web analytics

Category: Racial right

Categories
Civil war Film Racial right

The Order

For the first time today, I watched the 2024 film The Order, which six times mentions my favourite novel, The Turner Diaries and even mentions “The Day of the Rope”: the day I most long to experience, although I don’t think my dream will come true…

Surprisingly, on June 13 Counter-Currents published a good review of the movie that shows that not all is lost in that webzine: there is still a residue of revolutionary thought although, like reviewer Ondrej Mann, I believe that for now any jihad must be internal (since the conditions for an armed revolution will still be a long way off in the US).

I don’t have much to add to Mann’s review. But of the eighty-four comments in the discussion thread—which, as I said, surprise me since revolutionary thought still persists, albeit without a call to arms—I’d like to quote a passage from one of the latest threaded comments:

Here’s the thing about the movie The Order. It’s blatant propaganda, it is full of factual inaccuracies, it horribly mixes up the history, it exaggerates the violence, but this movie in the final analysis is good for us. It functions as what Greg the other day called a kind of social proof; meaning that the mainstream media takes us seriously, so seriously that they made a relatively big budget film, with big name stars [e.g., Jude Law—Ed.] and so inescapably they spread the gospel of William Pierce. Also, the movie is really well made and well-acted, it has thrilling scenes in it and is a pleasure to watch. All in all it constitutes a Victory for our side.

The truth is that I didn’t feel pleasure because of the propaganda.

And I think you are also correct too that eventually RJM [Bob Matthews] will become a folk hero if he already is not one. Shades of Paul Bunyan etc. His story has an almost mythological and legendary character to it right down the fiery Wagnerian ending. He held them at bay for 30 hours after all in his final redoubt, one man against many many more!

Indeed, but in a certain sense Bob Matthews and I—a sort of post-Nietzschean philosopher who like Friedrich’s Zarathustra wants to start a new religion—are antipodes. I believe that, for the moment, any jihad must be internal in order to purge ourselves of Judeo-Christian ethics. On the other hand, like most white nationalists today, Matthews apparently knew nothing about the Christian Question. (I understand that of The Order, not Hollywood but historical, only David Lane understood what we call here the CQ.)

Categories
Racial right

JQ v. CQ

I agree that organized Jewry is the chief enemy of our people…

—Counter-Currents today.

Nope! It’s Xtian ethics.

Categories
Kali Yuga Racial right

Honour

As I have said many times, when it comes to Americans, I feel much more comfortable with the racists of the 20th century (Rockwell, Oliver, Pierce) than with the racialists of the 21st century, whom I call neonormies. In the last century, American racists didn’t yet make ubiquitous use of the internet because it only began to be used by the end of the century, and even before the internet they were men of honour. With the miracle of the internet, one might expect racism to improve in the present century. But it is much worse, as I have been saying recently in my comments on quotes from online articles I read sixteen years ago, when I discovered white nationalism.

How is that possible?

In these times, and thanks to the internet, the most relevant piece of information for transvaluing values is that the Allies committed a Holocaust against Germans even after 1945: the greatest secret in recent history because the victors write history—and lie by omission by not talking about it. That’s why in my featured article the first thing I recommend is Goodrich’s Hellstorm.

The greatest pathology of white nationalism in our century is that this true Holocaust of defenceless Germans is not constantly mentioned. We can expect normies like Judge Napolitano and Col. Douglas Macgregor to be able to concede that if Hitler had won the war, the Allies would have been put in the dock for war crimes at Nuremberg (as they said today). But they cite the American bombing of Japan as an example of an holocaust, not Germany!

They are normies but what about racialists? Since Counter-Currents published a review of Goodrich’s book in 2010, there is no excuse for white nationalists, as after that year the subject is no longer mentioned in their forums. That is a sin, a voluntary surrender to evil (the anti-Christian that I am sometimes likes to use Christian vocabulary!). It is neither more nor less than the greatest of sins, pride in the form of patriotardism as Canadian Sebastian Ronin pointed out years ago when talking about them.

Few racialists comment constantly here because the Holocaust perpetrated by Americans of the best Europeans that the West has ever produced is hard to swallow. Better to repress it all! In other words, they induce a neurosis, or rather a psychosis, similar to the liberal folie en masse of the normies throughout the entire West.

All this has to do with honour, as I say in “All is about valour and honesty” (pages 46-51 of Daybreak). Honour is a word that today seems like a swear word because there are no longer any honourable Aryan men, only lobotomized eunuchs with zero Lebenskraft. In Kali Yuga, as the Indo-Aryans would call it, this word, honour, is no longer heard because all white people have degenerated. Otherwise, thousands of websites would mention the Hellstorm Holocaust, where the victims were not Jews, but Germans.

Le Serment des Horaces depicts the honour of the hard Roman ethos.

The 21st century will be a century of iron and storms. It will not resemble those harmonious futures predicted up to the 1970s. It will not be the global village prophesied by Marshall McLuhan in 1966, or Bill Gates’ planetary network, or Francis Fukuyama’s end of history: a liberal global civilisation directed by a universal state.

The third age of European civilisation commences, in a tragic acceleration of the historical process, with the Treaty of Versailles and the end of the civil war of 1914-18: the catastrophic 20th century. Four generations were enough to undo the labour of more than forty.

Europe fell victim to its own tragic prometheanism, its own opening to the world and universalism, oblivious of all ethnic solidarity. 

The fourth age of European civilisation begins today. It will be the age of rebirth or perdition. The 21st century will be for this civilisation, the fateful century, the century of Life or Death.



Let us cultivate the pessimistic optimism of Nietzsche. “There is no more order to conserve; it is necessary to create a new one.” Will the beginning of the 21st century be difficult? Are all the indicators in the red? So much the better. They predicted the end of history after the collapse of the USSR? We wish to speed its return: thunderous, bellicose, and archaic. Islam resumes its wars of conquest. China and India wish to become superpowers. And so forth.

The 21st century will be placed under the double sign of Mars, the God of war, and of Hephaestus, the God who forges swords, the master of technology and the chthonic fires. This century will be that of the metamorphic rebirth of Europe, like the phoenix, or of its disappearance as a historical civilisation and its transformation into a cosmopolitan and sterile Luna Park.



The beginning of the 21st century will be the despairing midnight of the world of which Hölderlin spoke. But it is always darkest before the dawn. Let us prepare our children for war. Let us educate our youth, be it only a minority, as a new aristocracy

 [emphasis added by Ed!]. Today we need more than morality. We need hypermorality, the Nietzschean ethics of difficult times.

When one defends one’s people, i.e., one’s own children, one defends the essential. Then one follows the rule of Agamemnon and Leonidas but also of Charles Martel: what prevails is the law of the sword, whose bronze or steel reflects the glare of the sun.

—Guillaume Faye

Categories
Exterminationism Racial right

Sixteen

years later (IV)

Even on that same day, 23 September 2009, I read the Prozium article that Johnson reposted on TOQ Online, “Myths, Facts, Self-Interest”, from which I quote the following passages:

Americans are not analytical / empirical / objective. I have mentioned elsewhere that Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series [LaHaye was a Christian fundamentalist —Ed.] has sold 65 million copies. Even within academia, the progressive mythos dominates entire disciplines, especially in the culture sensitive humanities. I just can’t see an appeal to science winning out (without substantial culture wind behind it); look what happened to James Watson (with all his prestige) when he stepped across the line of political correctness. Geneticists bend over backwards to avoid using the word “race” in lieu of Watson’s fall from grace. Most try to avoid it altogether (smart career move there). They bend to popular opinion and the progressive party line. Remember all that talk about how the Human Genome Project had discredited racialism? That and God talk has done wonders for Francis Collins’ career.

What can be said for self-interest? In our current political environment, it reinforces the LDC [Liberal-Democratic Capitalist] system. The career-minded, family-minded selfish individual prefers to go along with the flow. He is content to live in his whitebread suburb, shop at the Big Box stores for plasma televisions, pull the (R) lever at the ballot box in November. The first rule of conservative politics: Number One always comes first, second, and last. If such an individual is feeling really brave, he might go teabagging or do something really radical like visit a paleo website.

Just think about it: the tide of self-interest against us is so strong that White Nationalists have to cheer for a national catastrophe like a Second Great Depression, Hurricane Katrina or Kunstler’s Long Emergency to disrupt the status quo. Self-interest will come into play whenever our success appears plausible (think of the NSDAP) or catastrophic circumstances intervene. That’s when the opportunists and conservatives will flock into our ranks.

Looking at our situation objectively, even with the eye of an analytical empiricist (a bent of mind I share with GuessedWorker), what is needed right now (in the embryonic stage) is fanaticism [emphasis added by Ed.]. There are few incentives to join our movement. Racially conscious Whites are the most despised minority in America. I’m willing to wager we are hated even more than the atheists.

We need myths that are powerful enough to move a vanguard beyond their own rational self-interest. An alluring vision is needed comparable to the colorblind utopia that animates the left. It has to be expressed in art, literature, music and film; vehicles more accessible to the masses than academic texts… This is a task for artists, not intellectuals.

Regarding what Benjamin asked today (“Do you think part of this catastrophic regression has been because of the shift away from keeping personal libraries?”), I don’t think so because Prozium apparently reads a lot of books. “Prozium” was his old pen name. His real name is Brad Griffin, and since then he has been blogging on Occidental Dissent under another pen name, Hunter Wallace.

The point is: sixteen years ago Prozium was a self-proclaimed white nationalist and his blog’s subtitle, if I remember correctly, was “Western racial and cultural preservation”. Compare that to Occidental Dissent’s subtitle today: “Nationalism, populism, reaction”. What caused the shift to a reactionary mindset?

The European image that Occidental Dissent flaunted when that webzine defined itself as a “white nationalist” site.

For sixteen years I have followed the blogging career of Prozium, now known as Hunter Wallace in racialist forums. When he had bitter arguments with white nationalists, he repudiated the term “white nationalism” to define his position. As he confessed at the time, he became a “Southern Nationalist”. Years later, he decided that the best term to define his ideology was “Christian Nationalist”.

So, to answer Benjamin, I would say that it is not a large personal library that makes one wise (this man claims to have read hundreds of books). When one finds oneself in the middle of the psychological Rubicon, with water up to one’s knees, a dilemma arises: either one continues to cross the river to the other side, National Socialism (see above where Prozium himself mentioned the NSDAP), or one retreats back to the lands of Normieland (remember that on one occasion, after Prozium / Wallace took steps back, he called himself a “neo-normie”).

As I mentioned in my previous post about Greg Johnson and the vanguardist literature he used to publish in TOQ Online, the same can be said about Prozium / Wallace / Griffin: the pull that Normieland exerts on the minds of American racialists is so powerful that they rarely cross the river. To put it in a nutshell, the exterminationism on the other side scares the hell out of them!

Likewise, Andrew Anglin originally used a lot of Nazi paraphernalia on his site, The Daily Stormer. Then he Christianised his site and has been using Christian symbols. No more love for Uncle Adolf… On this side of the Atlantic, only racists like William Pierce (1933-2002) crossed the river to the extent of embracing exterminationism. So I’m glad, Benjamin, that you recommended Pierce’s book, Who We Are, to your friend. That book should be available in print! (as our anthologies were available before Lulu Press deplatformed us).

If we remember that Greg Johnson used to deliver pious homilies in his church in San Francisco as late as 2010, and that Griffin and Anglin remain openly Christian, it is clear why the magnet of Normieland moved them to retrace their steps as they were about to cross the Rubicon.

Categories
Literature Racial right

Sixteen

years later (III)

Already flying halfway across the Atlantic on 12 September 2009, I read Justin Raimondo’s article “The Good War Wasn’t So Good”, the first few paragraphs of which were published by TOQ Online:

I write these words on September 3, 2009, seventy years to the day since Britain and France declared war on Germany—an occasion observed, if not exactly celebrated by the leaders and opinion-makers of the West, as the beginning of “the good war.” The War Party just loves WWII because it’s the one war where all agree we had no choice but to fight and win a war to the death. Well, not quite all, but on this question dissent is simply not tolerated.

Take, for example, Pat Buchanan, who marks this anniversary with a reiteration of the theme of his excellent book, The Unnecessary War, which makes the case that war was never inevitable, and that only the pernicious idea of “collective security”—the Franco-British “guarantee” to Poland—made it so. Buchanan also makes the indisputable point that if only the Poles had given Danzig back to Germany, from whom it had been taken in the wake of the disastrous Treaty of Versailles, a negotiated peace would have been the result—a much more desirable one than 56,125,262 deaths and the incalculable toll taken by the war in terms of resources and pure human misery.

Oh, but no: to the “bloggers,” left and right, this is a case of “Pat Buchanan, Hitler Apologist.” In the political culture constructed by these pygmies, any challenge to the conventional wisdom—especially one that involves questioning WWII, the Sacred War—is something close to a criminal act, one that separates out the perpetrator from the realm of polite society and consigns him to an intellectual Coventry, where he can do no harm. And of course attacking US entry into WWII is considered a “hate crime” because—well, what are you, some kind of “Hitler apologist”?!

But of course WWII was not inevitable, and Hitler was indeed amenable to negotiations: he never wanted to go to war with the British—whom he admired—and the French, whose influential native fascist movement had good relations with their German co-thinkers.

The article motivated me to obtain a copy of Buchanan’s book. Once settled in Mexico, on 23 September I read Sam G. Dickson’s “A Modest Proposal” in the same webzine which contains these paragraphs:

To those of you who think this is a nutty comment, I would suggest that you attend the next town hall meeting of your local Congressman or Senator. He need not be a liberal, not some crazed Methodist on Marx or a Marxist on meth, like Hillary Clinton. He could be a white Christian Southern conservative Republican Congressman. During the question and answer period, go to the microphone and say: “Congressman, I am concerned about the tide of non-white immigration, and the low white birthrate in this country and around world. I’m concerned that our race might become extinct.”

And just see the reaction of that Christian, Southern, conservative member of the establishment. See how you will be shouted down by his followers. See how the guard will be instructed to come and take you out of the room, because you have committed an act of hate by suggesting that your race should be anything other than exterminated.

It is considered per se immoral to advocate the survival of our race. We need to think about that when weighing the claims of our enemies to be the voices of love and tolerance.

But where do the feelings that it’s immoral to advocate Aryan survival come from? Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault, which I heard countless times at Mass as a child, only metastasised into the Aryan collective unconscious after the Second World War. As Tom Holland has said both in writing and on YouTube: after WW2, white people managed to maintain Christian ethics only by transferring the idea of the Devil to Adolf Hitler. Because of this transfer, the West now defines morality in a negative way: everything must be done in opposition to Hitler’s ideals!

In other words, after WWII Aryans must commit ethnic suicide. That same day, I read Greg Johnson’s review of the novels of Harold Covington, who had been inspired by The Turner Diaries (the following year, when Johnson launched his new website, Counter Currents, he republished his review which can be read here).

Given that Johnson praised the novels this explains why, in 2009, I, who longed for a revolution, never criticised white nationalism. I imagined it then as a revolutionary ideology, as evident in this comment by Michael O’Meara in TOQ Online regarding Johnson’s review. Incidentally, some TOQ Online articles are still available on the internet. But they no longer have a comments section, so the following gem from O’Meara would have been lost had I not printed it out for my binder sixteen years ago:

This is an extraordinary article on an extraordinary subject. I am constantly amazed by the fact that the Quartet [H.A. Covington's The Hill of the Ravens, A Distant Thunder, A Mighty Fortress and The Brigade —Ed.] has been virtually ignored in our community. Part of this, I imagine, is due to the fact that the present generation of racialists, like their unconscious cohorts, no longer reads. Anything that’s more than two or three thousand words long and lacks illustrations is practically inaccessible to them.

A second reason I imagine the Quartet has been ignored is probably due to Covington himself, who is apparently an uncompromising individual and certainly one who has acquired a great many enemies. I don’t personally know Covington, so I have no way of evaluating the various charges made against him. [The charges were true. See may take here —Ed.]

In any case, even if the nasty things said about him by his enemies are true, it still distracts not in the least from the quality of his works, which are virtually unparalleled in our community. This gets me to the third reason I think the Quartet is ignored. Both white nationalism and race realism are largely cyber phenomena. If you take Covington seriously, however, you would have to tear yourself away from the computer monitor and act in the real world—with all its attendant inconveniences. The thought of political activity, though, is apparently too much for most of us. We too, even if we have remained unmoved by the system’s racial fictions, seem to behave in ways not unlike the rest of the sheep. Will we also go quietly to the slaughter?

I think it’s significant that the spontaneous uprising depicted in the Quartet at Coeur d’Alene, which provoked the war leading to the eventual formation of the Northwest American Republic, was something of a mystery. This rings true to me. We may no longer be the men who defied the might of the British Empire in 1776 or 1916, but there are other forces that might save us from ourselves.

The greatest of the “conservative” thinkers, Joseph de Maistre, pointed out long ago that the French Revolution led the revolutionaries rather than was led by them. For he believed that certain Providential forces rule our lives. These forces he saw in Christian terms, but others, like Heidegger, for instance, saw them in terms of Being, over which humans have no control.

In either case, the force of Providence or Being or Destiny has a power that has often made itself felt in our history. For this reason, I have little doubt that Europeans will eventually throw off the Judeo-liberal system programming their destruction. I’m less confident about we Americans, given the greater weakness of our collective identity and destiny. But nevertheless even we might be saved from ourselves by this force—as long as we do what is still in our power to do. Greg Johnson has given us in this review something we ignore at our own peril.

The tragedy is that, in the years that followed, American white nationalism suffered a regression: from an incipient revolutionary thought to de facto conservatism. Moreover, the revolutionary O’Meara left the movement after a heated discussion thread against the monocausalists of Counter-Currents regarding the JQ.

Categories
Literature Racial right

Sixteen

years later (II)

The norns Urðr, Verðandi and Skuld beneath the world tree Yggdrasil (1882) by Ludwig Burger.

I continue to quote some passages from my binder. Incidentally, when it got wet, not only did the ink from my notes run, but it also bled through to the other side of the pages. Fortunately, it is still legible.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Once on the plane, when I no longer wanted to be in Zapatero’s Spain and was preparing to live in Mexico, on 12 September 2009, still on the ground but after midnight, I began to read the articles printed in my binder of The Occidental Quarterly Online (TOQ Online from now on).

The first one I read on the plane was “The Seven Pillars of White Nationalism” by Yggdrasil (I would later learn that this was John Gardner’s pen name). I was stunned to see that among the readings Yggdrasil recommended was Himmler’s Posen Speech!

Unlike what I had been reading in Larry Auster’s View From the Right, the contributors to TOQ Online weren’t Jews. Since I was just beginning to familiarise myself with white nationalist literature, I would not wake up to the Jewish Question until the following year (February 2010, to be exact). But on the plane, still grounded at the Gran Canaria airport, I had no way to awaken to the JQ, and I wrote in the binder something in Spanish that I am now translating. When I came across Yggdrasil’s recommendation of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, I wrote: “Wow, wow, wow. So these guys are totally paranoid?”

In January 2014, when I reread this article, my old notes and I had already awakened to the JQ, I added a postscript on the same page of the binder: “Look what I thought four years ago… I remember reading this on the plane and feeling that it was an evil trait of the author and of all TOQ in general—just the Pavlovian reaction that everyone who takes a look at my current blog for the first time must feel…”

When I started blogging in 2009, in the first incarnation of The West’s Darkest Hour I hadn’t yet awakened to the JQ, so in 2014 I was referring to the second incarnation of my site; the present one is the third incarnation after WordPress cancelled my account. Incidentally, the Spanish word actual (translated as current) is underlined in my binder; above I put it in italics.

In his article Yggdrasil also recommended The Turner Diaries, a novel I was not yet familiar with, and on the second page of the article on recommended readings, I read this sentence by him:

Surprisingly, I was unable to find any coherent and helpful works in English translation from The Third Reich explaining how National Socialism might save us. Most of the major works of that period, including Rosenberg’s Myth of the Twentieth Century and Hitler’s Mein Kampf are dreadful tomes, which fail to recognize our basic predicament. The best explanation I can find of National Socialism is Lincoln Rockwell’s White Power.

I have complained a lot about this: there is no good book from the Third Reich that explains National Socialism; at most, there are inspirational booklets and, after 1945, Hitler’s readable after-dinner talks that can be read one a day (as David Irving recommended). But during the Third Reich there could be no frank books because that would have meant revealing the profound anti-Christianity of NS. It would have been political suicide to reveal that esoteric aspect to the masses. So, while I do not blame Hitler or his intellectuals for the absence of such an educational book (as Mein Kampf is a dreadful tome as Yggdrasil rightly says), our anthology The Fair Race could now be considered an introductory book (unlike the 1930s, in the new century the esoteric aspect of NS must become exoteric). Yggdrasil continues:

The prosperity that followed WW II has reduced the inclination of Euros to resist the human equality mania en-mass, resulting instead in localized witch hunts, including war crimes persecutions and hate crimes laws.

That is why what I long for most of all is for fiat currencies to collapse and, subsequently, for energy devolution to eliminate billions of Neanderthals. Only then will the degenerative effects of material comfort evaporate, like morning dew, among the surviving whites. Yggdrasil continues:

And you cannot interrupt the flow of social reinforcement by adopting a low status label—by claiming to be a KKK member, for example—just to gain the attention of the media. Adopting emblems and symbols that the controlled media has invested billions of dollars stigmatizing as low status merely serves to reinforce the belief among the outer party that their displays of the egalitarian delusions confer precisely what they seek—the opinion of their neighbors that they are “good people.” Thus, in order to interrupt the status transmission mechanism, the outer party must value your opinion of them. You must appear to be just like them. That means you must avoid markers of low status.

Sixteen years after I read the article, we see that even that isn’t possible in the darkest hour of the West. I have been watching many videos about Charlie Kirk, who was murdered this month by a homo, and it hurts that someone as good as him—good by normie standards—, so incapable of the slightest hatred, was slandered as a hater not only by the murderer but also by the progressives who applauded the attack. So it’s not enough to appear to be a good guy, as Yggdrasil recommended, to prevent crazy people from calling you a Nazi. I prefer to show my true colours: red, white and black so that at least a few visitors will want to become priests of the sacred words (cf. our featured article).

Yggdrasil’s article was published on 6 September 2009. Unfortunately, TOQ Online no longer exists. That’s why it was worth printing the articles that started my ideological transformation.

Those were different times. Online I never, ever insulted White Nationalism at that time! Incidentally, only one brief comment appeared in the comments section, from Michael O’Meara, who subscribed to white nationalism but not to NS. O’Meara commented: “I feel about the world in a way different from Yggdrasil, but at the same time I think every important idea of my WN comes from what I learned from him.”

Greg Johnson was then editor of TOQ Online, and I was surprised to discover in my binder that the previous article Johnson had published in that webzine was titled “All-Time Leading Hitlers”.

As I said, those were different times…

Categories
Liberalism Racial right

Sixteen

years later (I)

The long task of drying my wet books has given me the opportunity to reread some texts that greatly influenced my thinking. In particular, I want to revisit the writings that introduced me to white nationalism in September 2009. I believe quoting and analysing these texts will help clarify how my views were shaped, especially given that, before encountering white nationalism, I had no exposure to such ideas due to their suppression by the System.

At the time, I was living in Spain. The first author I read who critically spoke about forbidden topics, such as blacks and feminism, was a Jew who had converted to Christianity and was still alive in 2009: Larry Auster. At that time, I knew nothing about the Jewish Question and was fascinated by what Auster wrote on his website View From the Right. I will be quoting from my printouts in the order in which I placed the articles from 2009 in the binder (pic left), whose pages, incidentally, are still damp. Today, I will have to put them back in the sun to continue drying.

So let’s quote some passages from what Auster said at a conference in Baltimore in February 2009 (emphasis mine):

To deal with the crisis facing our civilization, we must be both realistic and imaginative. The realism part consists in recognizing how bad our situation is.

The entire Western world is at present under the grip of the modern liberal ideology that targets every normal and familiar aspect of human life, and our entire historical way of being as a society.

The key to this liberal ideology is the belief in tolerance or non-discrimination as the ruling principle of society, the principle to which all other principles must yield. We see this belief at work in every area of modern life.

The principle of non-discrimination must, if followed consistently, destroy every human society and institution. A society that cannot discriminate between itself and other societies will go out of existence, just as an elm tree that cannot discriminate between itself and a linden tree must go out of existence. To be, we must be able to say that we are us, which means that we are different from others. If we are not allowed to distinguish between ourselves and Muslims, if we must open ourselves to everyone and everything in the world that is different from us, and if the more different and threatening the Other is, the more we must open ourselves to it, then we go out of existence.

This liberal principle of destruction is utterly simple and radically extreme. Yet very, very few people, even self-described hard-line conservatives, are aware of this principle and the hold it has over our society. Instead of opposing non-discrimination, they oppose multiculturalism and political correctness. But let’s say that we got rid of multiculturalism and political correctness. Would that end Muslim immigration? No. Multiculturalism is not the source of Muslim immigration. The source of it is our belief that we must not discriminate against other people on the basis of their culture, their ethnicity, their nationality, their religion. This is the idea of the 1965 Immigration Act, which was the idea of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applied to all of humanity: all discrimination is wrong, period. No one in today’s society, including conservatives, feels comfortable identifying this utterly simple idea, because that would mean opposing it.

To see how powerful the belief in non-discrimination is, consider this: Prior to World War II, would any Western country have considered admitting significant numbers of Muslim immigrants? Of course not; it would have been out of the question. The West had a concrete identity. It saw itself as white and in large part as Christian, and there was still active in the Western mind the knowledge that Islam was our historic adversary, as it has been for a thousand years, and radically alien. But today, the very notion of stopping Muslim immigration is out of the question, it can’t even be thought.

What would have been inconceivable 70 or 80 years ago is unquestionable today. A society that 70 years ago wouldn’t have dreamed of admitting large numbers of Muslims, today doesn’t dream of reducing, let alone stopping, the immigration of Muslims. Even the most impassioned anti-Islamic Cassandras never question—indeed they never even mention—the immigration of Muslims, or say it should be reduced or stopped.

You don’t need to know any more than what I’ve just said. The rule of non-discrimination, in all its destructive potentialities, is shown in this amazing fact, that the writers and activists who constantly cry that Islam as a mortal danger to our society will not say that we ought to stop or even reduce Muslim immigration. Such is the liberal belief which says that the most morally wrong thing is for people to have a critical view of a foreign group, to want to exclude that group or keep it out.

The dilemma suggests the solution. What is now unthinkable, must become thinkable; what is now unsayable, must become sayable; and ultimately it must replace non-discrimination as the ruling belief in society. I know that this sounds crazy, utterly impossible. But fifty or a hundred years ago it would have seemed crazy, utterly impossible, that today’s liberalism with its suicidal ideology would have replaced the traditional attitudes that were then prevalent. If society could change that radically in one direction, toward suicidal liberalism, it can change back again. It’s not impossible.

In the same way, modern liberalism says that it is evil to believe that some people are more unlike us than others, because that would also be a violation of the liberal principle that all people are equally like us. The equality principle of modern liberalism says that unassimilable immigrants must be permitted to flood our society, changing its very nature.

This is the ubiquitous yet unacknowledged horror of modern liberalism, that it takes the ordinary, differentiated nature of the world, which all human beings have always recognized, and makes it impossible for people to discuss it, because under liberalism anyone who notes these distinctions and says that they matter has done an evil thing and must be banished from society, or at least be barred from a mainstream career.

This liberalism is the most radical and destructive ideology that has ever been, and yet it is not questioned. Communism and big government liberalism were challenged and fought in the past. But the ideology of non-discrimination, which came about after World War II, has never been resisted—it has never even been identified, even though it is everywhere. What is needed, if the West is to survive, is a pro-Western civilization movement that criticizes, resists, and reverses this totalistic liberal belief system that controls our world.

There are several observations I can make now, reflecting on these texts after sixteen years. With greater maturity, I can identify key ideas that I missed at the time, which are central to my current understanding.

Auster observes that liberalism, which poses a threat to the West’s ethnic survival, emerged after World War II. However, he avoids the argument that England’s war declaration on Hitler was wrong (future quotes from the binder don’t come from ethnic Jews like Auster).

Another thing that comes to mind is that, behind Auster’s principle of non-discrimination, we encounter what I quoted the day before yesterday. I am referring to Robert Barnes: “Slavery abolition was on the clock the moment the American Revolution went forward. Because once you say, ‘All men are created equal’, sooner or later all men have to be treated equal”.

Bingo! Those who heard Barnes’ audiovisual words that I linked to in that post will have heard that the principle of non-discrimination is due to Christian ethics, secularised by the Founding Fathers (or as we should call them, the Founding Cucks). In Barnes’ words, “What they [the Founding Fathers] meant by a Christian nation was the ideal that we are all equal, and that we get that equality from [the Judeo-Christian] God, that gave us all souls. That was a revolutionary break”. Indeed, and as Tom Holland wrote in Dominion, “[Benjamin] Franklin, like the revolution for which he was such an effective spokesman, illustrated a truth pregnant with implications for the future: that the surest way to promote Christian teachings as universal was to portray them as deriving from anything other than Christianity” (emphasis added).

Naturally, Auster, the Jew who converted to Christianity, didn’t go so far as to blame his adopted religion as the ultimate cause of the principle of non-discrimination that currently surrounds us like water surrounds a fish.

Categories
Racial right

Men

of their time

I continue to dry the books of my library; some are still wet while others are just damp…

A good way to explain Savitri Devi’s concept of “men of their time” vis-à-vis a “man against his time” is to listen to the latest Counter-Currents podcast on the consequences of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

A man against his time is a potential revolutionary who is just waiting for conditions to arise (e.g., collapse of the dollar and energy devolution to peak) to act in the real world. In contrast, men of their time go no further than supporting the recent decisions by Donald Trump and his vicepresident to designate Antifa as terrorists.

One of the podcast panellists even identified himself as a Christian. After an hour of the podcast, a listener asked how to crush the left. Compare Greg’s answer which, as I said, doesn’t go beyond the ideological horizon provided by Trump, with my admiration for the Dachau Concentration Camp, which I so admire that I visited this year.

As my mother tongue is not English, I didn’t understand what one of the panellists said about The Turner Diaries at approximately 1:19, but I think it was a negative comment. Greg Johnson then talked about corporations. Compare this with what a National Socialist would say about these organisations: this type of capitalism must be destroyed (see for example Brendan Simms’ book on Hitler).

At 1:40, one of the panellists refused to use slurs about the nigger who stabbed the Ukrainian girl on the underground. Once again, compare that Christian/neochristian stance with the infinite hatred felt by the priest of the sacred words: a man against his time.

Categories
Racial right

De facto

conservatives

As I said in my previous post, I will be busy for a long time trying to salvage what remains of my library. But I can afford to make a brief comment.

Four of the most popular websites on the American racial right have been mentioning the recent murder of Charlie Kirk: one of the most prominent conservative activists in the United States and a trusted ally of President Donald Trump, who has little to do with us. But when it was recently revealed that Alex Linder, who was one of us, had died of cancer, all these major sites remained silent: zero obituaries.

The reason is not difficult to understand.

The vast majority of white nationalists are not National Socialists but de facto conservatives. And conservatives don’t like exterminationist voices like Linder’s that also harshly criticise Christianity (since it is the Christian ethics that atheists have adapted that have prevented us from behaving, shall we say, like Cro-Magnons).

It is essential to understand this when trying to investigate why white nationalism has never emerged from the ignored fringes of society: they cling to the old paradigm. And just as society in general ignores the intellectual work of the racial right, racialists themselves ignore the more radical racist voices, while honouring the memory of conservatives like Kirk.

Categories
Audios Eugenics Racial right

Henrik Palmgren

I recently complained that the racial right had forgotten the eugenicists of the past, but David Skrbina, who wrote a book about how Jews wrote the New Testament to deceive the Romans, recently refreshed their memory about eugenics: something I think is magnificent. The article was originally published in The Occidental Observer (here), although The Unz Review has reposted it (here).

As for our topic, the extermination of prehistoric Neanderthals, it is taboo for the liberal mindset because the point is that Aryans shouldn’t learn about their past (“he who controls the past controls the future”). For atheist neochristians, who preach Christian love for all hominids as if they were the noble savages of prehistory, Neanderthals were our cousins if not our brothers.

Fortunately, one of us, Henrik Palmgren of Red Ice Radio, interviewed Danny Vendramini four years after Vendramini published Them & Us on the Neanderthal Predation Theory (blurb of the book here). Although the usual suspects have censored Palmgren (do you remember what happened to him that fateful day in Charlottesville?), Palmgren’s interview can still be heard here.