web analytics

Category: Judeo-reductionism

Categories
Judeo-reductionism Kevin MacDonald Miscegenation

Morgan’s postscript

Editor’s note: this is Robert Morgan’s reply
today about what I posted yesterday:

 

______ 卐 ______

 
Hola, amigo!

Once again, our thoughts overlap. I especially agree with this:

The orthodox interpretation of white nationalism is that Jewry is the primary cause of white decline and that traitorous white men are like poor Manchurian candidates whom evil Jews hypnotised with malicious propaganda.

Certainly this is an apt summation of Kevin MacDonald’s view too, stripped of its “evolutionary psychology” trappings. The message of his signature work The Culture of Critique is that the Jews’ victory over gentile culture was won through propaganda, which is seen by him as able to both initiate and steer various social movements among the gentiles, or in other words, to manipulate them as though they were puppets. In my view, this way of looking at matters is not only completely wrong, but also very damaging in that by its misdirection it leads people to regard effects as if they were causes. Ellul put it very well:

Propaganda must not only attach itself to what already exists in the individual, but also express the fundamental currents of the society it seeks to influence. Propaganda must be familiar with collective sociological presuppositions, spontaneous myths, and broad ideologies.

By this we do not mean political currents or temporary opinions that will change in a few months, but the fundamental psycho-sociological bases on which a whole society rests, the presuppositions and myths not just of individuals or of particular groups but those shared by all individuals in a society including men of opposite political inclinations and class loyalties. A propaganda pitting itself against this fundamental and accepted structure would have no chance of success.

Rather, all effective propaganda is based on these fundamental currents and expresses them. Only if it rests on the proper collective belief will it be understood and accepted. It is part of a complex of civilization, consisting of material elements, beliefs, ideas, and institutions, and it cannot be separated from them. No propaganda could succeed by going against these structural elements of society. But propaganda’s main task clearly is the psychological reflection of these structures. —Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, p. 38-9

Both the successes of the Jewish critiques of gentile culture and the Donald Trump phenomenon are better explained by Ellul’s view than MacDonald’s. For example, I would argue that America’s Christian heritage, and the very Christian commitment it had already made as a society to regard the negro as the white man’s equal following the Civil War, laid indispensable groundwork necessary for Boas’ views to be accepted. Because of this history, America needed to believe in racial equality as a biological fact, and Boas, the clever Jew, came along to take advantage of this. The gentile public was eager to buy what he was selling.

Conversely, propaganda failed to take down Donald Trump precisely because it went against some of America’s most deeply held beliefs. American culture respects a winner most of all, and he is the archetypal winner: a billionaire, a courageous fighter (his cry of “Fight! Fight! Fight!” after being shot was electrifying! LOL), a flagrant womanizer and a fucker of supermodels. The contrast between him and the effete, doddering Biden, Obama’s shoeshine boy, couldn’t have been greater or more sharply drawn.

Nevertheless though, MacDonald is wrong again in being encouraged by Trump’s victory. The decline of the white race will continue under Trump just as it has been, and likely even accelerate. It’s fitting that Trump’s a Zionist, because America is itself Zionist. His family is interbred with Jews, and his Veep is married to a street shitter [emphasis by Editor]. They set a fine example! We must reconcile ourselves to the fact that race mixing is the face of empire, and it would be crazy to expect less of it under Trump imperator.

Categories
Judeo-reductionism Kevin MacDonald

R. Morgan

As we know, this site is not about politics but about metapolitics. I will only talk about actual politics if something huge happens; for example, if a war of extermination of the Muslim world breaks out against Israel, or if Putin drops atomic bombs on Europe if NATO dares to bomb his mother Russia. From this angle, Trump’s victory is not important news. But I can use it to present a clear case of ‘metapolitics’ in the sense of paradigm-shifting for those of us who want to prevent whites from going extinct.

The orthodox interpretation of white nationalism is that Jewry is the primary cause of white decline and that traitorous white men are like poor Manchurian candidates whom evil Jews hypnotised with malicious propaganda.

Here at The West’s Darkest Hour we see reality from a different prism. We believe that Western history took a wrong turn with Constantine, who wanted to subjugate the white men of the Mediterranean by introducing ‘spiritual terror’ (Adolf Hitler’s term): Judeo-Christianity, which his successors succeeded in doing. The distortion produced by the inversion of Aryan values into Judeo-Christian values perfectly explains the scale of values that, in the modern world, has mutated into an atheistic hyper-Christianity, as the historian Tom Holland has seen.

Having laid the groundwork for a paradigm that competes with the Judeo-reductionism of the American racial right, it is good to hear what one American dissenter from that narrative, Dr Robert Morgan, has to say in response to Kevin MacDonald. I refer to the recent article published in The Occidental Observer, ‘The Trump Victory Is Huge!’, republished yesterday in The Unz Review. The first paragraph of Morgan’s comment is a quote from MacDonald’s article:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

The New York Times ran between 5-10 articles and op-eds every day hating on everything about Trump, including his family, and I am sure the same was true of MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, The Washington Post, The LA Times, etc. They have lost their credibility, spending their huge advantage in spreading propaganda on lies… No one with any brain believes a thing they say related to politics.

Surely if there is any lesson to be drawn from this it’s that propaganda’s power isn’t unlimited. We have just seen the result of eight years of constant anti-Trump propaganda. The full power of nearly all media in the country was turned on him in an effort to destroy the man. The full power of the deep state via lawfare was used against him, and academia was also against him. Assassins even tried to kill him. Every conceivable avenue of attack was tried, and yet they all failed. He’s a giant; an American Caesar.

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.
– William Shakespeare Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene II

Unfortunately for MacDonald, once this is admitted, the validity of his entire body of work is called into question [emphasis by Ed.]. Unless I’m very gravely mistaken, it’s the thesis of his book The Culture of Critique that it was through their constant propaganda efforts that Jews succeeded in undermining gentile culture. For example, he attributes the success of Freud’s ideas to “brainwashing”.

Finally, it is reasonable to conclude that Freud’s real analysand was gentile culture, and that psychoanalysis was fundamentally an act of aggression toward that culture. The methodology and institutional structure of psychoanalysis may be viewed as attempts to brainwash gentile culture into passively accepting the radical criticism of gentile culture entailed by the fundamental postulates of psychoanalysis. – Kevin MacDonald,The Culture of Critique, p. 133

He employs similar reasoning to explain the success of Boasian anthropology, and the Frankfurt School. Propaganda is seen by him as a very important tool with which to undermine gentile culture; indeed, he says that Boasian anthropology and the ideas put forward in The Authoritarian Personality are in themselves prime examples of such Jewish propaganda. Thus, the “culture of critique” is just another way to phrase what he sees as the Jewish effort to undermine white civilizational confidence through constant propaganda. MacDonald quotes Ben Stein:

Television and the movies are America’s folk culture, and they have nothing but contempt for the way of life of a very large part of the folk. . . . People are told that their culture is, at its root, sick, violent, and depraved, and this message gives them little confidence in the future of that culture. It also leads them to feel ashamed of their country and to believe that if their society is in decline, it deserves to be. (Stein 1976, 22) – Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. ix

But why did the propaganda fail in the case of Trump, but supposedly succeed in all those other cases? I know it’s a radical idea, but could it possibly be the case that people are not mere puppets, at the mercy of whatever propaganda they are subjected to, but instead have some moral agency of their own, an ability to discriminate and make their own decisions? I hesitate to suggest such an insane thing, but is it possible that instead of not having a brain, those 67 million Americans who voted for Harris actually think she was the better choice?

I believe that, as the good scientist MacDonald claims to be, he must admit the possibility. But if so, then it seems clear that, by the same logic, those gentiles who fell for Freudianism, Boasian anthropology, the ideas of the Frankfurt School, and the rest of the Jewish critique may also have had their reasons. They were not mere puppets. They not only had brains, but thought those critiques well made. In other words, they yielded to the propaganda because they wanted to.

Therefore if Trump’s victory shows anything, it shows they were equally capable of rejecting the propaganda, but didn’t.

Categories
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) Judeo-reductionism

Hitler, 9

Brendan Simms, professor of history, University of Cambridge.

Note that Simms’ volume—the hard copy in the hardcover edition I own is over 900 pages long—is replete with endnotes, so every biographical claim about Adolf Hitler’s intellectual odyssey that we see in this volume is backed up by primary sources. Although in years past I have browsed through other voluminous biographies of Hitler that have been selling in mainstream bookstores, I didn’t buy them because I wasn’t motivated by the POV of the biographer in question (e.g., Ian Kershaw’s volumes). The revisionism of another normie on the other hand, Simms, really caught my attention. Let’s continue quoting what Simms wrote in chapter 3 of Hitler: Only the World Was Enough.

Hitler put the inquest into the defeat at the heart of his world view. The alleged fractures in German society played an important role here, the ‘inner internationalism’ to which he had referred during the war itself. By this Hitler primarily meant the Social Democrats and Independent Socialists (USPD), who allegedly put loyalty to their class comrades over that to the nation; it was their internationalism, not their socialism, that he objected to. It was the same anxiety as over capitalism, which Hitler rejected in its global, but, as we shall see, not necessarily in its local ‘national’ form. He also took aim at German particularism, especially in Bavaria, which threatened the integrity of the Reich.

The principal internal enemy, however, was the Jews, who had ‘stabbed Germany in the back’, although Hitler rarely used this precise phrase. All this has given the impression that Hitler, like so many other Germans, sought to blame the defeat primarily on internal scapegoats rather than facing up to the strength of the Entente. In fact, Hitler never subscribed to a monocausal [bold & red added by Ed.!] domestic explanation for the disaster and much of his thinking, especially the later quest for Lebensraum, would be inexplicable if he had. Eliminating the Jews and healing the domestic rifts inside Germany were necessary conditions for the revival of the Reich, but not sufficient ones.

I bolded the above because I was unaware that a renowned historian had used the word I have used on this site in my dispute with white nationalists, whom I have branded as ‘monocausalists’ in the sense that they have refused to see other factors, besides Jewish subversion, that have been contributing to Aryan decline. Now it turns out that an academic, Simms, says the same thing I say about Hitler even though his POV is altogether different.

The point is to find out whether Simms is right about Hitler. And if he is, one can use his information simply from the POV of the 14 words.

Categories
Judeo-reductionism Michael O'Meara Racial right

Deep, deep within

Judeo-centric white nationalism is just another variant of the prevailing country-club conservatism.

—Michael O’Meara

The O’Meara article linked in my post yesterday is basic, I said, to understand our point of view. In case something happens to Counter-Currents, where the article is hosted, I copied it for this site. Although C-C’s images are absent from our copy, you can read the 2011 comments in that copy’s thread.

If one reads the article carefully one will notice that, with his critique of Anglo-American capitalism, O’Meara unwittingly placed himself close to the young Hitler we were talking about yesterday in the context of Brendan Simms’ book. O’Meara even presents us with a competing paradigm to Kevin MacDonald’s: the paradigm that currently represents, shall we say, orthodoxy in American white nationalism. O’Meara said:

…anti-Semites prefer to indulge in fairy tales about “cultural Marxism” and the Frankfurter bogey man—unconscious of or uninterested in the larger subversion.

The larger subversion! (this smells like the content of The West’s Darkest Hour). Too bad that, because of his Irish Catholicism, O’Meara didn’t admire Hitler. Several years ago I asked in a thread on this site why Solzhenitsyn didn’t espouse Hitler’s cause if both Solzhenitsyn and Hitler wanted to destroy the Soviet Union. An English commenter replied that, for axiological reasons, Solzhenitsyn’s Christianity prevented him from doing so. I think that although Solzhenitsyn was an Orthodox Christian and O’Meara a Catholic Christian, the commenter’s response is accurate. In the 2011 thread on C-C, O’Meara continued:

Kevin MacDonald, unlike his epigones, knows how to make an argument and support it with substantiating evidence. Nevertheless, his argument proves NOTHING (except his own intelligence), for with the same methods but in reference to different facts, I could make an equally convincing argument to “prove” that corporate capitalism (or the Cold War state, Catholicism, Protestantism, or a half-dozen other factors) were far more influential in legalizing the formal de- Europeanization of the American people.

We have focused on the Christian Question on this site because it is a taboo subject among many on the American racial right. But O’Meara, like Hitler, was absolutely right to mention other factors. For example, when I read MacDonald’s entire trilogy on Jewry, after finishing the third one I was left with the impression that his analysis—basically blaming the Jews for the West’s dark hour—fell short. Those were times when I considered myself a white nationalist, before I began to harbour some doubts about that simplistic explanation. O’Meara was one of the intellectuals who began to broaden my perspective.

I think the discussion thread in that relatively old C-C article is paradigmatic in terms of how, unlike O’Meara, white nationalists don’t want to look in the mirror. O’Meara stopped being active on racial right forums when he realised that American racialists weren’t going to abandon their monocausal dogma. Something similar happened with the retired blogger Sebastian Ronin, whom I mentioned in my recent entry on the 42 films I will no longer review individually. The following year of the discussion in C-C, Ronin wrote: ‘The betrayal of the White European race stems from deep, deep within, so deep that it is not visible or obvious for most’, and then added:

The first step of the revolution does not begin with the expedient and safe blurting of Jew, Jew, Jew; that is after the fact. The first step of the revolution begins upon the surface of a mirror to identify the source of weakness that has allowed the penetration of an alien and poisonous spirit.

Looking in the mirror is precisely what I try to do with my autobiographical books. Hopefully, the lengthy review I will be doing of Simms’ book will do something to broaden the POV of the common racialist, insofar as Hitler’s meta-perspective was certainly broader than the short-sighted perspective of those who criticised O’Meara in C-C, including Johnson.

Categories
Judeo-reductionism Mein Kampf (book)

Esoteric v. exoteric

Did it bother the host of The West’s Darkest Hour that I was quoting the Führer (the last time I did so was this one)? Jamie’s last comment got me thinking a bit. If it is true that they are playing mind games with me, I am forced not to publish the rest of the twelve entries I had planned quoting Mein Kampf (which can be read, anyway, on this other website). However, about what was to be the eighth entry in that Mein Kampf series, ‘The Enemy’ referring to Jewry, I would like to say something.

As I have said countless times, Hitler’s worldview had both an exoteric side—prolefeed for the Christian Germans, exemplified in Mein Kampf and his public speeches—and an esoteric side—anti-Christian statements to a select group of friends—. What was to be the eighth entry, ‘The Enemy’, is indistinguishable from the worldview currently held by white nationalists!

For new visitors to this site, my post from the day before yesterday, ‘Christian Cup’ is so compact and didactic that yesterday I edited it slightly and promoted it to what is known in WordPress as a ‘page’ to distinguish it from ordinary ‘posts’. I’m referring to the articles that appear in red letters at the top of this page by clicking ‘Menu’. As can be seen, there is a new entry with a long title, ‘My difference with white nationalism in a nutshell’, which applies both to American white nationalism in this century and to the exoteric facet of German NS in the last century.

It is curious that none of the white nationalist Americans who have devoted themselves to studying NS, such as Mark Weber and Carolyn Yeager, are well-versed in the esoteric side of NS. I guess that they still have ties to many Christians in the movement and that they don’t want to rock the boat with these disturbing revelations. And to be completely honest, even compared to the esoteric part of the NS we have taken a step further than Uncle Adolf did in the previous century, as can be seen from what I say on pages 159-160 of this PDF.

Categories
Judeo-reductionism Martin Kerr

2021 thread

Harold A. Covington

Noting that the longest article in the PDF American Racialism we recently published is by Martin Kerr, yesterday I discovered some words by Kerr about Harold Covington, published in the comments section of The Occidental Observer, which are worth quoting:

It is disturbing to see that an attempt is being made to rehabilitate the deservedly poor reputation of Harold Covington. I had hoped that after his long-awaited death in 2018, the memory of him would quickly and mercifully fade away. Sadly, I can see that my hopes were in vain.

No one did more to harm the cause of pro-White advocacy than Covington. From the mid-1970s until his death, he did everything he could to weaken, harm and destroy that cause. Earlier on in his benighted career he devised a two-part modus operandi.

He attacked whatever pro-White leader who was receiving the most public recognition at any given time. He only attacked those who were trying to do something. Those who limited themselves to writing books or articles he left alone. But those who were in the public arena, actively trying to build a pro-White movement, he attacked relentlessly and ferociously. Among those he sought to undermine and destroy were Dr. William Pierce, David Duke, Matt Koehl, Ben Klassen, Kevin Alfred Strom, Dr. Edward Fields, Will Williams and—towards the end of his life—Richard Spencer. I am sure that there are others whom I have forgotten about.

The rustic Covington wanted to become the alpha male of the tribe, but instead of earning that position the hard way he resorted to very dirty tactics, inconceivable in a true Aryan.

Covington was a pathological liar, as anyone who knew him personally can attest. He would lie simply for the sake of lying, even when there was no advantage to it. But in his efforts to sabotage White leaders and their organizations, there is no falsehood or calumny, no matter how despicable or outlandish, from which he would shrink. Typically, he would accuse White leaders of murder, homosexuality, alcoholism, race-mixing, theft, corruption, collaboration with the FBI and/or ADL and Jewish or other non-Aryan ancestry. He never provided an iota or proof for any of his accusations: how could he, since they were completely imaginary in the first place? Instead, he would issue new and similar attacks against anyone who sought to challenge his lies.

I am ashamed to say that when I read Covington’s tetralogy and got excited about this revolutionary scenario, I was unaware of the novelist’s terrible flaws. But from that discussion thread I would like to respond to what Edmund Connelly said:

C.T., thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful reply. I would, however, like to take exception to this claim: “[I]n the West there are more traitorous whites than subversive Jews.”

Numerically, you may well be right, but the equation ends up wrong because you cannot equate one White with one Jew. All the evidence shows that a tiny number of Jews can sway whole gentile societies, so you have to weigh specifically what each subversion Jew (redundant, I know) accomplishes. How many goys would it take, say, to equal one Sigmund Freud? Or a Norman Lear? Jewish gurus wreck havoc among gentile nations in untold millions of lives. That’s what makes them so destructive. While there are far too many White useful idiots, it is, I would maintain, their manipulation by Jews that starts the train wreck in motion.

In 2021 I had already responded to what Connelly said in his article, but now I would like to respond to what he said directly to me, quoted above. First of all, it should be noted that, as a good white nationalist, Connelly lives under the assumption that the Jews are the primary cause of our misfortunes. I believe it is us.

Connelly’s argument would make sense if the Jews were capable of subverting the Islamic world—even though in Israel they are surrounded by them—which they obviously can’t. Nor are they capable of subverting India or China. They weren’t even capable of subverting Whites before the advent of Judeo-Christianity. We can imagine what would have happened if a Jew wanted to subvert Sparta, Republican Rome before the Punic Wars or the Viking peoples! They only managed to get their Trojan horse in when Constantine handed over the Empire to his bishops, many of Semitic origin. All this I have said many times before, but it bears repeating because here lies the huge difference between the POV of this site and the Judeo-reductionism of white nationalism.

Connelly assigns, in the quote above, superhuman powers to the Jews, but what happens to the Aryan could be analogised to a physical accident.

Let’s imagine we fall off a motorbike and terribly scrape our arm. Without proper care, the arm becomes infected with microbes. Judeo-reductionism would be analogous to saying that microbes are the primary aetiology of our infection. I say that the primary aetiology is the accident. Without the accident and poor care of the arm, there would have been no opportunistic infection. The microbes are secondary or even irrelevant.

Likewise, without the treachery of Constantine and other Aryan emperors who followed him (see Deschner’s first volume on the history of Christianity in the featured post), Jewish ideology wouldn’t have infected the West for 1,700 years. The West would be as immune to subversive Jewish ideas as China, India or the Islamic world. But the worst thing is that through Christianity and ‘neo-Christianity’ (see again the featured post), each generation of whites recreates the biker crash, so to speak. They aren’t allowing the body to heal!

Worse still is that white nationalists themselves are party to this ill-treatment of the infected body as they are incapable of repudiating Judeo-Christian morality. This too, I have spoken at length on this site and it isn’t worth repeating except to invite new visitors to read the books and/or PDFs in the featured post.

Categories
Judeo-reductionism

Morelos

José María Morelos (1765-1815) used to wear a bandana to hide his frizzy hair, a legacy of black heritage in Chilpancingo (present-day Guerrero State in Mexico).

I have written about the Mexican-Jewish intellectual Enrique Krauze both in The Occidental Observer and on this site. But I have never quoted him at length and would like to do so now, although I will have to translate one of his articles into English (the article in Spanish can be read here). Originally published in the newspaper Reforma on 25 September 2016, the following text is an excerpt from Krauze’s speech delivered that same month when he received an award from the Congress of the state of Guerrero:

The good shadow of Morelos

Guerrero is an open wound in the feelings of our nation.

Already in the first sentence, Krauze omits to talk about the Afro-mestizo population on the Mexican coast of Guerrero: the ethnic reality behind the violence that has afflicted that state for a long time. As a topic, race and IQ is as taboo in Latin America as it is in the United States, Canada, Europe and Australia (see the latest article by Ron Unz and Mike Whitney on the ferocity of this taboo). Krauze continues:

The incuriousness of the governments condemned this state to a condition that only now, in the 21st century, can we see in all its drama. Guerrero shows the cruel face of abandonment: crime, drugs, poverty, malnutrition, emigration, social disintegration, discord. How to reverse the situation?

I do not, of course, have the magic wand, nor do I believe it exists. And I am not naïve. I know the numbers and I have seen the Dantesque crime scenes in Guerrero. I know that blood calls for blood. Nor am I unaware that today’s violence is not linked to ideas or ideals (as in Independence and the revolution) but to vast, dark, despicable economic interests, and that it is expressed day after day, with unprecedented cruelty, in the streets, the squares, the roads, the beaches of Guerrero.

But we cannot be satisfied with this terrible reality being permanent. If the country turns southwards to reach out to the wagon left behind, it may not be too late to move closer to the essential fraternity envisioned by Morelos in the ‘Sentimientos de la Nación’ (Sentiments of the Nation). Luis González y González called that document ‘the moral primer of Mexico.’ It was read here, in this church in Chilpancingo, 203 years ago. Let us listen to his words, each one, in all their gravity: ‘I want us to make the declaration that there is no other nobility than that of virtue, knowledge, patriotism and charity; that we are all equal…’

The emphasis in bold above and below is mine. It is at this point that the strength of The West’s Darkest Hour comes into full view, especially if we consider a PDF abridgement of Tom Holland’s book on how Christian morality infected, to the marrow, the soul of the West. Krauze’s hero, Morelos, waged the war of independence against Spain. He is considered the most important leader of the second stage of the Mexican War of Independence. Morelos’ ideas of equality were rooted in liberal ideas which are ultimately Christian-inspired (those who haven’t read the excerpts from Holland’s book should read them now). Let’s continue reading Krauze’s quote from the document by Morelos:

‘…for from the same origin we come; that there be no privileges or ancient lineages, that it is not rational, nor humane that there should be slaves, for the colour of the face does not change that of the heart nor that of the thought; that the children of the husbandman and the sweeper be educated as those of the richest landowner; that all who complain for justice have a court to hear them, protect them and defend them against the strong and the arbitrary… let it be declared that what is ours is already ours and for our children, let them have a faith, a cause and a flag, under which we all swear to die, rather than see it oppressed, as it is now, and when it is free, let us be ready to defend it.’ [end of Morelos’ quote]

Morelos—let it be noted—was not moved by hatred. Nor was he driven by intolerance, ideological fanaticism or a thirst for revenge.

This is false. Morelos killed many Iberian white civilians, even entire families, during his war of independence. The American equivalent would have been for a mulatto to order the killing of a good many English families during the American Revolutionary War: something that didn’t happen. Krauze’s eulogy follows:

Morelos was driven by love, but not romantic, mystical or abstract love. He was moved by fraternal, egalitarian, free love, and love that is reflected in practical works. In the middle of Tierra Caliente (one of the scenes of today’s horror) that modest parish priest built the church of his parish with his own hands, helped the needy and even recreated, in his letters, the dreams and fantasies of his parishioners. But that same priest (merciful, active, humble, sympathetic) conceived, organised and sheltered—in times of war and in that same area—the promulgation of a Constitution that would be the mould of Mexico that never quite came to fruition: a liberal and democratic republic.

Those ‘Sentiments of the Nation’ are those of today: the ancient moral philosophy of Christian equality and natural liberty which—in the lucid analysis of Don Silvio Zavala—founded Mexico. We must consolidate the modern republican institutions founded and respected by Morelos.

But there is one more sentiment that is not only current but urgent: that of a sovereign country. To our problems, we must add the threat of an economic and diplomatic war of enormous proportions, provoked by the United States if Trump (that despicable tyrant candidate) becomes president. That is why we must reclaim our love for our homeland. But—once again—I am not talking about an operatic love that is reduced to singing the national anthem, shouting ‘viva Mexico’ or waving our flag. I am talking about defending, with all the diplomatic, legal, political, economic and media resources at our disposal, the millions of Mexicans at home and abroad who could suffer the consequences of this unjust war.

If those men who surrounded Morelos did not falter in his hostile and merciless time, it is cowardly for us Mexicans of the 21st century to falter, given to discouragement or cynical selfishness. We live, wrote Luis González, under ‘the good shadow of Morelos.’ Let us be worthy of it.

In another of his Reforma articles, Krauze lets us know: ‘Every Friday, at twilight, my maternal grandmother sanctified the coming of Saturday; she lit her candles…’ However, one of the reasons I don’t inhabit the white nationalist Judeo-reductionist paradigm is that, if you listen to Mexican intellectuals who aren’t ethnically Jewish, they say the same thing Krauze says above about Morelos. And I mean both mestizos and ‘Mexican Criollos’ (those born in Latin America but of European origin, without Jewish blood). In today’s Mexico all mestizo, Criollo and Jewish intellectuals subscribe to the official story about Morelos (the exception was a great Mexican intellectual, José Vasconcelos, but he died in 1959).

Categories
American civil war Judeo-reductionism Kevin MacDonald

Morgan on KMD, again

Kevin MacDonald: ‘Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition…’

I’ve been flipping through this book, and it’s not as bad as I thought it was going to be. On the positive side, I’m glad to see that MacDonald is evidently of the view that the American Civil War was all about slavery. He says, for example:

Whatever the political and economic complexities that led to the Civil War, it was the Yankee moral condemnation of slavery that inspired and justified the massive carnage of closely related Anglo-Americans on behalf of slaves from Africa.

This is a controversial statement in right-wing circles, where it is common to hold that the Civil War was only a dispute over states’ rights or tariffs, and that slavery played no role at all. So kudos to MacDonald for taking a stand in the opposing camp.

On the other hand, he is still pushing the view that the cultural defeat of Darwinism in America marked a turning point in white fortunes, and for this defeat he blames the Jews, especially Franz Boas. But, to those who have been following the matter, it will come as no surprise that he completely ‘forgets’ to mention the sizeable Christian role in the defeat.

There was a considerable amount of resistance to Darwin’s ideas from Christians on both sides of the Atlantic. In England, Thomas Huxley, ‘Darwin’s bulldog’, verbally jousted with Bishop Wilberforce. In America, it culminated in the 1925 Scopes trial, the so-called Monkey Trial. Darwin’s theory was thought to be contrary to the Bible, and there had been a law passed making it illegal to teach anything other than Biblical creation stories in public schools.

Ironically enough, it was the heavily Jewish ACLU that challenged this law. This would seem to pose a problem for MacDonald’s notion that the Jews were the only force [emphasis added by Ed.—what I call ‘monocausalism’] against Darwinism, so he prefers not to discuss it. Those pesky Jews!

In their relations with whites, it’s always been heads they win, tails we lose. If they challenge Darwin’s idea, as did Boas, they’re attacking white racial solidarity. If they uphold Darwin’s idea, they’re attacking Christianity, which in MacDonald’s view has been a force for white unity. Thus it seems the abandonment of Darwinism was not entirely a Jewish project. White Christians, too, reacted in horror to Darwinism’s implications, and still do so today.

In my view, omitting a discussion of this is a serious flaw in the book.

__________

Read it all here.

Categories
Catholic Church Child abuse Hitler's Religion (book) Joseph Goebbels Judeo-reductionism Mein Kampf (book) Racial right Richard Weikart Rudolf Hess

Hitler’s Religion: Chapter 1

Goebbels’ Diaries

Joseph Goebbels, based on his frequent and extensive conversations with Hitler, recorded numerous times in his diary that Hitler was anti-Christian and wanted to destroy the churches. A few days after Christmas in 1939, he conversed with Hitler and reported, “The Führer is deeply religious, but entirely anti-Christian. He sees in Christianity a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a strata deposited by the Jewish race.”

The first chapter of Richard Weikart’s book is entitled ‘Was Hitler a Religious Hypocrite?’ In the white advocates’ internet movement, Carolyn Yeager has been the most faithful in holding in high esteem the memory of Hitler and his Reich. But like many Christian white nationalists, she has failed to notice the hypocrisy of the Führer’s public pronouncements when compared to his private pronouncements. I recommend Weikart’s book to those racialist Christians who are stuck with Hitler’s public image.

Who was the historical Hitler? Since, in many respects, Hitler is the antithesis of the archetypal Jesus, we can recall a verse from Mark’s gospel that portrays him: ‘He spoke to them only in parables, but to his disciples privately he explained everything’.

Plenty of evidence suggests Hitler was concerned lest he offend the religious sensibilities of the German public. In a lengthy passage in Mein Kampf, he warned against repeating the disastrous course that caused Georg von Schönerer’s Pan-German Party to nose dive. Schönerer was an Austrian politician in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who wanted to unite all Germans in a common empire. His fervent German nationalism brought him into conflict with the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire, which would dissolve if Schönerer had his way. He also promoted a biological form of anti-Semitism, wanting to purify the German people by getting rid of this allegedly foreign race. In 1941, Hitler told his colleagues that when he arrived in Vienna in 1907, he was already a follower of Schönerer. By the time he wrote Mein Kampf, he agreed fully with Schönerer’s Pan-German ideals, affirming, “Theoretically speaking, all the Pan-German’s [Schönerer’s] thoughts were correct.” However, he blamed Schönerer for not recognizing the importance of winning the masses over to Pan-Germanism and harshly criticized him for launching the Los-von-Rom (Away-from-Rome) Movement, which called on Austrians to abandon the Roman Catholic Church. Schönerer opposed Catholicism because he considered it an internationalist organization that undermined nationalism.

This reminds me of what Henry VIII did in separating the Church of England from papal authority.

He believed it posed a danger to the German people since it included many different nationalities, including his enemies: the Slavic groups in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Schönerer himself personally left the Catholic Church in January 1900 and joined the Lutheran denomination. Though he occasionally lauded Luther and Protestantism, his concern was purely political. According to Andrew G. Whiteside, a leading expert on Schönerer, he remained a pagan at heart and was indifferent to Christianity; though sometimes he claimed to be a Christian, at other times he admitted, “I am and remain a pagan.” Another time, he stated, “Where Germandom and Christendom are in conflict, we are Germans first… If it is un-Christian to prefer the scent of flowers in God’s own free nature to the smoke of incense… then I am not a Christian.” According to Whiteside, “none of the Pan-German leaders was in the least religious.”

Hitler viewed the Los-von-Rom Movement as an unmitigated disaster because it unnecessarily alienated the masses from the Pan-German Party, precipitating its decline. Hitler suggested the proper political course would be to imbue ethnically German Catholics (and Protestants) with nationalist sentiments so they would support a “single holy German nation,” just as they had done during World War I. Hitler also rejected Schönerer’s anti-Catholic crusade because he insisted that a successful political movement must concentrate all its fury on a single enemy. A struggle against Catholicism would dissipate the Nazi movement’s power and sense of conviction it needed to carry on its fight against the Jews.

Wow, this puts me closer to Schönerer than to Hitler, even though, privately, Hitler believed the same as Schönerer did about the religion of our parents.

But we must try to understand Hitler. In the case of Henry VIII, the winds of the zeitgeist on the British Isle were in his favour. The Austrians and Catholic Germans weren’t prepared for such a step, and in any case, German Lutheranism was as harmful to the Aryan cause as Roman Catholicism. If someone wants, like Hitler, to do politics, he has to compromise.

While Hitler faulted Schönerer for alienating the masses through his anti-Catholic campaign, he was not thereby endorsing Catholicism. Overall, he supported Schönerer’s ideological goals and only objected to his inopportune tactics: “[The Pan-German movement’s] goal had been correct, its will pure, but the road it chose was wrong.” What Hitler learned from Schönerer’s tactical mistake was that political parties should steer clear of interfering with people’s religious beliefs or attacking religious organizations: “For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else he has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes! Especially in Germany any other attitude would lead to a catastrophe.” Hitler thus warned any anticlerical members of his party to keep their antireligious inclinations private, lest they alienate the masses.

Hitler’s compromise took a toll that is noticeable even in American white nationalism: what I have been calling monocausalism on this site.

By focusing, at least in the Reich’s public pronouncements, solely on Jews as the Enemy #1 of the Aryan, the public NS ideology exonerated Christians. I won’t reprove what Hitler did, because rather than being a religious reformer he chose to be a politician; and every politician has to compromise. But this tactic left a gap in racial ideology that to this day hasn’t been filled. (Since American white nationalists aren’t politicians but internet commentators, unlike the NS of the previous century they could break down the barrier between private and public, and start saying what Hitler said privately about Christianity, which they don’t.)

In 1924, when Hitler was interned in Landsberg Prison after his failed Beer Hall Putsch, his fellow prisoner and confidante Rudolf Hess talked with other Nazis about religion. Hitler did not join the conversation; afterward, he told Hess that he dared not divulge his true feelings about religion publicly. Hitler confessed that, even though he found it distasteful, “for reasons of political expediency he had to play the hypocrite toward his church.” From the early days of his political activity, Hitler recognized that being a religious hypocrite had its political advantages.

In his diaries, Goebbels confirmed that Hitler camouflaged his religious position to placate the masses. Based on his conversations with Hitler more than a year before the Nazis came to power, Goebbels wrote that Hitler not only wanted to withdraw officially from the Catholic Church but even wanted to “wage war against it” later. However, Hitler knew withdrawing from Catholicism at that moment would be scandalous and undermine his chances of gaining power. Rather than commit political suicide, he would bide his time, waiting for a more opportune moment to strike against the churches. Goebbels, meanwhile, was convinced the day of reckoning would eventually come when he, Hitler, and other Nazi leaders would all leave the Church together. If Hitler was being frank with Goebbels, then his public religious image was indeed a façade to avoid offending his supporters.

It couldn’t be clearer.

In a diary entry from June 1934, Rosenberg also explained how Hitler masked his true religious feelings for political purposes… According to Rosenberg, Hitler divulged his anti-Christian stance and “more than once emphasized, laughing, that he had been a heathen from time immemorial,” and that “the Christian poison” was approaching its demise. Rosenberg explained, however, that Hitler kept these views top secret.

Multiple sources, not only his monologues that we have begun to translate, portray what Hitler said to his ‘apostles’ in private in contrast to his ‘parables’ to the people.

In a major speech on the sixth anniversary of the Nazi regime (the same speech where he threatened to destroy the Jews if a world war broke out), Hitler remonstrated against the “so-called democracies” for accusing his government of being antireligious. He reminded them that the German government continued to support the churches financially through taxes and pointed out that thousands of church leaders were exercising their offices unrestrained. But what about the hundreds of pastors and priests who had been arrested and thrown into prison or concentration camps?

A fair question.

The only religious leaders persecuted by his regime, he smugly said, were those who criticized the government or committed egregious moral transgressions, such as sexually abusing children.

It is a myth that American Boston journalists were the first in the West, at the beginning of this century, to expose the Can of Worms that is the Catholic Church: it was the Germans. We can imagine how many Catholic children would have been spared if Hitler had won the war…

“Nor is it acceptable,” Hitler told the churches, “to criticize the morality of a state,” when they should be policing their own morals (the Nazi regime was at this time conducting trials of Catholic clergy for sexual abuse). He continued, “The German leadership of state will take care of the morality of the German state and Volk.” In Hitler’s view, morality was the purview of the state and its political leaders, not religious institutions and religious leaders. Any pastor or priest teaching his congregation morality contrary to Nazi policy or ideology could be labeled a political oppositionist, even if he was simply teaching moral precepts that Christians had been teaching for centuries.

Highly commendable, but because he lost the war we never settled accounts with Christianity: something Hitler planned to do after the war.

Categories
Deranged altruism Judeo-reductionism Mauricio (commenter) Racial right

Two thousand years together!

by Mauricio

 
Who is worse, the drug dealer or the drug addict?

When you have a people who have become so dependent on this egalitarian worldview for so many centuries, and failed every single opportunity to break off this addiction, it starts to look like the drug dealer is just doing business, and the drug addict has an incorrigible deathwish.

One could write a history of White decline called ‘Two Thousand Years Together’.

It’s Whites who like to get high on slave morality. They’ve been getting higher and higher on this Christian drug ever since Constantine.

They’ve finally overdosed in 1945, and now the White race is lying comatose on a hospital bed full of Jewish doctors, lucid-dreaming about a perfect world full of brown people.

Nature has tested Whites’ spiritual resilience to a poisonous mental software, and they’ve failed repeatedly. The jews were merely the vector for that poison. Time for the final verdict: genocide.

Had the Third Reich survived, it would’ve brought a superior human race to this world—the Ubermensch—which would be practically immune to this mind poison; then the drug-dealing jew would have to peddle his pity-loving bullshit elsewhere.
It will take a catastrophe of unforeseen magnitude—and centennial duration—for the white human to stop pitying the angry brown subhuman mass that wants to kill him.

Abhor pity towards mankind – four words of Savitrian wisdom.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: Mauricio was responding to a typical white nationalist (they believe that Jewry is the root cause of white decline). In the comments section I just added these words:

As Thomas Kuhn saw, the same information can be processed in a completely different way between two subjects. So different that, depending on how we process the info, the paradigm shifts. In science, the classic paradigm shift would be from the geocentric to the heliocentric system. Although 17th-century astronomers had exactly the same information, it depended on how they interpreted the data.

This caricature reflects the paradigm shift from the JQ, which currently reigns in white nationalism, to the CQ—Christian question—that I propose. The caricature is interpreted by some white nationalists as archetypal Jewish subversion, as if to imply that the kikes hypnotised us through religion:

Regardless of whether or not that was the intention of the caricaturist, I see the same information differently. The kike didn’t hypnotise us. There is white agency. Just look at the faces of these white idiots. They simply love what the kike tells them. For two millennia white Christians have been willingly indulging in evil by following the gospel. And the same can be said for secular white nationalists who continue to subscribe to the same ethical code that we see in the caricature.

The caricature shows a malicious Jew selling us Christian ethics. The orthodox interpretation of our decline, which we see every day in The Occidental Observer, blames the Jew. But with the same info that MacDonald sees, I see whites as the real culprits. Who dares to believe such bullshit, the white family in the above caricature? The same info can be interpreted differently depending on our internal will. While white nationalists see a couple of kike silhouettes, I see in ochre colour the bitter cup that Christianity made us drink since Constantine:

The image above can also be used as an illustration of a paradigm shift. Who to blame: the Jew who wants to sell us the teachings of Jesus or the white people drinking this poisonous Kool-Aid with their eyes wide shut—including the ‘racist’ commenters linked above from Occidental Dissent and The Unz Review? Who is worse: the white imbecile or the foreign subversive?