web analytics

Category: Final solution

Categories
Final solution

Vanguardist poll

After the fascinating Alex Linder / Hunter Wallace debate this Monday in Jim Giles show, VNN Forum issued a poll: whether or not Linder was right with his non-rhetorical stance to exterminate the tribe that hates whites. (This topic was discussed in about the middle of the recorded podcast; you can ignore the rest of the discussion if you wish.)

Both Wallace and the moderator Giles found extremely offensive Linder’s exterminationist anti-Semitism.

And today, in Wallace’s follow-up at Occidental Dissent, I posted the following comment as a reply to Lew’s comment: “It should be noted Jews speak openly of exterminating non-Jews in their religious texts.”

I said:

And not only in ancient texts. Yitzhak Attia, director of French-language seminars at the Yad Vashem Holocaust institute in Tel Aviv wrote this himself in Israel magazine a couple of years ago:

Even if reason tells us, even shouts with all its force the very absurdity of this confrontation between the small and insignificant people of Israel [i.e., all Jewry worldwide, not just “the State of Israel”] and the rest of humanity… as absurd, as incoherent and as monstrous as it may seem, we are engaged in close combat between Israel and the Nations—and it can only be genocidal and total because it is about our and their identities.

You read it right: Between the Jewish people and the rest of humanity the struggle can only be “genocidal and total.”

* * *

Apparently Jews have the right to openly and unabashedly fantasize about their exterminating all of us, while, at the same time, 99.9 percent of normal whites freak out—even in pro-white sites—when one of us dares to return the favor and say exactly the same thing about the Jews, with the colors inverted.

Categories
Conspiracy theories David Irving Final solution Heinrich Himmler Holocaust Holodomor Red terror Third Reich

New approach to the holocaust

Himmler_advert


If there’s a moral of the story on the recent debate at The Occidental Observer about the so-called “holocaust” that can only be that most white nationalists are cognitively immature. I find it scandalous that I was the only one who linked Greg Johnson’s piece as an important article, as can be ascertained at the bottom of the TOO article (5 trackbacks to “Dealing with the Holocaust”): four trackbacks to this blog and the other one to my nationalist blog in Spanish.

One example is Carolyn Yeager’s recent podcast “Should White Nationalists leave the Holocaust alone?”, where the possibility that millions of Jews could indeed have died as a result of the harsh treatment they received in the Third Reich is not even considered as a remote possibility.

Just contrast most of the nationalists’ dogmatic stance on the “holocaust” with the intellectual trajectory of David Irving, who a few years ago acknowledged that at least more than two millions of Jews died in the camps (source, National Alliance News):

According to an article in the extremist leftist Guardian newspaper in Britain, historian David Irving has backtracked on his earlier views about the Holocaust myth and now accepts that the Nazis engaged in mass extermination of Jews in certain camps.

Irving says that his views on the Holocaust have crystallized rather than changed. He says that he believes the Jews were responsible for what happened to them during the Second World War and that the “Jewish problem” was responsible for nearly all the wars of the past 100 years: “The Jews are the architects of their own misfortune, but that is the short version A-Z. Between A-Z there are then 24 other characters in intervening steps.”

He says that a document, which he is 80% sure is genuine, suggests that 2.4 million Jews were killed in Poland, but goes on to claim that the gas chamber at Auschwitz was fake. “It was not the centre of the killing operations—it has only become a focus because it is the site that is best preserved. Much of what is shown [to] the tourists there is faked postwar—watchtowers, even the famous gas chamber.”

He added: “In my opinion now the real killing operations took place at the Reinhardt camps west of the Bug river. In the three camps here [Sobibor, Belzec, and Treblinka] Heinrich Himmler’s men (mostly Ukrainian mercenaries) killed possibly as many as 2.4 million in the two years up to October 1943. There is now nothing to be seen of the Reinhardt camps, neither stick nor stone, so few tourists go there. I have visited all four sites earlier this year.”

Pressed as to whether this change undermined his previous stance, Irving replied: “It is a crystallization of my view.” Asked if he now accepts there had been a Holocaust against the Jewish people he said he was “not going to use their trade name.”

He added: “I do accept that the Nazis quite definitely, that Heinrich Himmler, organized and directed a program, a clandestine program, for the liquidation of European Jews… and that in 1942-43 alone over 2.5 million Jews were killed in those three camps.” He added that Hitler was “completely in the dark” about the program.

This of course doesn’t mean that Irving is guilt-tripping whites for what happened in Poland. Like me he’s only concerned with facts and honesty.

I find it pathetic that this holocaust guilt could have been overcome decades ago by simply pointing to the fact that the Jewish Bolsheviks started the genocide by killing more White civilians than what Himmler did with the Jews as a prophylactic response. If the astronomic amount of time spent by nationalists and non-nationalists in researching paranoid conspiracy theories like 9/11 would have been spent researching real historical facts, like what happened in the Gulag under Stalin’s willing executioners, the tide could have been turned in our favor long ago.

I look forward for a new generation of nationalists who leave behind “holocaust” denialism, 9/11 and JFK conspiracy theories, monocausalism and even their infatuation with rock music and degenerate, Jew-controlled Hollywood films (yes, this includes Nolan’s silly Batman trilogy that presently is being hysterically praised in some nationalist blogs).

Categories
Final solution Free speech / association Liberalism

A “final solution” to the Jewish problem

Instead of replying to a comment by Ward Kendall in the latest thread, I better rephrase here something that Larry Auster wrote about Islam in 2008:

Commenter 1 and others in this thread argue as follows: “Solution X may be what we need to do for our survival, but the support for X does not exist, therefore Solution X is not a good idea and I disagree with it.”

This is to argue backward, in a way that is very common among conservatives, and shows a failure to grasp the radical nature of the challenge before us.

Obviously, any kind of solution to the Jewish Problem that is favored by serious Western patriots will be completely outside current accepted thinking. Therefore any solution offered by white nationalists is going to lack current support and seem completely out of the question—by current standards. Commenter 1 and others implicitly imagine that the solution they seek could be arrived at within the current liberal assumption that governs our world. But that is false. It is modern liberalism itself—the belief that all people and cultures are basically the same and that discrimination against and exclusion of any group or religion are the greatest sins—that is leading us to our destruction.

Therefore it is the liberal worldview that must be challenged and defeated. For Commenter 1 to say, “Solution X is no good, because the liberal orthodoxy would refuse to support it,” is to give up the battle without having even tried to fight it. What Western patriots need to grasp is that Western survival requires and assumes the defeat of liberalism. Those who are not prepared to challenge liberalism on a fundamental level will not be able to save the West. Thus any policy that the participants in this discussion favor—ranging from stopping all Jewish immigration, to designating Judaism as a political ideology and placing legal restrictions on it, to initiating Jew out-migration, to the quarantine of Jews within Israel or Madagascar, to the more radical and violent steps that Westerner and others have proposed—all these policies assume that the West will have gone beyond its current liberalism. The defeat of liberalism is the assumed starting point of all our proposed solutions. Therefore the end of liberalism should not be seen as some distant, impossible goal, but as the indispensable condition of our survival.

To believe in the West and in our own life as Westerners, is to believe in the defeat of liberalism. Those who are unwilling to challenge liberalism may offer a lot of lip service about defending the West, but they will eventually yield to its destruction. So how do we get from here to Solution X? Not by saying, “There’s no support for it.” Not by saying, “We have to wait for liberals to change.” Not by saying, “Let’s spend the next 20 years telling people that ZOG is a mortal threat to our civilization, but never telling them what they can do in order save themselves from this threat.”

No. We get to Solution X by making our case, our whole case, including the diagnosis (ZOG is a mortal threat to us) and the possible cure (my own preferred cure is the removal, disempowerment, and permanent quarantine of Judaism; others have their preferred cures and we should continue discussing them). By making our whole case, we persuade people (1) of the nature of the problem, (2) of the only possible solutions to the problem, and (3) of the fact that these solutions are not possible within liberal assumptions, because liberalism is a suicidal ideology, and therefore we must renounce liberalism.

It’s the whole case what will persuade people and move them to the position that will make Western survival possible. Not a quarter case, not a half case.

See my whole parody in the previous incarnation of this blog—so sarcastic that it moved the Blogger admins to vaporize the West’s Darkest Hour last year.

Categories
Axiology Christendom Deranged altruism Final solution Judeo-reductionism Liberalism

A reply to a comment

Stevieb said…

I agree with all that [Stevieb refers to what I wrote here]. But this is the first time I’ve read your blog, and you come across too arrogant.

Fine—you don’t suffer fools—I get that. But I don’t get this enthusiasm for bashing “monocausalists,” for me they’ll do just fine for now.

Getting out from under the boot of Jewish ideological and political domination is the first step. You’re probably confusing some of the lesser intellects involved in this movement—of whom I would reluctantly include myself—and that can be dangerous, or at least counterproductive, in my opinion.

Having said all that, I’ll read on (no need to post this)…


Chechar said…

No need to post your above comment in this particular page? OK, I will delete it and post it again in a proper thread (if you don’t mind).

For most people “arrogance” is something like what popularly passes as a jerk, but according to my Merriam-Webster’s dictionary arrogance is “a genuine feeling of superiority that shows itself in an overbearing manner or attitude…”

For the record, these are my recent posts about “monocausalism,” a view that now I reject because I doubt we can blame a hundred percent the Jews for the mess in today’s world and place zero percent of blame on ourselves.

But the real crux is that if monocausalists are right, then Alex Linder’s brutal “Let’s exterminate ’em all” makes sense. On the other hand, if Christian universalism is to blame too for our problems, exterminationism is highly problematic not only from the moral viewpoint, but from the strategic viewpoint as well since whites seem to have a loose screw doing big time, Gremlinesque mischiefs on their own.

I agree with you that monocausalists are doing a superb job though. Since Jews cannot be criticized in today’s traitorous culture, it’s good to see that there are people that focus on them and on them alone.

Nonetheless, if there’s something wrong going on in the white psyche sans Jews, if we are really trapped in a device of our own making, the Gremlinesque screw has to be tightened up a bit.

This is why we have to focus on the existing paradigm or Weltanschauung that I call “Secular Christianity” or however you may want to call it (political correctness, ethno-masochism, deranged altruism, genetic communism, cultural Marxism): a set of ideas as rigid and unexamined as anything that a Calvinist could produce.

Nowadays this crystallized psychic structure, that many simply call “liberalism,” is preventing whites from taking the kind of inner action that would allow them to first rebel intellectually, and then revolutionarily.

I may be arrogant, yes, but it’s worth remembering that even Hitler himself, in his intimate table talks of 1941, spoke more against Christian axiology than against Jewish influence.

Categories
Final solution

An open letter to Larry Auster

Note of November 3, 2014: I wrote the below entry in April 2012 and presently am more open, though not a hundred percent convinced, of Linder's final solution but by then I did not subscribe such views


I have ignored you since you started to say that I share Alex Linder’s “exterminationist anti-Semitic” sentiments. But in recent posts of yours you keep claiming it, for example here, where one of your commenters said:

The blogger Chechar (a Mexican) has written extensively about this aspect of Mexican culture, but as he also has strongly negative opinions of Jews, I expect you will not want to read him. (He also writes at great length, even when I was reading him regularly, I tended to skim a lot.) [Larry Auster replies: Chechar, a.k.a. Cesar Tort, is an exterminationist anti-Semite.]

Where the hell did you get that idea Larry? Just because in a post I gathered Linder’s hilarious rants from other blogsites? Or because, with my typical black humor that has baffled so many bloggers, in a post I said, “I would name Alex Linder my Reichsführer-SS” (a post about Breivik, not about Jews)?

Don’t you have a black sense of humor, Larry? What you say about me is libelous: and an old Jewess friend—not a friend of mine but a music colleague of my family—that the other day hit one of your above links is now very confused. You simply cannot quote me saying that Jews must be exterminated, can you?

Gosh! I am starting to understand why you guys have become the intellectual target of white nationalist sites such as Age of Treason! Have you had the decency of reading at least some of my posts where I blame more Christianity than Judaism for the current Western malaise? Does this mean that I now want to exterminate all Christians, even when one of my posts has the provocative title “A final solution to the Christian problem”?

You better cite what I now say in this entry every time you mention me again in your View From the Right site!

Categories
Adversus Christianos (book) Ancient Rome Celsus Christendom Final solution Free speech / association Porphyry of Tyre

Porphyry

The following excerpts are taken from the introduction and epilogue of Joseph Hoffman’s book, Porphyry’s Against the Christians. Ellipsis omitted between unquoted passages:


wanderer
Persecution is a slippery term in the annals of the early church. An older generation of church historians, using the martyrologies and writings of the church fathers as their sources, believed that the era from Nero to Constantine was one of almost unremitting slaughter of professing Christians. Their opinion was enfeebled somewhat by the certainty that the Romans could have tried a “final solution” to the Christian problem much earlier, if they had wanted, and the fact that along with boasting of their many martyrs, church writers like Origen also bragged that rich folk, high officials, elegant ladies, and illuminati were entering the church in great numbers. The pagan writers tried to counter this trend in their insistence that Christianity was really a religion for the lazy, the ignorant and superstitious, and the lowborn—“women, yokels and children,” Celsus had sneered. But the ploy was ineffective. Diocletian’s persecutions revealed that Christianity had crept into the emperor’s bedroom: his wife, his daughter, their servants, the treasury official Audactus, the eunuch Dorotheus, even the director of the purple dye factory in Tyre, were Christians or Christian sympathizers. Insulting the new converts did not stop the process of conversion. The political solution of the third century, therefore, was an attempt to scare people off—to make being a Christian an expensive proposition. Persecution was the strong-arm alternative to failed polemical tactics by the likes of Celsus, Porphyry and Hierocles.

In 250 Decius decreed simply that Christians would be required to sacrifice to the gods of Rome by offering wine and eating sacrificial meat. Those who refused would be sentenced to death. To avoid this punishment, well-to-do Christians seem to have given up this new religion in substantial numbers, becoming in the eyes of the faithful “apostates,” a new designation derived from the Greek word revolt. The apostates also numbered many bishops, including the bishop of the important region of Smyrna, as well as Jewish Christians who rejoined the synagogue, as Judaism was not encompassed in the Decian order.

In the reign of Valerian (253-260) the focus shifted from the practice of the Christian faith to the church’s ownership of property. In August 257, Valerian targeted the wealth of the clergy and in 258 the riches of prominent Christian lay persons. The tactic was obviously intended to make upper-crust Romans think twice before throwing their wealth in the direction of the “beggar priests” as Porphyry called them.

On 31 March 297, under the emperor Diocletian, the Manichean religion was outlawed. Like Christianity it was an “import” of dubious vintage. More particularly, it was Persian, and Rome was at war with Persia. Holy books and priests were seized and burned without much ado. Professing members of the cult were put to death without trial. The most prominent Roman Manicheans (the so-called honestiores) were spared, but their property was confiscated and they were sent to work in the mines. The process against the Manicheans boded worse things to come for the Christians.

Diocletian published his first decree against the Christians in February 303. The edict to stamp out (“terminate”) the Christian religion was issued. Diocletian had hoped to cripple the movement. Termination would have meant extermination. But the survival tactics of the movement made police work difficult. Christians had become sly. The enthusiasm of martyrdom was now paralleled by accomplished doubletalk.

Executions increased, especially after rumors reached Galerius that plots against the throne were being fomented in Christian circles. New edicts were issued with regularity, each a little more severe than the one before. The fourth edict (304) required that all the people of a city must sacrifice and offer libations to the gods “as a body,” Christians included. Diocletian abdicated, in declining health. Galerius issued an edict of toleration.

Maximinus Daia, who had an active retaining program in place, designed to reeducate lapsed Christians in their pagan heritage. But the life was going out of the movement to repress Christianity. The pagan critics had not succeeded in stemming the popularity of the movement, and the “persecuting” emperors (except perhaps Diocletian himself) had miscalculated both the numbers and the determination of the faithful. The movement was Rome’s Vietnam, a slow war of attrition which had been fought to stop a multiform enemy. Even at their worst under Diocletian, the persecutions had been selective and, in their intense form, short-lived. And (as has been known since the seventeenth century) the number of martyrs was not great.

The goal of the fourth edict against the Christians in 304, in fact, had been to compel loyalty to unpopular rulers, and in 308 the greatly detested Maximinus tried the same tactic, “to offer sacrifices and wine-offerings.” The tactic was ineffectual, Eusebius says, because even the enforcers had lost their heart to impose the penalties and to support the machinery required for the “sacrifice factories” Maximinus tried to set up.

Unhappy with this failure, he sponsored a literary attack, circulating forged gospels and memoirs containing the stock slanders against Jesus. These were posted in public gathering-places and schoolteachers were required to assign portions of them to children as lessons. To substantiate charges against the moral habits of the Christians, Maximinus then hired agents (duces) to round up prostitutes from the marketplace in Damascus. Tortured until they confessed to being Christians, they then signed statements to the effect that the churches routinely practiced ritual prostitution and required members to participate in sexually depraved acts. These statements were also distributed to the towns and cities for public display.

Desperate times, desperate men, desperate measures.

By the time Galerius issued his edict of toleration in favor of the Christians on 30 April 311 three waves of attack had failed: the erratic policies of emperors Nero and Marcus Aurelius; the literary and philosophical attacks, carried on in collusion with imperial sponsors; and the more sustained persecutions of the third century, ending in 311. Paganism was dying. Maximinus’ plan for “reeducating” Christians in the religion of their ancestors had failed.

After Constantine’s conversion—whatever it may have been—only Julian (332-363), his nephew, remained to pick up the baton for the pagan cause. Julian did his best to reestablish the old order. He reorganized the shrines and temples; outlawed the teachings of Christian doctrine in the schools, retracted the legal and financial privileges which the Christians had been accumulating since the early fourth century; wrote polemical treaties against the Christians himself, and—in a clever political maneuver—permitted exiled bishops to return to their sees to encourage power-struggles and dissention within the church. Naturally, the Christians despised him. The distinguished theologian Gregory of Nazianzus had been Julian’s schoolmate in Athens, where both learned a love for the classical writers (but where Julian had been converted to Greek humanism). Cyril of Alexandria wrote a long refutation of Julian’s Adversus Christianos (Against the Christians), parts of which hark back to Porphyry and Hierocles. All in all, this pagan interlude—never really a renaissance—lasted only three years, until Julian’s death in June 363.

In the middle of this period we have just described stands Porphyry of Tyre. Born in 232, Porphyry was eighteen when the persecution broke out under emperor Decius. Twelve years later, his dislike for Christianity was firmly established. Porphyry had heard Origen preach, studied the Hebrew scripture, especially the prophets, and the Christian gospels, and found them lacking in literary quality and philosophical sophistication. He had joined a “school” in Rome (ca. 262) run by the famous neoplatonic teacher, Plotinus, where he remained until about 270. In Sicily, following Plotinus’ death, and back again to Rome, Porphyry developed an intense dislike of popular religion—or superstition, as the Roman intellectuals of his circle preferred to call it, regarding Christianity as the most pernicious form of a disease infecting the empire. In a work titled Pros Anebo he pointed out the defects in the cults. Then he tackled Christian teaching in a work. Popular under the rescript of Galerius in 311, the work was targeted for destruction by the imperial church, which in 448 condemned all existing copies to be burned.

The first thing to say about Porphyry’s fifteen books against the Christians is that they are lost. The exact title is not known, and its popular title, Kata Christianon, can be dated securely only from the Middle Ages. Opinions radically differ over the question whether the books can be substantially restored. A few facts can be stated succinctly, however. First, the church was unusually successful in its efforts to eradicate all traces of Kata Christianon from at least 448. Not only were Porphyry’s books destroyed, but many of the works of Christian writers incorporating sections of Porphyry’s polemic were burned in order to eliminate what one critic, the bishop Apollinarius, called “poison of his thought.”

Second, the ninety-seven fragments gathered by Harnack, half of which were taken from the fourth-century writer Macarius Magnes, are enough—if barely enough—to give us shape of Porphyry’s critique. That Macarius does not name his opponent and sometimes seems to characterize rather than quote his opinions could easily be explained as a strategic decision by a Christian teacher who wished his defense to survive. Naming his adversary—or quoting him too precisely—would have almost certainly guaranteed the burning of Macarius’ defense. Put appositely, anyone wishing to write a defense of the faith in the fourth or fifth century would have been foolhardy to identify the enemy as Porphyry.

[Third], I think we owe it to Porphyry and his “interpreters” to permit them speak to us directly. Having been buried—more or less successfully—since 448, the words should be permitted to breathe their own air.

Categories
Civil war Eschatology Ethnic cleansing Final solution Hate Justice / revenge Real men Turner Diaries (novel) William Pierce

“The blood flowed ankle-deep in the streets of many of Europe’s great cities”

Along with the justice brought to the white women who had sex with blacks in the “Day of the Rope” in the last pages of William Pierce’s The Turner Diaries, originally published more than three decades ago, I enjoyed the fate of the feminized western males in the final, apocalyptic stages of the coming racial wars in North America and Europe. Pierce wrote:

“For the first time I understand the deepest meaning of what we are doing. I understand now why we cannot fail, no matter what we must do to win and no matter how many of us must perish in doing it. Everything that has been and everything that is yet to be depend on us. We are truly the instruments of God in the fulfillment of his grand design. These may seem like strange words to be coming from me, who has never been religious.”

Although I am not a religious person either, my chosen images at the right side of this blog, the Florentine Fete murals exhibited at the National Museum of American Illustration, reflect better than a thousand words what we have in mind: the potential divinity of the white race.

To avoid anachronisms, below I slightly edited the final pages of Pierce’s 1978 masterpiece, the toughest book in the white nationalist movement. Take note that in real life there were speculations of blacks lapsing into cannibalism after Katrina hit New Orleans. No ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs:





Food became critically scarce everywhere during the winter. The Blacks lapsed into cannibalism, just as they had in California, while hundreds of thousands of starving Whites, who earlier had ignored the Organization’s call for a rising against the System, began appearing at the borders of the various liberated zones begging for food. The Organization was only able to feed the White populations already under its control by imposing the severest rationing, and it was necessary to turn many of the latecomers away.

Those who were admitted—and that meant only children, women of childbearing age, and able-bodied men willing to fight in the Organization’s ranks—were subjected to much more severe racial screening than had been used to separate Whites from non-Whites in California. It was no longer sufficient to be merely White; in order to eat one had to be judged the bearer of especially valuable genes. In Detroit the practice was first established (and it was later adopted elsewhere) of providing any able-bodied White male who sought admittance to the Organization’s enclave with a hot meal and a bayonet or other edged weapon. His forehead was then marked with an indelible dye, and he was turned out and could be readmitted permanently only by bringing back the head of a freshly killed Black or other non-White. This practice assured that precious food would not be wasted on those who would not or could not add to the Organization’s fighting strength, but it took a terrible toll of the weaker and more decadent White elements. Tens of millions perished during the first half of that year, and the total White population of the country reached a low point of approximately 50 million.

Outside these zones of order and security, the anarchy and savagery grew steadily worse, with the only real authority wielded by marauding bands which preyed on each other and on the unorganized and defenseless masses. Many of these bands were composed of Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos, and half-White mongrels. In growing numbers, however, Whites also formed bands along racial lines, even without Organization guidance.

As the war of extermination wore on, millions of soft, city-bred, brainwashed Whites gradually began regaining their manhood. The rest died.

The Organization’s growing success was not without its setbacks, of course. One of the most notable of these was the terrible Pittsburgh Massacre. The Organization had established an enclave there in May of that year, forcing the retreat of local System forces, but it did not act swiftly enough in identifying and liquidating the local Jewish element. A number of Jews, in collaboration with White conservatives and liberals, had time to work out a plan of subversion. The consequence was that System troops, aided by their fifth column inside the enclave, recaptured Pittsburgh. The Jews and Blacks then went on a wild rampage of mass murder, reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Jew-instigated Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. By the time the blood-orgy ended, virtually every White in the area had either been butchered or forced to flee. The surviving staff members of the Organization’s Pittsburgh Field Command, whose hesitation in dealing with the Jews had brought on the catastrophe, were rounded up and shot by a special disciplinary squad acting on orders from Revolutionary Command.

The only time, after that November, that the Organization was forced to detonate a nuclear weapon on the North American continent was a year later, in Toronto.

Hundreds of thousands of Jews had fled the United States to that Canadian city, making almost a second New York of it and using it as their command center for the war raging to the south. So far as both the Jews and the Organization were concerned, the US-Canadian border had no real significance during the later stages of the Great Revolution, and conditions were only slightly less chaotic north of the border than south of it. Throughout the Dark Years neither the Organization nor the System could hope for a completely decisive advantage over the other, so long as they both retained the capability for nuclear warfare. Then, of course, came the mopping-up period, when the last of the non-White bands were hunted down and exterminated.

With the principal centers of world Jewish power annihilated, and the nuclear threat neutralized, the most important obstacles to the Organization’s worldwide victory were out of the way. From as early as that year the Organization had had active cells in Western Europe.

The disastrous economic collapse in Europe in the spring, following the demise of the System in North America, greatly helped in preparing the European masses morally for the Organization’s final takeover. That takeover came in a great, Europe-wide rush in the summer and fall, as a cleansing hurricane of change swept over the continent, clearing away in a few months the refuse of a millennium or more of alien ideology and a century or more of profound moral and material decadence. The blood flowed ankle-deep in the streets of many of Europe’s great cities momentarily, as the race traitors, the offspring of generations of dysgenic breeding, and hordes of Gastarbeiter met a common fate. Then the great dawn of the New Era broke over the Western world.

As everyone is aware, the bands of mutants which roam the Waste remain a real threat, and it may be another century before the last of them has been eliminated and White colonization has once again established a human presence throughout this vast area.

But it was in that year, according to the chronology of the Old Era—just 110 years after the birth of the Great One—that the dream of a White world finally became a certainty.

Categories
Final solution Quotable quotes

Quotable quotes

“The Third Reich made a terrible mistake in not targeting more races for destruction.”

NY Untermensch*

_______________

* A most original blogger devoted to exploration of Jewish issues from a perspective that is helpful to patriotic whites around the world. Although he’s racially Jewish and is a third-generation native New Yorker, unlike most Jews he agrees in principle with the notion of a “final solution” to the Jewish problem.

Categories
Civil war Final solution Justice / revenge

Linder on Breivik

Here’s Alex Linder’s take on Anders Breivik from his VNN Forum (source). No ellipsis added between unquoted sentences or quotations from other VNN commenters:




There’s a soft side and a hard side.

The soft side is VNN/F, all White websites, any kind of educational outreach, a potential White HS [home schooling] curriculum (that does not exist and no one shows interest in creating).

The hard side is killing the enemy.

* * *

The people agree with us but are scared of the consequences of being called haters.

Who calls us haters, extremists and the rest of the litany? The communists, socialists, leftists, illiberals, feminists, journalists. But who creates the terms and frames and entire ideo-structure? The jews do. They set the agenda. The determine the framework. They raise the issue and define the contestants. They define what is inside the pale and what is outside.

They cut it so everyone opposed to them is sick ‘n’ evil. There is no middle. You cannot be opposed to their agenda and retain your integrity in their eyes, and more importantly, in their mass media.

How do you fight this? On the hard stuff, you simply kill them off. If their technical prowess is such that they can break up cells by early detection, thanks to their owning the FBI and other spy agencies, then obviously those who would take them out must act alone or with one or two people they’d trust with their lives to keep their mouth shut, since their lives are indeed what’s at stake if they screw up, and very likely even if they don’t screw up.

Once a man is willing to risk it all, a lot can be done from the hard side. That’s what Breivik’s act demonstrates. It’s not part of a larger plan, obviously, for the reasons I just stated—the enemy is able to prevent enemy networks from being established, as far as we can tell, judging by what we’ve seen since WWII. So his act was propaganda of the deed. Ably executed, and with an ideological backdrop and context he made sure to circulate, so that all could see his actions as part of a wider strategy, waiting for others to pitch in and push along.

Rounder correctly said that the jews are all in while the goyim who serve them are mostly opportunists. That means, as he said, and I’ve observed the same myself, the goyim are more lightly guarded. Jews have been racial criminals, shifty-eyed parasites, for 2,000+ years. It’s what they know. It’s what they are. They don’t have another way to be. All their eggs are in one basket, and as Twain advised, they are guarding that basket. They don’t have any plan B fallback option. They expect to be attacked. After all, they know what they’re doing! Jews are some of the most detail-oriented, microscopically-observant, mini-movement obsessed people on earth. They not only know what they are doing to us, and know they obtain racial advantage from their tricks, they positively enjoy degrading our culture and torturing our people. That’s the psychological and political truth: jews obtain a near-sexual joy from torturing our people.

These jews must be exterminated at some point—all European-jew history screams with one voice that any other way of treating the threat they present will not work because it cannot work. Jews can no more change the nature of their race than termites can stop eating wood. Only the catholic christ cult dogma that jews are just men like any other defined only by their non-conversion to the One True Way keeps us from seeing what is obvious.

The point is for any hard-siders, the goyim serve the jews not because they like the jews (no matter what it’s in their interest to claim in public), but because they fear the jews and like the benefits that sucking up to and serving the jews gets them. All that means to those who don’t like the existing order is that if there were anywhere near equal and opposite pressure on these weaklings and sellouts—they would find some pretext to flee quickly to the other side.

Remember always the basic lie of the jews, their fundamental conceit: that they rather than we speak for our community. They can get away with this monstrous imposture because they have suborned too many of our elite; they have created and surrounded themselves with goypuppets; and they control the official voices that most white humans biologically incline to respect and listen to and follow. But if the loudspeakers are taken out of their hands, and a new voice comes over them—the people will follow that which in their hearts they genuinely prefer, and default to white normal with no small relief! And the jews well know this. If they were actually self-deceptive about what they’re doing, they would believe their own bullshit and not worry about “hate” and “extremism.” But they do worry about it, enough to lie about its existence, to turn white normal into hate, and to root out and scream down or set up anyone who dares to resist.

The jews are the ringleaders, but in pure numbers, most of their frontmen and lower-level servants are raceless, self-interested goyim. An example: Rush Limbaugh used to criticize homos. One time a bunch of homos arranged to show up at his late TV show, and when he started going off, they started screaming at him. After that, he basically never criticized homos again. He yielded to a pretty small bit of verbal/economic pressure.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”—John F. Kennedy. Breivik’s actions are a perfect example of what JFK was talking about.

You lying judeo-communists filling our clean, successful, calm Norway with violent stupid third-world rapists and murderers can call us “haters,” “extremists,” and “racists,” and all the other filth terms in your liar’s lexicon all day long—but you are the real haters, the real killers, and the real usurpers. And you are going to get exactly what you deserve. Itz coming.


[Source:]

You said you want critical responses, so here’s mine.

And that’s a big part of my beef with Breivik and other similar stunts. There’s nothing to run to. It’s not scary if it’s a one-off. Anybody can be gotten to. That’s not news.

It most certainly is news. When was that last time anyone did in literally dozens of White enemies in two fell swoops—expertly planned, competently carried out? I’ve never seen it in my lifetime—and if you’re going to mistakenly refer to Oklahoma City, please remember that was a government sting operation, produced by our enemy, not by our guys. McVeigh didn’t actuate the plan, and McVeigh was never, at any point in his life, a racialist. All ZOG lies. Remember Solzhenitsyn’s quote:

To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die. There is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time, and betrayal. —Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Breivik sacrificed his future to save his nation. He acted heroically. He had other choices, but chose the most difficult of them. He showed what is possible, not just technically but spiritually. He showed that despite everything we’ve learned from jewish sitcoms and public schools that sex, money and material goods are not what life is all about—at least not to some people. Because Breivik had it all—looks, money, youth, a shining future. Yet none of that mattered to him as much as the spiritual need to defend his own people. That is manly. That is heroic. That is Western. That is white.

“Nothing new here.” In a sense you’re right. Something very old here. Not everyone thinks “it’s all good” and abandons his waking interstice to sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll.

It doesn’t have to be the entire populace—maybe 5%, maybe 10%—some threshold. Within that percentage, you are recognized as legitimate, despite the shit hurled against you by your opponent. You can’t win hearts and minds by first blowing people away—even people who deserve it. You haven’t at that point established any accepted opposition.

You’re talking about Mao’s guerrilla war tactics. It makes no sense to judge Breivik by that standard because he wasn’t part of a cell, to all appearances, no matter what he said.

I would separate the discussion into two parts: 1) what was Breivik’s intent, and what did he achieve, by that measure? 2) how would hypothetical “hardists” be wise to act if they want to rid the West of the judeo-communist elite murdering our nations?

First you establish your core. It’s unassailable. Then, perhaps, one could use political violence—to establish among the fence sitters that you do in fact mean business. But you can’t do that until you can’t be quashed, until your core is large enough to withstand the blowback. Surviving that, you expand the core with the influx of fence-sitters who are now believers. It’s a feedback loop to your favor.

Sure… but this is obvious, and you’re discussing it at a level that’s too abstract to be useful.

“Establish your core.” Yeah, ok. What does that mean? Not in theory, but in actuality. How are you going to do that in an age in which virtually all communications are collected and analyzed; and seemingly most actual physical movements are videotaped?

Forming a physical core seems a rather difficult thing to do, if there is any outward sign this core is bent on physical fighting (or really, anything more than virtual whining). We know the history of the White movement in the 20th century. It’s nothing but a history of being set up and infiltrated and destroyed. Do you know how to change this? Do you have the technical solution, or the organizational solution?

And Breivik’s target… How was that helpful?

That’s been answered. Apparently you don’t agree with the answer, but if you have a better one, you haven’t stated it.

Norway is a country of 5 million. It is run by socialists bent on doing in the Nordic nature of the country and turning into another third-world shithole. A good portion of the rising generation of leaders of its main party has been taken out in a single calendar day. “How is that helpful?” I should think the answer is pretty obvious.

Imagine the electorate. Cow-like. Obtuse. That’s who votes. That’s who you’re winning over.

Ok, so you’re driving off the usual “we have to appeal to people, we have to win them over.” But that is wrong. The way to look at it is what I said in my post above: assume the people are with us, based on the fact that, well, they are. The reason they don’t follow us or vote for us is because they quite rationally fear the consequences of loss of status and livelihood. What will get rid of that fear? Eliminating the people who are causing it: the corrupt elite who will not allow their political monopoly on power to be voted out of office.

That’s the whole argument, which you’re simply avoiding, defaulting to the typical WN [white nationalist] conservative view: that we’re just another electoral option, who must gamely persevere in a rigged game until we finally somehow win at 3-card monte. Breivik ain’t playing the rigged game. He’s not playing democratic politics, he’s playing the same game the totalitarians-pretending-to-be-democrats are: he’s playing ultimate politics. There are no rules. The battle goes to the winner, and no one asks how victory was achieved. And all that is life itself, which all operates on that principle, no matter what the religious fool, to be redundant, asserts out of his ignorant cowardice about god and morals.

How can “we” win if we’re called haters, thrown in jail for making arguments, and denied access to the main media on the same basis as the people occupying the government? There is no way. We cannot win. Breivik shows there’s a way that, potentially at least, we can win. Not one of those dead judeo-socialist nits will ever admit a Somali into Oslo; lead a campaign to normalize sexual perversion in Trondheim public schools; order the bailiff to seize the children from the parents who have taught it that Norway belongs to light-eyed, flaxen-haired Scandinavians. That is victory. However small, it is victory.

Humans are a profoundly imitative species. Breivik knows that. It’s why he did what he did. One reason anyway.

The facade of the System oppressing Whites is democratic. Deliberately is created the illusion that things-as-they-are be the result of neutral machinery, rather than a nasty dark tyranny inside a big-grinnin’ Richard Nixon bankrobbing mask. But when you try to get a little o’ that tasty democratic process (laws, courts, established procedures, mass media access) for your own White self to create fundamental change in favor of your people, the gigantic majority… why, you find that the works are jammed, and your call isn’t put through. No matter how many times you redial.

Breivik called the System’s bluff. He played not the game the oppressed are supposed to play, but the game the actual rulers of the country are playing: “Just win, baby!” as NFL jew Davis once put it. The System does not like that. It damages its facade, it shows it’s not invincible, it puts ideas in the heads of onlookers who just maybe are tired of getting mugged and harassed by the mud monsters the leftists keep bringing into the city centers. All bad for the jewish-left trying to nation-wreck Norway.

Now you go out and blow away a bunch of sitting ducks on an island.

What connection does Bjorg dipshit, out on his fjord, make of that? Nothing positive. “But they were the new cadre of destroyers!” Yes they were. “They deserved it!” Can’t argue with you.

But the vast majority of the white public does not and will never understand that. It’s intangible. It’s too intellectual. The crowd doesn’t get that, and never will.

The crowd understands exactly what it needs to: the reason Breivik did what he did. The fact that he killed a lot of enemy.

This, as the economists say, exerts downward pressure on the number of jusos (young socialists) who might want to be part of next summer’s fun-in-the-sun commie indoctrination camp, and it exerts upward pressure on any enheartened by the idea that, hey, maybe I could kill a few punk-ass hate-communists too!

If it were put to a vote whether Norway should open its borders to Africa and the rest of the Third World, would the majority vote to do that, or to retain Norway’s boundaries and character? The majority would vote for the latter. So the argument breaks Breivik’s way. The majority is made up of people who have to step lightly in their biggest cities; who have daughters and sisters and friends who have been robbed, raped and harassed by the monkeys the socialists let in. They are intelligent enough to grasp what Breivik meant by his act, whether they agree with it or not. That’s all that matters. Of course one act won’t win the population over into active resistance, no more than the first pickaxe blow splits the boulder. But it does make the public opens its eyes, look around, sniff the wind, wonder just what might be going on here. Put the first little shiver of doubt in the ruling party, and make the herd nervous that maybe, just maybe, there’s going to be a battle for authority.

Now, sink a ship of dusky invaders crossing the Skagerrak, and simultaneously blow away the immigration ministry where these “liberal” kids are working—even Bjorg can figure that out, and almost certainly applaud.

Except the whole problem is how passive whites have become, especially in the Nordic countries. If Breivik killed a bunch of niggers or muslims, they would fight back with great vengeance, which would be blamed on him. Instead he went after the whiteskin leaders of the passives—and all they will ever do is hold a candlelight vigil. Which they already have. Yeah, they’ll make noise about taking away butter knives and requiring a journalist license to use nouns and adjectives outside the Official Vocabulary List, but that means nothing. Norway already has no freedoms worth mentioning. Multiply zero as many times as you want, and the result is the same.

The most important right of all is the one that no man can rescind: the right to fight back against your enemy.

The hard part is building the core. You can’t begin to think of anything serious on the macro scale before you’ve accomplished this. You must win hearts and minds. There’s no equation (that I’m aware of). Maybe there will be after we’re through. It’s chaotic.

You’re confusing two different things. The need to have a base for a guerrilla war, per Mao’s doctrine, and the need for WN to spread their message. We can’t win hearts and minds in the mass way you’re talking about without control of tv, and that is the same thing as saying we’ve won the revolution. It simply doesn’t have anything to do with violence; they’re two separate considerations. We have to assume people are with us, which is biologically true, as we represent white normality, and work to reduce the fear that prevents them from associating and working with us politically. Striking physical blows at the enemy reduces their fear of ZOG, since they see right before their eyes ZOG elitists being blown away.

You think some Norwegian journalists and bureaucrats aren’t going to think twice after this event? Or after it happens a few more times? Of course they will. It’s human nature. If all the blows are struck by one side against the other, then who the heck wants to join the losing side? But if the blows begin to run both ways, why, then it becomes a much more interesting question. Joining with the pro-Norway forces, if they prove they’re serious, as Breivik has, begins to become a serious option in the eyes of the people. Who of course fall into the usual bell curve of cowardice/bravery. Bravery not only attracts the brave, it emboldens the less brave. It shifts the bravery curve to the right—it increases the amount of bravery, just as men literally generate more testosterone when they triumph at something. That’s how men are.

Our side is so bitchy and whiny because all we do is take take take blows and never deliver them, except in our cutesy little typings. Well, this guy, altho not technically one of us, did deliver a blow. ZOG/Norway has indeed been hurt by Breivik’s action.

Stuff like a homeschool curriculum feeds into this. Not sexy. But part of it. Winning hearts and minds. Winning women. Winning children.

Yes—it creates actual community, mental and physical. But it’s entirely a different and smaller order than controlling tv, which is the only real way to effect mass mind change. That means, you’re never going to build up a large enough community to get the support for violence through homeschooling, so it’s not part of that discussion. WHS is just something that should be done for its own sake, as part of the soft agenda. The average white is with us in the sense I’ve said many times. That is a political fact. But that “with us” doesn’t mean anything until we’re in position to leverage it, which means we have a political force that speaks for it cogently (offers it defense, racial aid, and a plausible new system to counter/replace ZOG’s). WHS is for growing a hard seedcore of people who aren’t just white but White—white not just racially but White politically, socially, consciously, organically and life-contextually. The parallel would be to conservative christians building HS networks and setting up HS colleges and law schools—they’ve created a full, if small, parallel culture to the ZOG mainstream culture, even if they’ve yielded (or never had opposed) the ZOG ideology on the central points (equalitarianism, loosely).

The first 5%: It’s a meat grinder. It isn’t pretty. For the vast majority who lead in this period, who play a role that will have been pivotal later on, there will be no glory, no accolades. That’s just the way it is.

So I really don’t want to read about Breivik being a hero or a genius. He isn’t. Smart guy? Generally… apparently. He gets a big mark for having balls, that I grant.

But so what? What base has he built? Don’t give me any brain-dead “starting a fire” crap. He wouldn’t have had occasion to recognize (to his immense credit) the imminent danger posed to Norway by non-white immigration if his society were amenable to righting itself by the act he committed.

You’re conflating two different things. There is a hell of a lot more than 5% of Norway that doesn’t want muds let in to ruin the country.

You’re saying that Norway can’t begin to physically resist until 10% are hard-core, ideologically solid, professionally and personally networked racial nationalists. My counter to that is you’re forgetting the size of the country, and the demographics. There’s 5m people, and about 500k mud invaders, and more coming daily. There isn’t enough time to do what you describe. The muds will overwhelm before any ideologically solid base can be built.

Rather, resistance must base on never having control of mass media, but being on the side of the Norwegian majority, which does not want Oslo turned into Lagos. Based on that unchanging passive support, others following Breivik must through their deeds and organization convert passive feelings into positive action. Taking out a bunch of the vile and murderous and nation-wrecking enemy seems to me a pretty darn good way to do that.

After all, as the Italians say, “eating makes appetite.”

Categories
Final solution Israel / Palestine

A final solution to the Jewish problem

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




Armor said…

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

[Responding to an Anonymous commenter—]

JSM said…

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


My opinions:

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

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



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

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



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

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


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

You turd.