowards. We are real men. Trust us and work with us, because we need you to join us so together we can all solve these common problem we all recognize.

The old style guy, the well meaning but hapless Southern conservative, focuses on the nigger that committed the crime. Not the people who created the System that facilitated it. We have to be much smarter than that, and go after the jews (and sellouts) who keep this foul thing running. There is no other example in history more applicable than the NS taking on jews in Germany yesterday. That doesn’t mean every particular has a parallel, but it means in general the jews today follow the same practices in suppressing the natives they did back then, so whatever the Nazis did that worked in Germany then will probably work for us today. Or we could keep on with the conservative failure patterns that have literally never worked a single time in history.

Can you imagine Hitler using terms like Christ-insanity in public, for example?

No, Hitler would not have used it in that time, but times have changed, like you all are always saying. Christ-insanity is weaker than it’s ever been, and many of the white men we can attract, on the left, openly mock and despise it just the way I do, altho for different reasons.

Consider this commentary culled from a poster off some blog:

What I was trying to communicate is the woefully deluded “mindset” of the lovely Pennsty rural White Christian. I am surrounded by this type of benighted, and doomed, creature.

They have not ever lived around non-Whites in their entire lives. They interact with Nons in carefully controlled settings. Workplaces. Churches. Darkies are showing up in Uber Alabaster churches now. The corrupted Marxist shill, serinv as a “minister” is really pimping for the delights of We Are All One Multi Culti lunacy, in even the teeniest little churches. The woefully deluded flocks are nodding their heads, and doing what their Beloved Sheperds are telling them to do. No questions asked. Adopt non-Whites kids. Make best friends with the polite, nicely dressed Darky that has shown up. The Whites couldn’t be friendlier, or more accommodating. Because Being a Racist is now the Cardinal Sin.

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.

Yet this is going on all over PA. You can see little Darky kids amidst the most dazzling White families.

And what I was trying to communicate is the steadfast refusal of these Good White Christians to acknowledge that racial differences exist at all. That the Black kid, that is always wreaking havoc, and committing escalating levels of violence, and can never seem to finish the simplest homework task, let alone make passing grades in a very dumbed down curricula—well—it’s always passed off as “Just that one. You cannot judge everybody that way”.

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. Want the same things, think the same way, do the same things.

They refuse to believe that there are any intractable differences. It’s all wrapped up in false morality—and the source is Pride, and Vanity.

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.

The cultural degradation the jews have inflicted on White society has been for the worst in most ways, but not insofar as the jews have degraded the christ cult.

Show us how after ten years the polarization strategy has worked out for you. List your accomplishments.

Yeah… this has got to be trolling. You’re not a dumb enough guy to ask such a dumb question. I’ll indulge you once.

The polarization strategy is not something an individual can do, or a state or local thing, it’s a strategy for a national group operating at the national level. Because, as you know, as a lawyer, that’s where the meaningful political decisions are made.

The point of the strategy is to set up a credible oppositional power to the ruling jews. Right now, the oppositional power is a fake opposition, actually controlled by the ruling jews, after Lenin’s advice (create and lead the opposition yourself).

What WN has always done up until now is work with the conservatives like we’re all part of the same team. All this does is make conservatives rich. The White cause continues to go backward.

So the answer is that the polarization strategy has not been tested in North America. It can’t be until there is a party, or some kind of vehicle, that is both national in scope and willing to adopt it. The unbroken record of failure that is mixing racialism with conservatism suggests to anyone who can think that just maybe we ought to go the other way for once.

Trying to nudge the Republicans into doing the White thing is sad effeminacy unworthy of intelligent men. Fuck them. Start something new and better and take their pie from them and eat it. But you can’t do that when all you offer is a poorer, less respectable version of what they’re doing because you look like pathetic me-tooers—which they do the A3P. You need to go wholly the opposite direction. Come up with swagger, the looks, the bearing, the symbols, the agenda platform—purely White and jealous as all hell. Willing and soon able to vanquish all pretenders. That’s how you do it. It’s not a thing that can be done online, nor is it a thing that can be done alone. It takes a group.

Silver: “Sure, if you ignore the racial conservative whites who won themselves entire continents by virtue of their racial conservative disposition.”

I’m not going to make a big thing of this, Silver, but I don’t believe you’re who you say you are. I don’t believe your tale about your own background.

Your point above 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.

And now we get the desperate claim that, oh, don’t worry, the Republican party and normal voting and Pat Buchanan, and the whole normal regular lineup of trusties is going to save us.

Why hasn’t it then? Where has it been for fifty years? Why has anything changed now?

Rounder, so feared by the feds he is literally forbidden from living in the South, is to be mocked, but Pat Buchanan who has presided over 50 years of dramatic decline while gorgeously pressing a scented handkerchief to his womanly throat is to be respected? On what basis?

Conservatism can’t get the job done. That’s what history shows. There is no second opinion.

The internet has shown up the Patsy Declines for what they are. A lounge act for tired race.

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.

*   *   *

[Apparently responding to Hunter Wallace:]

The ’50s and ’60s anti-White movement succeeded for one reason: jewish control of the media. Pointing out individual, anecdotal non jews here and there is always an attempt to draw attention away from the jewish root of the anti-White movement. Always.

This jew control of the mass media is the reason that no White strategy based on mirroring the “civil rights” approach of the jew-organized niggers can succeed. The media will never treat the White cause as just. Therefore it will always look bad in the eyes of the tv-macerated majority. There is no solution but taking power, and that means, more than almost anything else, taking the mass media back from our racial enemy.

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.

__________

There’s a follow-up to this article here.

Categories
Conservatism Real men

Vanguardist retort

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

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





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

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

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

Linder: Wrong on two levels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haller: We must be as moderate as possible.

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

Categories
Conservatism

Why have we so miserably failed?

At The Occidental Observer (TOO) Matt Parrott has reviewed favorably Greg Johnson’s first book. Below I picked up one of Trainspotter’s recent comments in an ongoing discussion at TOO:



It’s easy for whites living in our current Dark Age to forget just how much pro-white activism there has been since World War II. We had the Dixiecrats back in 1948 who managed to carry any number of states. We had massive resistance, George Wallace (who also carried multiple states), widespread Citizen’s Councils, etc.

Point is, a lot of people did a lot of work, at least purportedly on behalf of whites, and all of it came to precisely, exactly nothing. Zilch. Nada. Zero.

Phenomenal amounts of energy, and a not inconsequential amount of money, entirely wasted. This at a time when whites still had a few friends in high places.

Now we survey the wreckage, and anti-whites are in control of every single institution of any importance in the entire country. Not one holder of major office in the entire nation will acknowledge so much as our right to exist as a people. Not one.

But the damage is not just apparent in terms of distant, insular “institutions.” All one has to do is walk outside his front door to witness the destruction of our people. It’s pitiful.

The failures of the past must not be repeated. We are now running out of time, and this is leading to a paradox. On the one hand, it is frustrating to many people (and understandably so) that much of what they are seeing is “just” intellectual foundational work. On the other hand, the past speaks to us clearly: without that foundational work, even massive movements go precisely nowhere.

The earlier movements all failed because they were essentially conservative. They didn’t think in terms of a white homeland, in which our people would control all institutions, all levers of power, thereby be able to control our own destiny. Instead, they accepted as a given a land in which Jews increasingly commanded the heights of power, with plenty of non-whites to provide votes and muscle. Yet somehow they imagined that their enemies would just leave them alone. Amazing. Yeah, those that despise us, those that have every interest to work against us—let’s accept them as fellow citizens and hope they’ll suddenly decide to leave us alone. Good luck with that.

In our own day, we see this happening as well, though not with an explicitly pro-white group. Of course I speak of the Tea Party. Lacking a coherent worldview and clear loyalties, the Tea Partiers have been easy marks for misdirection, subversion and neutralizing. The Tea Party types are fine with non-whites, as long as they are “legal.” In other words, they are fine with the country continuing to fill with the very types of people who… wait for it… oppose the Tea Party. Mestizos and blacks (and most other non-white groups, for that matter) support fully funded government programs and government spending, and they aren’t terribly interested in protecting the crusty old “rights” of whites. They don’t give a fig about the debt, as long as they are disproportionately benefiting from government spending.

But sure, let the country continue to fill up with them. Let the ballot box continue to be demographically stuffed. Never acknowledge that we are a particular people with particular interests. Just accept the status quo which is completely stacked against you, but somehow you expect to win, despite all historical evidence to the contrary. It is to laugh.

This thread is itself a testament to our desperate need for a solid foundation. Even on TOO, we see commenters with loyalties and worldviews all over the place. Some seem to have more, or at least as much loyalty to the free market as to our own people (I say this as a former libertarian, in love as I was with an idea).

That’s a terrible mistake. It is likely true that the future white homeland will have a fairly free market, for the simple reason that an honest market based on legitimate productivity and wealth creation is probably best for our particular people—white people. We can handle a good deal of freedom, and as a people we have a lot of creativity that freedom tends to unleash. But we should always remember that our people come first. The market is not loyal to our people, and we owe no loyalty to it. We will have a free market exactly and precisely up to the point where it is conducive for our people’s long term survival. Not more than that out of some misguided affection for something that has zero love for you. Unrequited love is a bitch, and we’ve got to stop indulging in it.

This same basic approach applies to other sources of conflicting loyalties noted here. For example, it is probably true that the future white homeland(s) —hopefully including all of our ancient homelands as well— will in many ways be “conservative,” especially in the sense of promoting values and virtues consistent with stable families and keeping the collective cradle full. But conservatism itself will not win us our lands back, and we owe no loyalty to it per se. We should be “conservative” precisely up to the point where it benefits our people, and not a whit more. Same thing with liberalism, or any other “ism” that is rattling around in the fevered imaginations of those who love an idea more than their own people.

Point is, so-called white nationalists are still all over the place in terms of their loyalties. They fetishize markets, they worship false gods.

___________________

Note:

On this very issue, in that thread Greg Johnson linked to a couple of his articles that are must reading (here and here).

Categories
Conservatism Islamization of Europe

Against traitorous Counter-jihad

As the last entry of tonight’s trilogy, I would like to repost what another commenter said at Age of Treason:

Armor said…

Tanstaafl: “The soi-disant counter-jihad has several characteristics of a jewish movement, and can be seen as largely an outgrowth of and having much overlap with both zionism and neoconservatism.”

What is very Jewish in counter-jihad is that everything is turned upside down. It is full of accusatory inversion. The Jewish counter-jihadists blame the Muslims for misdeeds that are more characteristic of Jews than of Muslims.

• Counter-jihadists blame the Muslims for hating the West. In fact, Jewish activists are the ones who are busy destroying the West through mass immigration.

• They say that the Koran is uncivilized, but the Talmud is probably worse.

• They say there is no moderate islam. I wonder where are the moderate Jewish activists!

• [Ned May’s] Gates of Vienna is currently advertising for a book called Allah is Dead: Why Islam is not a religion by Rebecca Bynum. In fact, Christianity has much more in common with Islam than with Judaism. If Judaism is for ethnic Jews only, is there a different God for non-Jews? Do non-Jews have souls? Is there life after death? Don’t look for the answers in Wikipedia. The entry about Judaism is full of obfuscation.

• They say that the Muslims are threatening free speech. The affair of the Danish cartoons is an example of that. But free speech in the West is mostly attacked by Jewish groups, not by Muslims.

• They say that teachers in France are afraid to teach Muslim students about “the Holocaust”. But Jews forbid Europeans to discuss the subject.

• They say the Muslims are obscurantists stuck in the Middle Ages. But at least, Muslims don’t have any cultural influence in White people’s lives. By contrast, Jews have subverted Western public intellectual life and largely destroyed it.

• They complain about taqiyya. What about kol nidre?

• They taunt the Europeans who are said to have become dhimmis to the Muslims. The truth is that we have become dhimmis to the Jews.

• They warn against weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, but Israel is the only one with a nuclear arsenal.

• They worry about the lack of democracy in the Arab world, but don’t care about the plight of Arabs in Israel.

And so on…

Categories
Arthur Schopenhauer Aryan beauty Beauty Blacks Christendom Conservatism Deranged altruism God Homosexuality Kali Yuga Mainstream media Maxfield Parrish Metaphysics of race / sex Philosophy Psychology Sexual "liberation" William Pierce

God and white nationalism

Pay me attention please: since I very rarely talk about God.

For my inner daimon, the most sacred entries of the previous incarnation of this blog are those categorized under the title “metaphysics of race.”

While I am definitively not a theist, for which I might be confused with an atheist, and while I am tempted toward agnosticism, deep in my heart I know there’s something panentheist about Nature (not to be confused with pantheism).

Today I received a hate comment precisely in the “metaphysics of race” entry that I treasure the most. I swiftly deleted it. Although I don’t believe in the existence of a personal God I still consider these sorts of comments blasphemous. The curious thing is that the blasphemer, in addition to his vulgarities that I won’t quote, stated that it is “a good thing” that “there will be no different races” in the future. For him my religious commitment to preserve the white phenotype of the most spiritual type of females in a post featuring Maxfield Parrish’s Daybreak, the embedded image within the masthead of my previous blog, is “hate” and, therefore, I must “stop the hating.”

There is no easy way to respond the blasphemer. The mental universe of the self-haters who say it’s good that the white race be melted in the pot along with the unfairer races, or that those who want to preserve it are the “haters,” is so upside-down that makes any rational discussion impossible. They are living in an inverted universe that, for me looking from its inside, is like an astronomically giant ping-pong ball where the space is white with tiny little black holes on the firmament that cannot possibly be… anti-stars?

Instead of trying for their inverted glove to be turned inside-out and get them back into the real world, where the space is black, love is love and hate hate, a wiser approach is to note how William Pierce tried to create a new religion among those who were already racially conscious.

The following is a transcription of a speech delivered by Pierce in 1976 that I discovered at Counter-Currents Publishing earlier this year (here). It reminded me my adolescent infatuation with Hegel’s metaphysics and why I believe that only the eternal feminine would lead the white race to the Absolute:


Maxfield_Parrish_Hilltop

Every day, I receive letters from our members across the country as well as from people here in the Washington area who have attended our meetings in the past. These letters and questions indicate that there is still some uncertainty in people’s minds as to what we are, what we believe, and what we intend to do. Questions, in other words, as to what it’s all about. I want to try again tonight to answer these questions as clearly as I possibly can.

I’m sure that one of the difficulties people have in trying to understand us is that they can’t figure out quite how to categorize us. They’re accustomed to putting everything they encounter in life into little, mental pigeonholes labeled right-wing, left-wing, communist, racist, and so on. And once they’ve done that, they think they understand the thing.

Now the trouble is that we don’t quite fit any of the customary pigeonholes. And that is because the doctrine of the National Alliance, the truth for which we stand, is not just a rehash of old and familiar ideas but is really something new to Americans.

Perhaps the best way to approach an understanding of the Alliance is to start by getting rid of some of the most troublesome pigeonholes altogether. That is, by pointing out what we are not. We are not, as many people tend to assume at first, either a conservative or a right-wing group. And I’m not just trying to be cute when I say that. I’m not just trying to emphasize that we are a special right-wing group or a better right-wing group. In fact, our truth has very little in common with most right-wing creeds. We’re not interested, for example, in restoring the Constitution. The Constitution, written 200 years ago, served a certain purpose well for a time. But that time is now passed. Nor was its purpose the same as our purpose today. We’re not interested in states’ rights, in restoring the former sovereignty of the individual states. We do not believe, as our conservative friends do, that a strong and centralized government is an evil in itself. It is, in fact, a necessity in overcoming many of the obstacles which lie ahead of us as a people.

What else is dear to the hearts of right-wingers? Do we want to restore prayer and Bible reading to the public schools? Hardly. Anti-fluoridation? Nonsense. Income tax? Abortion? Pornography? Well, we may sympathize more with the right-wing position on these issues than we do with the left-wing position, but they are still only peripheral issues for us. They are not the reason why we are here. They are not the things we are prepared to die for.

There are, in fact, several issues on which we are closer to what would ordinarily be considered the left-wing or liberal position than we are to the conservative or right-wing position. One of these issues is the ecology issue: the protection of our natural environment, the elimination of pollution, and the protection of wildlife. And there are also other issues in which we are closer to the liberals than to the conservatives, although I doubt that we agree with them completely on any issue; just as we seldom, if ever, agree completely with the right-wing on any issue.

The reason for the lack of complete agreement, when there seems to be approximate agreement, with either the right or the left is that our position on every issue is derived from an underlying view of the world which is fundamentally different from those of either the right or the left. That is, to the extent that they have any underlying philosophy at all. Often there is none, and a great many people who identify themselves as liberals, conservatives, or moderates simply have an assortment of views on various issues which are not related to any common idea, purpose, or philosophy.

Before we turn to a positive look at the Alliance, let me inject just a few more negatives. One thing we are not trying to do is to find any quick or easy solutions to the problems confronting us as a people. We have enormously difficult problems. If we are to solve them at all, we must tackle them with more determination, more tenacity, and more fanaticism than they have ever been tackled before. We must prepare ourselves mentally and spiritually for a very long, bloody, and agonizing struggle.

We mustn’t imagine that we are like a squad of soldiers about to assault a cave full of robbers and that the only preparation we need is to be sure our bayonets are fixed and that our powder is dry. This seems to be the attitude of most patriots these days and it is not a realistic one. “Throw out those bums in Washington,” they say “and our problems will be over.”

No. We must think of ourselves instead as the beginning—the barest beginning—of a mighty army whose task is not to clean out a cave full of robbers, but is to conquer an entire hostile world. Before the first shot is fired we must build our invasion fleet with thousands of ships and siege engines. We must lay in massive supplies of cannon balls, powder, and all sorts of other munitions. And we must do a hundred other things.

In other words, we must prepare ourselves for our political struggle before we can count on it yielding anything other than the invariable failure which has rewarded patriots in the past. We must build a foundation which will sustain us for a very long campaign.

Let me give you another analogy. We are like a tribe of hungry, starving people living in a land which, although the soil is fertile, provides relatively little to eat. These people find a few berries growing on bushes and a few edible roots in the ground. All they can think about is that they are hungry and they must fill their bellies. This is their immediate problem. They spend all of their time, day after day, year after year, hunting for those scarce berries on the bushes and pulling an occasional edible root out of the ground. And they never really fill their bellies; they always remain hungry and on the edge of starvation. That is because no one has ever taken a few minutes off from berry hunting and thought further ahead than the immediate problem of filling his belly, now, for this meal. No one has proposed that while some continue to hunt for berries, others in the tribe should tolerate their hunger pains for a while and make themselves a few simple tools, a simple plow from a tree branch perhaps, and a hoe, and then use these tools to plow up some of the most fertile areas of their land and plant a few berries in furrows and keep watch over them so that the birds don’t scratch them up. They could weed their furrows and perhaps divert a portion of a nearby stream for irrigation. If they did this, if they thought beyond their immediate problem, and, to the extent possible, tackled a much larger problem, they would eventually, even though it might take years, solve the problem of hunger which they could never solve when that was all they thought about. The solution to the problem of keeping their bellies full would be to develop an agricultural basis for their berry-picking and root-digging.

Now we need a philosophical and spiritual basis for our political struggle. A basis, of course, which tells us why we must fight and what we are fighting for. But we also want a basis which will tell us how to build a whole new world after we have won the political struggle. In other words, we are not building a basis to use for a month, or for a few years, but a basis which will last a thousand years and more. We are building a basis which will serve not only us, but also countless future generation of our race. And it is high time that we did this. We have drifted without any sense of direction, without any long-range perspectives, for far too long. It’s time that we stopped fixing our sights on next year, or the next election, and fix them instead on eternity.

You know, we Americans are famous for being a practical people, a hard-headed, no nonsense people. We are not great thinkers, perhaps, but we are real problem solvers. We don’t fool around; we plow right into things. That’s how we settled this country. We didn’t agonize about whether we were being fair to the Indians when we took their land; we just walked right over them and kept moving west. That’s what we had to do. We just followed our instincts and used our heads and, more often than not, we did the right thing.

But we also made some mistakes, bad mistakes. Because the southern colonies were ideally suited for certain types of crops which required lots of hand labor, there weren’t any machines back then of course, we brought Negroes into the country. That seemed to make pretty good economic sense at the time. But we really should have thought harder about the long-range consequences of that move. We wouldn’t have had to be real wizards to foresee the future. History provides a number of instructive examples for us to study.

We kept on making mistakes: mistakes based on shortsightedness mostly, mistakes from not being able to give any real weight to anything but the immediate problem, mistakes from not thinking far enough ahead. Analyzing the situation a little more deeply, we can say that we were shortsighted because we had no really firm basis for being longsighted. We had no solid foundation on which to stand in order to evaluate the long-range consequences of our decisions. And, as a result of this, we were suckers for various brands of sentimentality, strictly here and now sentimentality, sentimentality rooted only in the present. It was this sort of fuzzy sentimentality, this Uncle Tom’s Cabin sentimentality, which led to the war between the states and to the dumping of some three million Blacks into our free society a hundred years ago. It also led to our failure to properly control immigration into this country, our failure to prevent the flood of Jews which poured in after the Civil War.

These things troubled many good people. Lincoln was troubled over the potential consequences of freeing the Negroes. Later, others were troubled over the dangers of uncontrolled immigration. But the fuzzy sentimentalists prevailed because those who knew in their hearts that the country was making mistakes didn’t have a really solid basis from which to oppose the sentimentalists. They didn’t have their sights fixed on eternity. They had no all-encompassing worldview to back them up.

And the same problem of shortsightedness is far worse today. A person goes to church and hears his minister tell him that we are all God’s children, Black and White. And although his instinct tries to tell him that the minister is leading him astray, he will not challenge the minister because he has no firm convictions rooted in eternity to back up his feelings. The same is true of the whole country, and of our whole race, today. We are like a ship without a compass. Various factions of the crew are arguing about which way to steer, but no one really knows where the ship is headed. We’ve lost our sense of direction. We no longer have a distant, fixed star to guide us. Actually, it’s even worse than that. We have lost our ability to follow a distant star even if we could see one. We are like a nation, like a race, without a soul. And that is a fatal condition.

No purely political program can have any real value for us in the long run unless we get our souls back, unless we learn once again how to be true to our inner nature, unless we learn to heed the divine spark inside us and base all our decisions on a clear and comprehensive philosophy illuminated by that spark.

Let me tell you a little story, which I believe illustrates our problem. Several years ago, I spoke to a class at a private high school in Maryland. It was the Indian Spring Friends’ School operated by the Quakers, but with a student body which seemed to be about equally divided between Jews and gentiles, with a few token Blacks thrown in. Throughout my talk to the class, a blond girl and the only Negro in the class were sitting next to each other in the front row and kissing and fondling each other in an obviously planned effort to distract me. The subject of my talk was the importance of White Americans developing a sense of racial identity and racial pride if we are to survive. When I finished, a White student, about 17-years-old, rose to ask the first question. His question was, “What makes you think it’s so important for the White race to survive?”

I was flabbergasted and at a loss for words. And while I stood there with my mouth open, a young Jew popped up and gave his own answer. “There is no good reason at all for Whites to survive,” the Jew announced, “because they have contributed nothing to the human race except the knowledge of how to kill people. Other races have contributed everything worthwhile, everything which allows people to be happier and more comfortable.” And then he rattled off a list of five or six names: Freud, Einstein, Salk, and a few others—all Jews. I then asked him if he himself were a Jew and he replied with as much arrogance and contempt as he could muster, “Yes I am and proud of it!” At this point the whole class, Whites included, rose and gave the young Jew a standing ovation. The teacher at the back of the room had a big grin on his face.

Needless to say, my talk was pretty well wasted on that class. The White kids in there had been subjected to so much moral intimidation, they had been pumped so full of racial guilt and self-hatred, their minds were so twisted, that it’s doubtful whether anyone could straighten them out. Certainly no one could in an hour’s time.

But the thing which bothered me even more than the phony collective racial guilt which had been pumped into those boys and girls, was my inability to answer the White kid’s question. Why should we survive? That’s one of those questions like, why is good better than evil? Or, nowadays, why is heterosexuality any better than homosexuality? If two people want to have sex together, who are we to say that it’s better that they be a man and a woman than that they be two men or two women? A related question concerns racial mixing: why shouldn’t a Black man and a White woman, or vice versa, live together if they can be happy? These are questions which most White people, even normal healthy White people, cannot answer satisfactorily today.

A hundred years ago, before the Jews came flooding into our country and taking over our mass media and our educational system, we might not have really needed answers. We just knew that it was important for our race to survive and to make progress. We knew that homosexuality and interracial sex were wrong. Our intuition told us this. The answers were in our souls even if we couldn’t express them in words. But then the Jews—who are clever people, very clever people—came along, and they began asking these very questions. And when we couldn’t answer them, they began providing their own answers.

Now all of us here tonight know what the Jews’ answers are. We read them in our newspapers and hear them on television every day. Some White people, in fact a majority at first, did oppose the Jews’ plans. But their reasons for opposing them were all the wrong ones. For example, when asked “Why shouldn’t your son or daughter marry a Black?” their answer was “Well, two people with such different backgrounds won’t be happy together. They will have children of mixed race who won’t be accepted by either Whites or Blacks. There’s a better chance for a marriage to work out if both partners are of the same race. The world just isn’t ready for inter-marriage yet.” Well, of course, the Jews made pretty short work of such shallow and superficial objections. The problem was that our people had already accepted most of the basic Jewish premises. Our criterion for choosing a marriage partner was happiness—happiness! –either ours or our children’s. No one had any really solid answers, answers based on something fundamental. Certainly the churches, whose role should have been to provide the right answers, were of no help. They in fact were, and are, in the forefront of the Jewish assault on all our values and institutions. They are so much in hock to the Jews that they are busy now trying to figure out how they can rewrite the New Testament, removing or changing all the parts that Jews consider offensive, such as the Jewish responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus.

The Jews were able to continue hammering away at White Americans—probing, prying, asking more questions, raising more doubts—until we had lost all faith in what we had earlier known intuitively was right. Our ethics, our code of behavior, our values, our feelings, and our aspirations all went down the drain. What they gave us instead was the new “morality” of “if it feels good, do it.” Our children are taught in school that progress means more happiness for more people. And happiness, of course, means feeling good. The whole thing is summed up in a Coca-Cola commercial. I’m sure you have all seen it on TV: a ring of twenty people or so, of all colors and both sexes, obviously as happy and care-free as they could possibly be, are all holding hands and singing, “I’d like to give the world a Coke.” Now who but the meanest and most narrow-minded racist is going to criticize something like that?

The average American—even one who does not approve of racial mixing—doesn’t know how to respond to a clever appeal like the Coca-Cola commercial, certainly the average White kid in our schools today doesn’t. And once he has unconsciously accepted the hidden premises in that commercial—and the entire attitude toward life from which it is sprung—the question I was asked at the Indian Spring Friends’ School naturally follows. Since people of all races are equal and essentially the same—Whites, Negroes, Jews, Gypsies, Chinamen, Mulattoes—and since they can all be happy doing the same sorts of things, why should we worry about what a person’s race is, or even about our own? Wouldn’t sex be just as pleasurable for us if we were Black instead of White? Wouldn’t a Coke taste just as good? What difference does it make if our grandchildren are Mulattoes so long as the economy is still strong and they can all afford nice cars and 25-inch color TV sets?

Now, one can attack this Jewish fantasy world with facts. One can point out that although Jews are clever, they haven’t done everything worthwhile in the world. White people have done a few things besides kill other people. And one can point out that racial differences are more than skin deep. One can talk about IQ scores; one can cite historical examples in which civilization after civilization has declined and crumbled when the race that built that civilization began intermarrying with its slaves. But none of that is really going to convince the kid whose main concern is whether the consumers of the world—whether the happy Coke drinkers—will be any less happy in a world without Whites.

What we failed to do in the past was to understand the deep inner source from which our feelings and intuition about race and other matters sprang. We had no really sound and healthy worldview to offer that White kid in place of the slick, plastic, Jewish worldview of the Coca-Cola commercial. And so we couldn’t really answer his question about the survival of the White race any more than we could give him a really convincing reason about why he shouldn’t do just anything that feels good—whether it is taking dope, or sleeping with Blacks, or experimenting with homosexuality.

You may think of that kid as an extreme liberal case, but he is really no different than the average—and I mean the average—businessman in this country. He used to be a segregationist a few years ago, but he became an integrationist when the Blacks started rioting and burning things in the late 1960′s. After all, riots are bad for business. Their individual views of the world may be a little different, but the businessman and the kid in Maryland both base their thinking on one and the same thing—egoistic Jewish materialism. The kid who believes that the purpose of life is happiness, knows that there are not many things on this earth happier than a bunch of pickaninnies splashing in a mud puddle. And the businessman who believes that the purpose of life is to make money knows that a Black customer’s money is just as green as a White customer’s.

A person who accepts that sort of basis, indeed, cannot see any really convincing reason why the White race should survive. His aim is to live a “good life.” And for him that means a life with lots of money, lots to eat and drink, plenty of sex, new cars, big houses, and constant diversions. Entertainment: that is all he lives for, all he cares about, and all he understands. Talk about purpose to him and his eyes go blank. Talk about eternity and he laughs at you. He knows that he won’t live forever, although he doesn’t like to think about that. He intends to get as much out of life as he can. Anything beyond that means nothing to him. What a difference that is from the attitude toward life that our ancestors in northern Europe had a few hundred years ago. They were greedy for money like we are, of course, and they liked to enjoy themselves when they could, but that was not the meaning of life for them. Their attitude toward life and death was perhaps best summed up in a stanza from one of the old Norse sagas. It goes like this:

Kinsmen die and cattle die,
And so must one die one’s self,
But there is one thing I know which never dies
And that is the fame of a dead man’s deeds.

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer expressed essentially the same idea when he said that the very most any man can hope for is a heroic passage through life. Greatness, in other words, instead of happiness, is the mark of a good life. Now I don’t mean to suggest that we must all think in terms of becoming famous or of dying heroically on the battlefield with sword or gun in hand. Some of us may be granted that, but what is important, what all of us can do, even those who think of ourselves as basically unheroic, is to adopt the attitude toward life and toward death which was implicit in the old sagas and in Schopenhauer’s statement.

The attitude of living for the sake of eternity, of living with eternity always in mind instead of living only for the moment; the attitude that the individual is not an end in himself, but rather that the individual lives for and through something greater—in particular, for and through his racial community (which is eternal)—seems to have eluded most of us today. It is an attitude which is diametrically opposed to the Jewish attitude of egoism and materialism. And yet it is the alien Jewish attitude that has been adopted by most Americans today. We have chosen happiness instead of greatness, the moment instead of eternity. We have become a nation—a whole race—of full-time self-seekers, a race concerned with one thing: self-gratification.

The average man, of course, has always been pretty shortsighted and his interests have always pretty much been limited to his own welfare. So the materialism of today that I’ve been talking about is a matter of degree. It has a somewhat stronger grip on the man in the street than it formerly did. But what is worse is that today it also has a grip on our leaders, on our teachers, on our poets, on our philosophers, and even on our priests. It has so thoroughly saturated the souls of all of us that we have reacted to it by becoming spiritually ill. And this spiritual sickness, this loss of our souls, is why we are in such a mess today. And it is why we will be in a worse and worse mess as time goes on. We will never overcome the problems facing us until it is cured.

And please do not misunderstand me. I am not talking about the “wages of sin” in the sense with which many of us may be familiar. I’m not talking about some anthropomorphic deity, some heavenly father sitting on his throne in the sky punishing us, keeping us from overcoming our enemies because we are not fulfilling his commandments. No, that’s nonsense! We are not being punished by any supernatural being. We are in trouble for the same reason that an explorer in a harsh and trackless wilderness is in trouble when he loses his compass and cannot see the sky through the dense foliage. He no longer knows which way to go. That is our most fundamental problem—we do not know where we are going. We have no sense of direction. We have stumbled off the path.

But that is something I really should not have had to tell you because everyone here today knows this. Even if he doesn’t understand yet how or why he knows it. He still knows that the present course our society has taken is wrong. It is unnatural. It is evil. We all know that it is wrong to accept the “I’m all right, Jack” attitude which prevails today. We know that it’s wrong to live only for the present, to forget the past and to ignore the future. It is wrong to have instant self-gratification as our only goal. That’s why we are here. We know that there is something more, something else, a better way. We know this for the same reason we are attracted to beauty and to nobility and are repelled by the ugly and the base, regardless of the artificial fashions of our day. We know it because deep inside all of us, in our race-soul, there is a source of divine wisdom, of ages-old wisdom, of wisdom as old as the universe. That is the wisdom, the truth, which we in the National Alliance want to make the basis of our national policy. It is a truth of which most of us have been largely unconscious all our lives, but which now we have the opportunity to understand clearly and precisely.

Our truth tells us that no man, no race, not even this planet, exists as an end in itself. The only thing which exists as an end in its self is the whole. The whole of which the things I just named are parts. The universe is the physical manifestation of the whole. The whole is continually changing and always will be. It is evolving. That is, it is moving toward ever more complex, ever higher, states of existence. The development of life on earth from non-living matter was one step in this never-ending evolutionary process. The evolution of man-like creatures from more primitive forms of life was another step. The diversification of these creatures into the various races and sub-races, and the continued evolution of these different races in different parts of the world at different rates, have been continuations of this process. The entire evolution of life on earth from its beginning some three billion years ago, and in a more general sense, the evolution of the universe over a much longer period before the appearance of life, is an evolution not only in the sense of yielding more and more highly developed physical forms, but also an evolution in consciousness. It is an evolution in the self-consciousness of the whole.

From the beginning, the whole, the creator, the self-created, has followed, has in fact embodied, an upward urge—an urge toward higher and higher degrees of self-consciousness, toward ever more nearly perfect states of self-realization.

In man—in our race in particular—this upward urge, this divine spark, has brought us to a new threshold. A threshold as important as that which separated the non-living matter of three billion years ago from the living matter into which it evolved. Today’s threshold is a threshold in self-consciousness. We stand now on the verge of a full understanding of the fact that we are a manifestation of the creator, that we are the means and the substance by which the creator, by which the whole of which we are a part, can continue its self-evolution.

When we understand this, when we heed the divine spark within us, then we can once again ascend the upward path that has led us from sub-man to man and can lead us now from man to super-man and beyond. But we cannot do this, we cannot find the path, without this consciousness, without this understanding that the responsibility is ours, that we are not the playthings of God but are ourselves a manifestation of God and can become, must become, now a conscious manifestation. Only in that way can we fulfill our ordained destiny.

Let me emphasize again, in different words, what I told you earlier this evening about building a spiritual basis for our political work. The Alliance’s long-range approach is necessary, absolutely necessary, and unavoidable. The short-range approaches that other patriots are trying, and have been trying for many decades now, the thousands of ad hoc solutions of quick and easy one-issue approaches, whether of tax-rebellion or of bomb throwing, cannot solve the ultimate problems with which we are faced. They cannot give us back our souls. It may seem ironical that we should be trying to conquer and transform the whole world, that we should be planning for eternity, when no one else has been able to make a successful plan for achieving very much more limited goals, restoring the constitution, for example, or getting us out of the United Nations, or what have you. But it is the very shortsightedness of those working for these limited goals which has been the cause of their failure. And it is our rooting of our plans in eternity which gives us confidence for their ultimate success no matter how long it may take us.

So I tell you again, our approach is not just a matter of choice; it is necessary. There is no other way but ours. There is only one path. And there is something else we must understand. Our philosophy, our quest for the upward path, is not something that we should accept reluctantly because we see it as necessary to the solution of our race problem, our Jewish problem, and our communist problem. It is not something we accept because we cannot find an easier approach to these problems. No! If we look at it that way then we still haven’t rid ourselves of the shortsightedness that has been our curse in the past. We must understand that the truth for which we stand transcends all the problems of the present. Finding our way once again to the one true path transcends all questions of economics, of politics, and ultimately even of race, just as eternity transcends tomorrow. So let’s stop putting the cart before the horse mentally and spiritually. Let’s take off our mental blinders. Let’s realize that the truth has a value in itself and that dedication to the truth is a virtue in itself. This is all the more true in a world in which falsehood seems to rule.

The problems with which we are faced in the world today are serious ones and they must be solved. But the first and most important task, the task on which all our other problems must eventually depend for their solutions, but also the task which would still be just as important for us to accomplish if all our other problems didn’t exist, is the task, the one task, assigned to us by the creator. That is the task of achieving full consciousness of our oneness with the whole, achieving full consciousness that we are a part of the creator and that our destiny is to achieve the single purpose for which the universe exists—the self-realization of the creator.

Our truth is a very simple truth, but its implications are enormous beyond imagining. To the extent that we understand and accept it, it sets us apart from all the people around us. Our acceptance of this truth marks us as the only adults in a world of children. For implicit in what we believe is our recognition and acceptance of our responsibility for the future of the universe. The fate of everything that will ever be rests in our hands now. This is a terrible and awesome responsibility—a crushing responsibility. If we were only men we could not bear it. We would have to invent some supernatural being to foist our responsibility onto. But we must, and can, bear it when we understand that we ourselves embody the divine spark which is the upward driving urge of the universe.

The acceptance of our truth not only burdens us with the responsibility that other men have shunned throughout history, it bestows on us a mantle of moral authority that goes along with the responsibility, the moral authority to do whatever is necessary in carrying out our responsibility. Furthermore, it is an acceptance of our destiny, an unlimited destiny, a destiny glorious beyond imagination, if we truly have the courage of our convictions. If we truly abide by the demands that our truth places upon us, it means that while other men continue to live only for the day, continue to seek only self-gratification, and continue to live lives which are essentially without meaning and that leave no trace behind them when they are over, we are living and working for the sake of eternity. In so doing, we are becoming a part of that eternity.

For some, our task may seem too great for us, our responsibility too overwhelming. If they are correct, if we choose to remain children instead of accepting our adulthood, if we continue the shortsighted approaches of the past, then in the long run we will fail utterly. The enemies of our race will prevail over us and we and our kind will pass away forever. All our sacrifices, and all the dreams and sacrifices of our ancestors, will have been in vain. Not even a memory of us, or our kind, will be left when the creative spirit of the universe tries, in some other place, in some other time, in some other way, to do what we failed to do. But I do not believe that we will fail. Because in working to achieve our purpose, we are finding our way once again to the right and natural path for our people. We are working once again with the whole. And we have a mighty tradition behind us.

Our purpose is the purpose for which the earth was born out of the gas and the dust of the cosmos, the purpose for which the first primitive amphibian crawled out of the sea three hundred million years ago and learned to live on the land, the purpose for which the first race of men held themselves apart from the races of sub-men around them and bred only with their own kind. It is the purpose for which men first captured lightning from the sky, tamed it, and called it fire; the purpose for which our ancestors built the world’s first astronomical observatory on a British plain more than 4,000 years ago. It is the purpose for which Jesus, the Galilean, fought the Jews and died 2,000 years ago; the purpose for which Rembrandt painted; the purpose for which Shakespeare wrote; and the purpose for which Newton pondered. Our purpose, the purpose with which we must become obsessed, is that for which the best, the noblest, men and women of our race down through the ages have struggled and died whether they were fully conscious of it or not. It is the purpose for which they sought beauty and created beauty; the purpose for which they studied the heavens and taught themselves Nature’s mysteries; the purpose for which they fought the degenerative, the regressive, and the evil forces all around them; the purpose for which, instead of taking the easy path in life, the downward path; they chose the upward path, regardless of the pain, suffering, and sacrifice that this choice entailed.

Yes! They did these things, largely without having a full understanding of why, just as the first amphibian did not understand his purpose when he crawled onto the land. Our purpose is the creator’s purpose, our path is the path of divine consciousness, the path of the creator’s self-realization. This is the path which is ordained for us because of what we are, because of the spark of divine consciousness in us, and in no one else. No other race can travel this path, our path, for us. We alone must prove whether we are fit to serve the creator’s purpose. And if we are fit, if we once again heed the inner knowledge engraved in our souls by the creator, if we regain faith in the things we once knew were true without fully understanding why and if we now also teach ourselves why, then we will once again be on the upward path ordained for us, and our destiny will be godhood.

Those of you who are with us for the first time have, I hope, gained at least the beginning of an understanding of who we are and of what we want to do. I know that I have left many of your questions unanswered; questions about current political, social, racial, and economic issues; questions about concrete things. We do talk about those things in our meetings. We talk about them in a very concrete and down-to-earth fashion. I’ve discussed them in past meetings and I’ll discuss them again in future ones—the goals of overcoming the enemies of our people, of safeguarding the future of our race, and of building a new order of beauty sanity, strength, and health on this earth, so that our people can progress and mature until they are capable of fulfilling the role allotted to them by the creator. But now I want to be sure that you understand just one thing. If we ever are to achieve these concrete advances, these physical victories, this material renewal of our nation, of our civilization, of our race, then we must first make the spiritual advances that I’ve talked about here. Without the spiritual basis, the material victory will not be achieved.

As I said, in our future meetings we will explore many individual issues in much greater detail than we have here. We hope you will join us in these future meetings and further increase your understanding of our work, and we hope that you will begin to share our commitment to this work. And let me say this especially to those who are with us for the first time, we do not care who you are or what you have believed in the past, nor do we require that you agree exactly with us on a hundred different social, political, economic, and racial issues. All we require is that you share with us a commitment to the simple, but great, truth which I have explained to you here, that you understand that you are a part of the whole, which is the creator, that you understand that your purpose, the purpose of mankind and the purpose of every other part of creation, is the creator’s purpose, that this purpose is the never-ending ascent of the path of creation, the path of life symbolized by our life rune, that you understand that this path leads ever upward toward the creator’s self-realization, and that the destiny of those who follow this path is godhood. If you share this single truth with us, then everything else will follow and we invite you to make a commitment now, today, to join us and work with us.