web analytics
Categories
3-eyed crow Racial right

Black bread

On my morning walk to buy a loaf of black bread to go with my salad at lunchtime (in my intermittent fasting I skip breakfasts), I had a thought.

The racial realism promoted by Jared Taylor is doomed to fail. As Michael O’Meara said years ago in one of the TOQ Online essays that were eventually published in Toward the White Republic, it is the poet, not the scientist, who makes nations. Taylor, and as we recently saw even the neo-Nazi G.L. Rockwell, didn’t question the American System. If Homer was the poet whose myth galvanised the Aryan psyche of other times, what would be the replacement myth for the Christian myth that is killing us?

I would like to quote what I wrote in the comments section of my post yesterday:

In one of his recent emails Gaedhal mentions that he went to mass for the death of a loved one and, although he is no longer the Christian he used to be, he still knelt and crossed himself. It is obvious that these are all parental introjects that are very difficult to exorcise despite the tons of rational thinking one throws at them in the process of (pseudo) apostasy. In other words, only by knowing yourself, as the Delphic Oracle commanded, could you really begin to detect the malware that our parents installed in us as children. But that means sitting down to write spiritual odysseys which in this shallow, consumerist age, no one will want to write or even read (except me).

In other words: an Enlightenment-style critique of Christianity will get us nowhere. It is a purely rationalistic critique that doesn’t go to the marrow of why we have believed such monstrous things as eternal damnation. Just as O’Meara is right that mythopoeia is what creates nations, it is also true that the myth in turn, a secular worship of the crucified (black, trans, migrant, etc.), has to be replaced by a new myth. Hitler had excellent instincts on how to create it, but the Christian forces of the Anglo-Americans, and neo-Christian forces of the Soviets, didn’t allow such a transvaluation.

Neither Taylor nor critics of Christianity like Gaedhal will succeed without understanding how the collective Aryan unconscious works. Although the neo-Christian Tom Holland is our ideological enemy, he is absolutely right to say that this collective unconscious is still held captive—possessed I dare to say!—to the archetype that the crucified is nobler than the crucifier. Even these days, on campuses, kids are siding with the crucified Palestinians in the face of Israel’s ethnic cleansing. They are all, of course, neo-Christians and the cross is still their emblem even though Jesus is no longer nailed to it.

This is Neo-Christianity.

I am not saying that this is altogether wrong, insofar as the reaction against Israel has opened a door to address the JQ that was previously closed. But Gaedhal’s approach in my quote yesterday implies that he still dwells under the sky of Christian morality. With the new myth, we would have a very different phenomenon on campuses. Let us imagine, and this is an experiment of the imagination, millions of kids wearing T-shirts of Himmler or other members of the SS who ordered the killing of millions of Untermenschen. In this Gedankenexperiment genocide is not something to be shocked by but to emulate as long as the genocided are non-Aryans.

But what do fans of Taylor and Rockwell do? The more conventional white nationalists simply ignore Hitler, and the neo-Nazis deny that millions of Untermenschen died under the orders of the Third Reich. From my vantage point in the cave, people like Taylor and Rockwell’s epigones seem to me to be very close to each other. To use the metaphor I have been using, they are both south of the Wall. Both ‘reek of summer’ we read in George R.R. Martin’s prose. In fact, they haven’t even crossed it, let alone looked for the raven’s cave far north of the Wall.

I still think Holland’s book (excerpts here) is fundamental to grasping the POV of this site although, of course, unlike Holland, we—Hitler, Himmler, Savitri Devi and I—have transvalued values to how they were thought of before Christian malware took hold of the Aryan collective unconscious. If anyone keeps in mind Eduardo Velasco’s essay on Rome vs. Judea, he will recall that pre-Christian Greeks and Romans didn’t give a damn that Jews were being genocided in 70 c.e. Compare this indifference to today’s holocaust deniers. They are neo-Christian, faux-National Socialists who won’t cross the Wall because they are still adoring the crucified, whether Jesus is present or not on their cross.

Categories
George Lincoln Rockwell Racial right

Hitler, 12

Rockwell as Conservative

by Gregory Hood (pic below)

Emphasis in bold & red added
by Ed.; endnotes omitted
:

 

The Left usually understands the Right better than the Right understands itself. In the dominant progressive narrative, conservatives are simply more “respectable” racists that use rhetoric about anti-Communism, free markets, or limited government to disguise their bias. They may not even be aware of it, but American conservatism is, in this telling, an inherently racist ideology.

Commander George Lincoln Rockwell in many ways shared this analysis. His National Socialism was not an ideology so much as a tactic, an attempt to build a fighting conservatism capable of defeating the militant Left. Rather than Nietzsche, Baron Evola, or even Alfred Rosenberg, the greatest influences on George Lincoln Rockwell were Senator Joe McCarthy, Douglas MacArthur, and even William F. Buckley.

His inability to rally the American Right marks a milestone in white political activism, as George Lincoln Rockwell is the bridge between patriotic racial conservatism and revolutionary White Nationalism. Commander Rockwell was above all a tactician, but he failed to reveal some new method for white patriots to achieve political power. Instead, his strategic importance is that he demonstrated, perhaps inadvertently, the bankruptcy of American conservatism. Rockwell’s hope for “street fighters of the American conservative movement” was always doomed to fail. One does not need to be a “Nazi” to see that conservatism is designed to lose, not to fight.

George Lincoln Rockwell began his turn to the Right at Brown University, where he dissented against the “blank slate” teachings he encountered in his sociology class. He notes in his autobiography This Time the World, that he was always in conflict with the “liberalism” overflowing at Brown, which he would later connect to Communism. He made the same connection between the “filthy thing” and the chaos and ugliness of modern art that he experienced in his studies after World War II. It’s not surprising in the intense Cold War atmosphere of postwar America that the young naval officer would link cultural degradation to the struggle against the Soviet Union.

Commander Rockwell’s first political activism was on behalf of General Douglas MacArthur, who was fired by President Harry Truman because of his willingness to expand the Korean War into “Red” China. General MacArthur would receive a dedication in This Time the World, and Rockwell would adopt MacArthur’s habit of chewing on a corncob pipe. According to Rockwell, it was in the midst of his efforts to book a hall for General MacArthur that he was introduced to the Jewish question. Further research led him to conclude that Bolshevism had Jewish roots and that there was a preponderance of Jews among Communists in the United States. Thus, Rockwell’s opposition to Jews was rooted in his conviction that “Jewish traitors” were sabotaging the Cold War. However, this did not extend to questioning the American Establishment as a whole—when Commander Rockwell wanted to attend a speech by Gerald L. K. Smith, he first asked the local FBI office for permission.

In the early 1950s, Commander George Lincoln Rockwell served in Iceland, where he met his second wife and obsessively re-read Mein Kampf, as well as other works like the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. He even took his new wife Thora on honeymoon to Berchtesgaden to visit Hitler’s mountain retreat. However, bizarrely, it was after the work of Adolf Hitler “stripped away the confusion” from his mind that Rockwell began his involvement with mainstream conservatism. He worked as an independent contractor for William F. Buckley and his National Review.

Commander Rockwell refers to William F. Buckley as “Bill” in This Time the World and notes that he is “square-dealing” as a man. This exaggerated familiarity explains the wildly different interpretation of Buckley’s character that men who knew him far more intimately have claimed, as in Peter Brimelow’s devastating obituary for him. Perhaps more importantly, even after becoming at least a philosophical “Nazi,” Rockwell says of Buckley that “There is more pulsating brain-power and genius surrounding Buckley than in any place else on earth, where I have ever been” and Buckley himself is “brighter than all the rest.”

After (by his own admission) failing to obtain many subscriptions for the magazine, Rockwell tried his hand at organizing “The American Federation of Conservative Organizations” and a newspaper to be called the “Conservative Times.” At this time, Rockwell believed that conservatives could “sneak up on the Jews” by rallying conservatives behind a militant (but publicly philo-Semitic) organization. Rockwell later mocked his own restrained approach and declared that liberals had to be fought using their own tactics—“force, terror, and power.” He was further disgusted by the “human content of the ‘right-wing’—ninety percent cowards, one-track minds, tightwads, and worst of all, hobbyists” that were unwilling to jeopardize their possessions.

Interestingly, however, Rockwell also credits the John Birch Society with “[doing] what I planned then” (This Time the World, 87). Jewish entertainer Bob Dylan would later mock the Society in “Talkin’ John Birch Paranoid Blues” wherein the paranoid narrator proclaims that the only “true American” is “George Lincoln Rockwell.” In his own way, Commander Rockwell confirmed Dylan’s intended smear by declaring a shared purpose between the John Birch Society and himself.

Nor was Rockwell alone on the “radical” Right in believing such a strategy could work. Revilo Oliver was a founding member of the Society and admitted that he continued to work for it even after all mention of Jews was eliminated. In the end, Oliver only abandoned the Society because of his contempt for Robert Welch, writing in America’s Decline: The Education of a Conservative that “one does not abandon a lost cause before one knows the cause was lost because the general is a traitor” (200). Like Oliver, Rockwell’s chief gripe with the Right wing was that the people involved were flawed and that the American Right was essentially cowardly. Instead, Rockwell would build a fighting faith of Nazism as the only “alternative to communism.”

Even so, Rockwell’s Nazism was still couched in conservative forms for years afterward. Rockwell worked for Russell Maguire of the American Mercury, later writing scathingly about Maguire as someone who was actively hurting the cause. However, as Andrew Hamilton has pointed out, Maguire may well have had good reason for his caution and in any event, was far better ideologically than the “brilliant” William F. Buckley.

Rockwell had fonder memories of his partnership with DeWest Hooker, and notes warmly that he wasn’t a “patriot or a right-winger or a conservative but a fighting, tough, all out Nazi.” Rockwell’s justification for this was Hooker’s creation of the Nationalist Youth League, which rallied “tough kids” in New York City to fight “Jewish Communism” and inspire them with “fanatical loyalty to the United States, the White Race, and Adolf Hitler” (100). Rockwell also quotes Hooker’s retelling of the Jewish role in bringing down Joe McCarthy’s crusade against “Jewish Communism.” Aside from the questionable background of Hooker highlighted by Andrew Hamilton, what is significant is that Rockwell identifies “Nazism” with a militant anti-Communist struggle that simply does not allow Jews.

George Lincoln Rockwell’s “coming out” was his protest to “Save IKE from the KIKES” along with Harold Arrowsmith in May 1958. This led to a minor media frenzy surrounding him after a synagogue was bombed in Atlanta a few months later, when it was revealed that Rockwell had corresponded with the bomber. Rockwell’s response was revealing. His writing shows that he thought that bombing a synagogue was a mistake “because it relates to the religious rather than political.” Rockwell’s focus on “atheist Jews” rather than religious Jews would be a constant of his later career, even while being interviewed in uniform standing in front of the swastika banner. Furthermore, Rockwell issued a statement that “I am anti-Zionist and anti-Communist Jews, and any other form of treason. I’m pro-American republic.”

Also at this time, Rockwell began printing literature for what he called the World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists (WUFENS), which shows the Commander’s determination to fit National Socialism into the pro-free market mold of American conservatism. Rockwell denounced fascism as an economic doctrine of state ownership and promoted “international racism” as opposed to “racial nationalism.”
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: As we will see at the end, this error, typical of American white nationalism (in contrast to Himmler’s Nordicism), cost the commander his life in 1967.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Rockwell’s pro-Americanism was complemented by his vision of white unity between “Aryan” countries, a precursor to his later strategic contribution of “White Power.” However, Rockwell’s National “Socialism” largely neglected the economic aspects besides repeating general conservative themes. It is revealing that following the failure of WUFENS, Rockwell would create the American “Nazi” Party in 1959 instead of a “National Socialist Party.” Rockwell thus claimed the one term slur of “Nazi” for his own purposes, and said that it “means that we are racists.”

The American Nazi Party was notorious for its flamboyant use of street theater. The Commander had his critics on the Right, with members of the National States’ Rights Party charging that he was simply continuing his father’s “vaudeville” acts. Rockwell justified his tactics on the grounds that he needed to appeal to the masses with spectacle and easy to understand propaganda. Rockwell pointed out Jews on Wall Street funding the Bolshevik revolution, protested the film Exodus, and even staged activism against Sammy Davis Jr. With blacks, he was more creative, as he used “hate buses” to parody the so-called Freedom Riders, created “hatenanny” country songs, and in one notable instance, tried to enroll a monkey in a public school.

Lost in the debate over the appropriateness of the Commander’s tactics was the strategic purpose. In his speeches and writings, Rockwell blasted the “Communist-Negro” revolution, arguing that blacks were simply following the marching orders of their Jewish funders, with occasional independent blacks such as the Nation of Islam breaking free of Zionist control. Rockwell also appealed to spiritual idealism, proudly claiming himself and his followers as “fanatics” because only fanatics can truly create something. However, though Commander Rockwell bemoaned American civilization’s “unwholesomeness, love of money, and love of luxury” as a sign of decline, he rarely (if ever) turned his fire on the American economic or political system per se (William H. Schmaltz, Hate: George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party [Washington, D.C.: Brassey’s, 1999], 212).

If anything, Commander Rockwell had a truly naive faith in certain institutions of the American government. From the time he asked permission from the FBI to attend a Gerald L. K. Smith rally, he kept the Bureau constantly informed of his activities, and even those of his members. According to Frederick Simonelli, author of American Fuehrer: George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1999), Rockwell “believed—rightly or not—that the agency’s director, J. Edgar Hoover, secretly sympathized with most of his aims” (87).

During a meeting with Ed Fields, Rockwell went so far as to call the FBI while Fields was in the room. Though internal memos credited Rockwell with being “very cooperative with Agents,” it did the Commander no good. FBI reports on the ANP were scathing about Commander Rockwell as a person. More importantly, COINTELPRO specifically targeted the ANP for harassment, sending both Rockwell and his enemies fraudulent letters designed to sabotage the party’s operations. On one occasion, the FBI sent Rockwell a phony letter from a “supporter” designed to make him mistrust a subordinate. Fearing it violated federal law, an unknowing Rockwell promptly reported the letter—right back to the FBI.

The great strategic failure of George Lincoln Rockwell was the assumption that the vast majority of Americans (and especially conservatives) already agreed with him, but they were too cowardly to say so. In a 1965 interview, Rockwell said, “I think the majority of Americans think the same way I do, most of them don’t care to say so. Most of them are fed up with Negro pushing, they’re fed up with the Jewish-communists who have been time and again exposed as selling us out to the Soviet Union; they’re fed up with the cowardice of our administration. I think they’re grateful that we’re finally fighting in Viet Nam, but . . . I think we’ll lay down like we did in Korea and quit. In other words, I think the people are with me. They don’t like the name [Nazi] but they believe what I believe” (Hate, 251).

Campaigns against “peace creeps” were a staple of ANP activities. In November 1965, Commander Rockwell personally ripped a Viet Cong flag from a peace march and tore it to pieces. He recounted the incident with pride in White Power. At the same time this incident occurred, ANP members on the West Coast counter-protested peace marches with slogans like “Kill Reds in Vietnam” and “Peace Creeps Are Traitors.” Commander Rockwell’s slogan, “Not dead, not red, but dead reds!” was also a staple of his rhetoric. Even near the end of his career, Commander Rockwell bragged at campus speeches that he would launch a nuclear attack on Red China and claimed, “I’m going to be the man who pushes the button.”

In 1965, George Lincoln Rockwell ran for governor of Virginia. His platform was firmly focused on race and dismantling Jewish organizations. He advocated teaching “white supremacy” in the classrooms for an hour a day, deputizing white men to carry guns, and outlawing the Anti-Defamation League and the NAACP. Insofar as he spoke about economic concerns, Rockwell supported eliminating the income tax (Hate, 250). Rockwell’s focus on abolishing welfare for blacks, condemnation of the federal government, and promises to use the power of the state against Leftist radicals align naturally with the hard Right of the American conservative movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s. He only won a few thousand votes, as most of the segregationist supporters in the state broke for other third party candidates.

Though Rockwell was scathing in his treatment of “Right-wingers” and launched protests against Barry Goldwater, his writings reveal that he considered them somehow closer to his own positions than any alternative. In White Power in 1966, he bashes Barry Goldwater as the “Zionist-capitalist Jew ‘friend of the [Jewish] Captain’” engaged in a shell game with the “Red Jew labor leader” on the “other side.” He also has a detailed analysis of why “economic conservatives” cannot win, focusing mostly on tactical issues. He points out (accurately) that the masses will not vote for an economic conservative without the issue of race. However, these are essentially tactical criticisms, alternately criticizing conservatives as either being phony or tactically stupid.

In terms of ideology, Rockwell now praises fascism, using the Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary definition of fascism as “the movement towards nationalism and conservatism as opposed to internationalism and radicalism.” For Rockwell, race will be the glue that binds together a nationalism and conservatism that can win. Occasionally, Rockwell even made this explicit, with a forlorn hope that conservatives would rally behind him. The Rockwell Report and National Review exchanged barbs, which eventually led to a strange exchange of letters between Commander Rockwell and William F. Buckley. Rockwell challenged Buckley to convince him that he was actually doing harm; in response, Buckley dispatched a priest. During the meeting, Rockwell offered the American Nazi Party as the “street fighters of the American conservative movement” (Hate, 209). Needless to say, Buckley did not take up the Commander on his generous offer.

None of this is to say that Rockwell’s approach did not occasionally pay dividends. In August 1966, Commander Rockwell successfully rallied thousands of blue collar white Chicagoans to resist a desegregation effort led by Martin Luther King, Jr. After giving a well-received speech, Rockwell was showered with applause, as Chicagoans chanted “White Power” and waved the swastika. Overcome with emotion, “Rockwell was moved to tears” (Hate, 291). In September, he would lead a march through the streets of Chicago—though he had predicted 3,000 people, Rockwell’s “failure” still rallied 250 people to march under the swastika and slogan of “White Power.” Clearly, Buckley-style conservatism had nothing to say to blue collar whites fighting to defend their communities, and their rage and fear has only been vindicated by what Chicago has become today.

That said, Rockwell found that he could not capitalize on his tactical successes and that old style “Nazism” was unsuited to rallying white workers of Southern and Eastern European stock. This was an important factor in the transformation from the American Nazi Party to the National Socialist White People’s Party. The new ten points of the NSWPP also included nods to economics and social policy, although it was mentioned far after smashing “Jewish domination,” “Communism,” “Zionism,” “crime,” and “riots.” The ninth point stated “every productive, working American must have a decent job, life-time economic security and wholesome living conditions for himself and his family.”

Rockwell’s last major work, White Power, shows the Commander caught between Cold War conservatism and a more fully developed National Socialism. The opening of the book is a recitation of various outrages taken from the headlines, from sexual depravity to draft dodging. Most of these could have come from the pages of any conservative magazine of the time. Rockwell also gives an extended treatment to various charges of the Cold War American Right, detailing the “loss” of China to the Reds, the Marxist ties of Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of “our President” John F. Kennedy, and the government’s hesitation in fighting our “deadly Communist enemies” in Vietnam. In his famous “Nightmare” chapter, Rockwell posits a non-white takeover of America where the white police and armed forces are defeated with the help of international Communists from China and Cuba.

At the same time, White Power shows an important evolution in Rockwell’s thinking. Though Rockwell condemned Francis Parker Yockey’s work as a new form of “Strasserism” in 1964, in White Power he predicts an eventual alliance between white Russians and white Americans. Years before the Sino-Soviet split, Rockwell notes the alliance between anti-Soviet Trotskyites and the Red Chinese, Maoism being the preferred form of Communism for campus radicals and non-whites. Going further, Rockwell condemns the repeated “wars of racial suicide,” calling for a white racial unity in foreign policy that transcends even nationalism. This vision of race as the critical basis of identity, loyalty, and state policy, with nationalism as purely secondary, goes beyond anything Rockwell could have taken from German National Socialism. Furthermore, Rockwell writes, “The center of Jewish power and money is here in New York City, U.S.A., not Moscow and not even Jerusalem.”

By the time of White Power, Rockwell is also willing to criticize conservatives for substantive rather than tactical reasons. He goes so far as to say, “there are dozens of ‘socialistic’ operations in any decent nation, operations not for profit, but for the benefit of all.” Rockwell condemns the wealthy, “the managing class,” for neglecting their workers and falling into the Jewish trap of attacking the people they depend on. “The working people of America want ‘social security’; they want ‘medicare’; they want a paternalistic and welfare-conscious government. That is a fact.” This is a more accurate reading of political reality than anything you will get from a well-paid GOP consultant.

Ultimately, however, Rockwell comes off as frustrated with conservatives, rather than seeing them as enemies. He is trying to explain to them why they need different tactics in order to defeat the Left, rather than crusading against them. Though he is critical of economic conservatives, he does not outline an economic alternative with the same passion for detail and documentation that he marshals in chronicling Jewish perfidy. Rockwell sees conservative voters—if not the leaders—as his base.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: I get the impression that the administrators of American Renaissance, The Occidental Observer, and Counter-Currents publish articles for a conservative English-speaking audience.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
He writes, “It is a matter of life and death that we find the energy, will, wisdom, and diplomacy to reach the millions of ‘conservatives’ who are spiritually on our side, but who are still blind to the issue on which all the others depend—breed, race” (218).

Whatever his criticisms of conservatives, Rockwell still saw himself as the logical progression of their better ideas, once the reactionary nonsense was cut away. Speaking in California only a few months before his death, George Lincoln Rockwell praised the newly elected governor of California, Ronald Reagan. However, he thought that Reagan might not be Right-wing enough because he was an “ex-pinko.” Rockwell noted in a campus interview, “For a state that could elect Reagan, it’ll be ripe for me in a few years.” (Hate, 318). One of the last street demonstrations Rockwell participated in was a counter-protest of a vigil at an execution of a black cop killer. Rockwell’s sign said “GAS—The Only Cure for Black Crime and Red Treason.” Even in the midst of ideological transformation, Rockwell’s propaganda was much the same as it was in 1967 as it was in 1961.

George Lincoln Rockwell was assassinated in August 1967, cut down by one of his former followers. Ironically, John Patler was a Southern European, one of the non-Germanic whites that George Lincoln Rockwell was working to bring into the “White Nationalist” fold in opposition to the Northern European faction as represented by men like William Luther Pierce.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: If Rockwell had been a Nordicist like the eugenicists who flourished in his country before WW2, the mudblood who betrayed him wouldn’t have even entered his ranks!
 

______ 卐 ______

 
The transformation of the swastika from an image of German National Socialism into a rallying point for a pan-European National Socialism is generally regarded as George Lincoln Rockwell’s greatest strategic contribution. Even White Nationalists who have never heard of him unintentionally echo his viewpoint by positing white racial identity as the critical rallying point for anti-System resistance. In America, there is no other way forward.

However, George Lincoln Rockwell was cut down at perhaps the very moment when ideological transformation was most needed on a much deeper level. James Mason writes in Siege that the stormtroopers of Rockwell’s party took beatings to defend the honor of an all but dead Republic. He believes that Rockwell, had he lived, would have eventually adopted the more underground, guerrilla style of leaders such as National Socialist Liberation Front founder Joseph Tommasi. There is little to suggest this would be the case—Rockwell himself confidently predicted that he would be President of the United States by 1972. His writings even through White Power posit that most ordinary white working people and conservatives were secretly on his side.

Rockwell’s critical shortcoming was a failure to understand that even non-Jewish opposition to him was largely sincere. Though Rockwell championed “White Christian America” (though he was agnostic), critics such as Buckley were more likely to use Christianity as a club to attack Rockwell than to defend their supposed faith against Jewish attackers. The American government and its FBI were not besieged anti-Communist bastions but active agents in the effort to destroy Commander Rockwell and his values. As for the conservative movement, groups such as Young Americans for Freedom were far more active in protesting the relatively safe target of George Lincoln Rockwell than they were against Black Panthers.

While Rockwell (accurately) saw the white race as the necessary root of America’s achievements, conservatives identified the secondhand products of Constitutionalism or limited government as paramount. The idea that these values were doomed to destruction in a non-white America simply did not register. Though Rockwell recognized the impotence of the conservative approach, he didn’t have an effective response other than calling them stupid or cowards.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: If Rockwell had realised that the primary cause of Aryan decline in North America was Christian morality and what a few years ago I called the ‘One Ring’ (prioritising money over everything else), he wouldn’t have flown the flag of thirteen horizontal stripes and a blue rectangle with fifty white stars.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Commander Rockwell missed two critical opportunities. First, though he recognized the need for racial and class unity, Rockwell never presented a concrete program that outlined an economic and governmental alternative to American conservatism or progressivism. His National Socialism was almost exclusively focused on race, and his campaign for Governor in 1965 did not offer anything besides a promise to defeat the Civil Rights Movement. Though the later NSWPP program made a nod towards an “honest economy,” George Lincoln Rockwell never gave white workers a reason to support him besides opposition to integration. Attacks on financiers, corporate fraud, and capitalist sponsorship of the Civil Rights Movement were largely missing from his propaganda, which made it easier to paint the party as a publicity student, rather than a serious ideological movement.

Second, George Lincoln Rockwell never broke with the System as such. Even after the fiasco of his 1965 campaign, Rockwell believed that the existing democratic system could be made to work for whites, and that the American people would somehow rally to him en masse. He neglected the long, slow period of growth that the NSDAP experienced during the Kampfzeit and expected a sudden propaganda victory. Even his “Nightmare” scenario posited a foreign invasion of a white America suddenly overcome by Communist forces aligned with non-whites. This is not terribly far removed from the super-patriotism and anti-Communism of Cold War kosher conservatives.

Despite his realization that New York and not Moscow (or Jerusalem) was the center of Jewish power, Rockwell never took this insight to form a critique of the American system of government. Rockwell still wanted to defend the existing American system. The Commander believed that by simply plugging away, members of the NSWPP would somehow manage to seize the machinery of state through legal means and simply dissolve enemy institutions. In the end, white conservatives could eventually wake up and save the country from itself.

What George Lincoln Rockwell failed to understand is that American conservatism is designed to fail. The Commander was a combative conservative. He took Cold War rhetoric seriously, was outraged by moral depravity, and worried about military defeat abroad and even falling standards in the Marine Corps. Indeed, he believed American conservative propaganda more sincerely than the people who came up with it, and they hated him for it.

While liberals contemptuously connected Rockwell to conservatives, they failed to understand that American conservatism by its very nature defends the products of the nation, rather than the nation itself. Conservatives value the existing System and the people in power (regardless of who they are) far more than any eternal principle or ethnic group. Therefore, any “revolutionary” force will inspire more conservative hatred than even the most progressive fanatic, as long as the latter pledges to play by the rules of the system. No matter how rigged the rules of the game, conservatives will keep wanting to play.

Though George Lincoln Rockwell recognized America’s white racial core, he didn’t fully understand the nature of his enemies or the System they employed. The American state was not something that needed to be defended from Communists; it was an aggressor whites needed defense from. The System was already completely in the hands of his foes. Furthermore, American conservatism and its deluded followers cannot be shamed by courage, dissuaded by logic, or cowed by attack. They have to be eliminated by providing a systematic alternative on policy grounds.

Despite uniforms, swastikas, and dedication, George Lincoln Rockwell did not build a real alternative. He talked Revolution, but never broke with the System. He bashed conservatives, but spoke as one of them. He recognized the flaws of capitalism, but didn’t provide another option. He went too far for the conservatives, but not far enough to win anyone else. Finally, he simply didn’t realize the obvious reality—you might eventually get white Americans to fight for their interests as whites, but they’re never going to do it as “Nazis.”
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: The last, non-bolded words remind me of what Sebastian Ronin said a decade ago. If Ronin was right, that is, if white Americans will never become real Nazis, they are on a path to extinction.

Categories
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) George Lincoln Rockwell Racial right

Hitler, 11

Strikingly absent from Hitler’s thinking immediately following the war, and indeed for some time thereafter, was any serious anxiety about Russian power or the Soviet Union. This is not surprising, given that Germany’s main enemy had been the western allies, and the fact that Russia had been defeated by 1917. Hitler was not even worried about communism as an external threat. The impact of the Baltic emigre and ferocious anti-Bolshevik Alfred Rosenberg during this period was not significant and, in any case, the two men did not even meet until a few months later. Like many Germans, Hitler saw Bolshevism as a disease, which had knocked Russia out of the war, and then undermined German resistance a year later. He did not fear a Soviet invasion, not even after the victory of the Reds in the Civil War. Instead, Hitler fretted that communism would destroy the last vestiges of German sovereignty in the face of the Entente. ‘The threatened Bolshevik flood is not so much to be feared as the result of Bolshevik victories on the battlefields’, he warned, ‘as rather as a result of a planned subversion of our own people’, which would deliver them up to international high finance.

At this point Simms puts endnote 43 of his third chapter, and at the end of the book we can read the sources of Hitler’s words. But as I have said, in these quotations from some passages of Hitler I omit both the endnotes and the bibliographical sources.

Significantly, Hitler wasted no words on the Soviet Union in his early statements from 1919 save to predict that it was set to become a ‘colony of the Entente’. This means that capitalism and communism were not simply two equal sides of the anti­-Semitic coin for Hitler. Bolshevism was clearly a subordinate force. Its function in the Anglo-American plutocratic system was to undermine the national economies of independent states and make them ripe for takeover by the forces of international capitalism.

I find Simms’s revisionism in his biography of Hitler so fascinating that just as in ‘Hitler 6’ I interpolated 9,000 words from another author’s book to show my disagreements with Simms (in the sense that even a Jewish scholar shows the genuine motivations of Germans in the face of Jewish subversion), in ‘Hitler 12’ I will interpolate a 4,500-word article by Gregory Hood.

That article, ‘Rockwell as Conservative’, published ten years ago in Counter-Currents, is perfect for understanding the maturity I have undergone in recent years regarding the primary aetiology of white decline.

Rockwellian Nazism was America’s fascist movement par excellence when I was a child. He hated commies as much as US Senator Joseph McCarthy during the late 1940s through the 1950s. Hood shows that George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of Rockwellian Nazism, was ideologically closer to American conservatism than is generally accepted on the racial right.

I would suggest starting the reading of that 2013 article, ‘Rockwell as Conservative’ from the ninth comment in the comments section: the response from Martin Kerr, who inherited the organisation Rockwell created, as well as the brief responses from Greg Johnson.

Just because I am going to interpolate that long article by Gregory Hood into this magnifying glass review of Simms’ book doesn’t mean that I agree with what Hood has said in other articles. On the contrary: Robert Morgan and I have criticised him very harshly because, like other white nationalists, Hood is clueless on the Christian Question.

Nevertheless, his article ‘Rockwell as Conservative’ is great for understanding why Rockwell and the neo-Nazis have failed and will continue to fail. Hood’s POV aside, the continuing failure is because, unlike Hitler, these Americans haven’t transvalued their values.

But even that is another matter. What concerns us for the moment is only Hood’s criticism of Rockwell. Like today’s white nationalists, Commander Rockwell never noticed the major etiological factors of Aryan decline, only the minor ones. Otherwise, he would never have defended, as Hood does, the American flag.

Categories
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) Racial right

Hitler, 8

Brendan Simms continues in the third chapter of his book:

From mid November 1919, Hitler mounted a series of full-scale attacks in public speeches on the main enemy—‘absolute enemies England and America’. It was Britain which had been determined to prevent Germany’s rise to world power, in order not to jeopardize their ‘world monopoly’. ‘That was also the reason,’ Hitler claimed, ‘to make war on us. And now America. As a money country it had to intervene in the war in order not to lose the money they had lent.’ Here he explicitly made the link between his anti-capitalistic critique and the hostile behaviour of the western coalition. This was closely connected to Hitler’s anti-Semitism. ‘The Americans put business above all else. Money is money even if it is soaked in blood. The wallet is the holiest thing for the Jew,’ he claimed, adding: ‘America would have stuck with or without U-boats.’ What is remarkable here is that the terms ‘the Americans’ and ‘the Jews’ were used almost interchangeably.

As I said earlier, a small faction of the American racial right, represented by Francis Parker Yockey (1917-1960) and the retired Michael O’Meara (1946 – ) were, like Hitler, harsh critics of Anglo-American capitalism.

Anyone wishing to be introduced to Yockey’s thought can do so by reading Kerry Bolton’s essay, ‘A Contemporary Assessment of Yockey’, pages 47-70 of this PDF I compiled.

Anyone wishing to be introduced to O’Meara’s thought can do so by reading my excerpts from his Toward the White Republic here.

O’Meara’s Toward the White Republic was the first book published by Counter-Currents. In yesterday’s post I discussed ‘White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism’: an article by O’Meara that should have been included in Toward the White Republic (the first page of the hard copy I own contains a few words the author wrote to me). Greg Johnson delayed the publication of the short article ‘White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism’, whereas O’Meara wrote it in 2010 and Johnson published that piece in October 2011.

O’Meara always wrote very clearly, concisely and didactically, which I cannot say of Yockey, although Bolton’s essay linked above summarises Yockey’s philosophy admirably. But even if a visitor reads carefully the summaries of these two intellectuals linked above, he still won’t have arrived at the Christian Question that Hitler himself would, years later, understand. Even more than Mammon worship, the CQ has been the real poison for ethno-suicidal whites. For example, although the Chinese have become Mammon worshipers, by not submitting to Christian ethics they haven’t become ethno-suicidal like the white madmen, who import millions of coloureds. But let’s take it one step at a time. Simms continues:

If Hitler’s profound hostility to the Anglo-Saxon powers was shaped by his anti-Semitism, it was also distinct and, crucially, anterior to it. He had, after all, spent almost the entire war fighting the ‘English’, and latterly the United States. Hitler became an enemy of the British—and also of the Americans—before he became an enemy of the Jews. Indeed, he became an enemy of the Jews largely because of his hostility to the Anglo-American capitalist powers. Hitler could not have been clearer: ‘We struggle against the Jew,’ he announced at a public meeting in early January 1920, ‘because he prevents the struggle against capitalism.’

The rest of Germany’s adversaries, by contrast, fell into a second and milder category. The Russians and the French, so the argument ran, had become hostile ‘as a result of their unfortunate situation or some other circumstances’. Hitler was by no means blind to the extent of French antagonism, but it is striking that he discoursed at much greater length about the financial terms of the treaty, and the blockade, than the territorial losses to Germany’s immediate neighbours. This focus on Anglo-American, and increasingly on US, strength, with or without anti-Semitism, was by no means unusual in Germany, or even Europe generally. It reflected a much broader post-war preoccupation with the immense global power of the United States. As we shall see, Hitler’s entire thinking, and the policies of the Third Reich after 1933, were in essence a reaction to it.

Remember the words by the Canadian Ronin in my post yesterday: ‘The betrayal of the White European race stems from deep, deep within, so deep that it is not visible or obvious for most’. That’s something the white nationalists south of Canada still don’t want to see! These are the words of Greg Johnson, Michael O’Meara’s editor a dozen years ago, in the thread discussing O’Meara’s article that white nationalism, as O’Meara understood it, is not simply a synonym of anti-Semitism:

I think that O’Meara has a chip on his shoulder and is spoiling for a fight with people who are essentially on his side. I don’t see any good that can come from that.

This, of course, is to misunderstand the whole thing, as O’Meara wasn’t trying to unnecessarily provoke the Counter-Currents commentariat. What he was trying to convey is that there are more serious causal factors in white decline than Jewish subversion, and that consequently our horizon shouldn’t be limited to the JQ.

Johnson’s words quoted above are from 2011. What American white nationalists still don’t want to see, we will see in this extensive review of Simms’ revisionist biography of Hitler.

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
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) French Revolution Racial right

Hitler, 5

The normie biographer Simms writes:

The ‘Gemlich’ letter, which is the first surviving longer political text by Hitler, defined the Jewish ‘problem’ partly as a medical issue. Hitler dubbed the Jews the ‘racial tuberculosis of the peoples’. Partly, the ‘problem’ was defined in political terms, with the Jews cast as the ‘driving forces of the revolution’, which had laid Germany low. Here he was referring not to the events of 1917 in Petrograd but to the workers’ and soldiers’ councils of 1918 in Germany.

The above quote seems to suggest that this young Hitler’s view of the Jews is identical to that of contemporary white nationalism. Since my approach is different, what can I reply? Let’s summarise my view.

Christianity fried the Aryan’s brains with the doctrine that ‘all are equal in the eyes of God’ (the New Testament message of the rabbis who wrote it for us Gentiles). Yesterday, when talking about some films and the subject of the French Revolution came up (and I suggest you watch Danton instead of the crap that Ridley Scott filmed), it reminded me that the secularisation of that Christian doctrine aggravated the matter. I mean that after the French Revolution, the psyche of the Aryan went from all are equal in the eyes of God to all are equal before the law (for new visitors, see what Tom Holland says in this featured PDF to understand the process of how it went from ‘in the eyes of God’ to ‘before the law’).

Following this secularised principle originally inspired by Christianity, France was the first European country to grant civil equality to Jews. Indeed, the legal position of Jews in France was widely envied by Jews in other countries. As a result of the so-called Jewish emancipation, and because of the high IQ of the Jew compared to the common Gentile, the first thing Jewry did, courtesy of Napoleon, was to take over the media in the 19th century. Otto Glagau, who led a journal, Der Kulturkämpfer, complained: ‘No longer can we suffer to see the Jews push themselves everywhere to the front, everywhere seize leadership and dominate public opinion’.

An 1806 French print of Napoleon empowering the Jews.

The secularisation of the Christian principle was catastrophic. Kevin MacDonald makes a point in the second book of his trilogy on Jewry when he says that Christendom defended itself against Jewish subversion based on the Christian myth. But that went into crisis, as the new God of the French Revolution still rules the scale of values in the West today. While it is true, as American southern nationalist Hunter Wallace has seen, that modernity uncovered Pandora’s box, neither Wallace nor MacDonald has the meta-perspective of Tom Holland (cf. the PDF linked above).

The Christian Question (CQ) is not to be underestimated. Before modernity, when the Inquisition ruled and 16th-century Spain was wiser about the Jewish Question (JQ) than 19th-century Europe, Iberian whites committed ethno-suicide in the Americas by intermarrying with Amerinds. This historical fact is nothing less than a ‘checkmate’ to the Judeo-reductionism of the typical white nationalist. And even forgetting the miscegenation perpetrated by the Spanish and Portuguese and focusing on the history of Austria and Germany, it’s clear that Christianity is responsible for the empowerment of Jewry.

For example, many pan-Germanists were imprisoned in the late 1880s and early 1890s, and the League Against Anti-Semitism was founded in 1891 by a pacifist who was eventually awarded the Nobel Prize, Bertha von Suttner.

This wanker attracted a wide membership, mostly members of the educated and Gentile bourgeoisie and even aristocrats who were so scandalised by pan-Germanism that they denounced it as ‘the narrow beer-hall politics of the unshaven’. Quite a few Protestant clergymen and Catholic intellectuals subscribed to the League Against Anti-Semitism. As devout Christians, Bertha von Suttner and her husband Arthur founded the League in response to the growing ‘anti-Semitism’ across Europe (cf. Otto Glagau’s quote above). So this cancellation of the healthy mind represented by 19th-century pan-Germanism also came from Christians and their Christian principles of equality. That’s why, addressing today’s nationalists, Robert Morgan recently said: ‘These ignorant imbeciles complain endlessly about Jews, but who let the Jews into white society?’

In the next entry we will see that even this very young Hitler, before he became aware of the CQ, was much more mature than the white nationalists of today in that he saw that the JQ was interwoven with the most bestial of Anglo-American capitalism.

Categories
New Testament Racial right Richard Carrier

Medieval racists

This interview uploaded yesterday is fascinating, and the very fact that none of the mainstream forums of the racial right touch on the subject of textual criticism of the New Testament is symptomatic of a wilful ignorance that is deeply rooted in the movement.

Richard Miller makes a point that is obvious to me. Serious New Testament scholarship is divided into two camps: (1) those who believe that most of the NT narrative is fictional but that there is a residue that could be historical, and (2) those who maintain that it was all literary fiction from the beginning. Miller belongs to the first group and another Richard, Richard Carrier, to the second group. But the dialogue between these two camps is quite cordial, academic and respectful.

On the other hand, there are the pseudo-scholars, the fundamentalist Christians who study the NT but begin their ‘research’ with pre-established conclusions (Jesus was resurrected from the dead, etc.). Their scholarship reminds me of the medieval university in Paris where philosophy was allowed to exist but only as a handmaiden of theology. Miller has said that serious NT scholars no longer pay attention to this apologetic posturing.

The racial right, I said, as well as fundamentalists ignore serious NT scholarship: scholarship that doesn’t start from the catechism we were taught as children but uses the methodologies of contemporary historiography to evaluate New Testament texts. This became clear the last time Kevin MacDonald published an article by a fundamentalist Christian in The Occidental Observer, as I told the author himself.

Taking into account that, concerning the NT, white nationalism is still medieval and that we must ignore not only the scholarly authors (such as the apologist in MacDonald’s webzine) but the Christian commentariat of that webzine and other racialist webzines, it is more interesting to ponder who, of the two Richards, is right: the mythicist or the historicist.

It seems to me that Miller, although I have infinite respect for his work, still suffers from what in a 2012 post on this site we called the ‘Platonic fallacy’.

And incidentally, I see these two camps, represented by the two Richards, from a very different angle to their point of view: the Delphic Oracle maxim. Given that deep autobiography is my forte, and that in my life I have gone through all three stages—from traditional Christian (1960s-1980s) to secular historicist (1990s-2018), and from secular historicist to mythicist (2018 to date)—I venture to conjecture that Miller’s stance, as well as the stance of his interviewer, represent a residue of parental introjects (see my post ‘Slaves of parental introjects’).

It is so disturbing to our egos to conceive of the whole Jesus story as mere literary fiction from the pen of Jews for Aryan consumption that even accomplished rationalists like Miller, and his young interviewer, are unable to take the final step.

But as I said, the issue of which of the two Richards is right isn’t so important. What is important is that Christians on the racial right are, as far as textual criticism of the NT is concerned, in the Middle Ages. And there is little point in trying to rescue them. That’s as fool errand as wanting American evangelicals, the source of the power of the American Jewish lobby, to read Kevin MacDonald’s webzine and stop supporting Israel in the current Palestinian conflict!

The West’s Darkest Hour is not for white nationalists. It is for people honest enough to assimilate the splendid work of Miller, or Carrier. As I said, the distinction between secular historicists and mythicists is not as serious as it is when we encounter the fundamentalists, who abound on the so-called racial right, and still believe that a Jew isn’t only risen but is our Saviour.

Categories
Kevin MacDonald Racial right

My difference with white nationalism in a nutshell

Kevin MacDonald is probably the most respected figure in American white nationalism, whose message is that Jewish subversion is the primary cause of white decline. Thomas Kuhn used the Rubin vase to illustrate how a paradigm shift works: the experience of seeing either a vase or two faces before exactly the same image engages a subject’s subjectivity. For example, MacDonald tells us at the beginning of this article: ‘The Gaza war is bringing us an awesome display of Jewish power over the US media and political culture’.

I would have said: ‘The Gaza war is giving us an astonishing demonstration of the hypnotic power of Judeo-Christianity in the political culture of the United States’, in the sense that if this continent hadn’t been conquered by Christians (let’s say it had been conquered by the Vikings), the Jews wouldn’t have the power they now have in the US.

MacDonald is seeing the faces of Jewry in Rubin’s vase. I am seeing the Christian cup whose Kool-Aid turned many Americans into demented fanatics of the state of Israel. Exactly the same information, the same ‘vase’, is being processed by me and white nationalists in a radically different way!

See these excerpts from David Skrbina and Tom Holland’s books on the origins of Christianity, and what we might call atheistic hyper-Christianity, to understand what we mean.

Categories
Psychology Racial right

Christian cup

Kevin MacDonald’s most recent article, ‘Will the Gaza War Threaten Jewish Power in the U.S. and Their Status as Occupying the Moral High Ground?’, caught my attention.

KevinMac is probably the most respected figure in American white nationalism, whose message is that Jewish subversion is the primary cause of white decline. I have mentioned in the past that Thomas Kuhn used the Rubin vase to illustrate how a paradigm shift works: the experience of seeing either a vase or two faces before exactly the same image engages a subject’s subjectivity. For example, KevinMac tells us at the beginning of his article: ‘The Gaza war is bringing us an awesome display of Jewish power over the US media and political culture’.

I would have said: ‘The Gaza war is giving us an astonishing demonstration of the hypnotic power of Judeo-Christianity in the political culture of the United States’, in the sense that if this continent hadn’t been conquered by Christians (let’s say it had been conquered by the Vikings), the Jews wouldn’t have the power they now have in the US.

KevinMac is seeing the faces of Jewry in Rubin’s vase. I am seeing the Christian cup whose ‘Kool-Aid’ turned many Americans into demented fanatics of the state of Israel (to a certain degree, Ben Klassen had already detected this psychological phenomenon in the US decades ago). Exactly the same information, the same ‘vase’, is being processed by me and white nationalists in a radically different way.

Update of November 10:

Mark Weber, the head of the INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW, in his address at a London Forum meeting also viewed exclusively the faces, not the cup!

Categories
New Testament Racial right Richard Carrier

Update

I am surprised that the Christian author of The Occidental Observer (TOO) article I was talking about yesterday responded to me in several TOO comments. Generally, white nationalist Christians have simply ignored me. For example, I have said countless times that the fact that the Spanish and the Portuguese mixed their blood in Latin America since the centuries when Christianity was in good shape means that the problem of Aryan ethnosuicide is more complex than what Judeo-reductionists claim, insofar in those times the Inquisition reigned in the Americas, an institution that controlled the Jews. The American racial right has ignored these facts so many times that I gave up and resigned myself to posting almost exclusively on this site, instead of trying to communicate with them on their forums, as I did quite often in the past. That’s why the Christian author’s several responses in the TOO discussion thread surprised me.

Below I not only quote my second retort, posted today, on TOO but some other things that I would like to respond to the Christians who are commenting in that thread.

RockaBoatus, the author of the article ‘A 2000-Year-Old Rabbinical Psyop: Did Jews Invent Christianity to Deceive Gentiles?’, told me:

What you’re reading today [textual criticism of the New TestamentEd.] are simply rehashed and outdated polemics that are about 150 years old with a new sophisticated twist. Conservative biblical scholars have refuted this nonsense…

By ‘conservative biblical scholars’ what you really mean is fundamentalist scholars.

Did you notice that above [i.e., in my first retort] I mentioned Ian Wilson, an English Catholic who has defended Christianity throughout his literary career? Unlike the list of fundamentalist Christians you cite, Wilson is honest enough to agree that what you call ‘outdated polemics that are about 150 years old’ are not outdated at all (cf. his book Jesus: The Evidence).

And Miller, whom I also mentioned above [again, in my first retort], is not anti-Christian like Carrier, who was never a Christian. Miller was a fundamentalist Christian who learned Greek, Latin, German and French to study the New Testament as a full-time scholar. Only when his research was advanced did he realise that there were serious problems with the so-called scholarship promulgated by his evangelical colleagues. This passage from a YouTube interview with Miller is vital to understanding his spiritual odyssey from traditional Christianity to apostasy. In fact, that YouTube channel, with its countless interviews with other NT scholars, can serve wonderfully to answer you (which I can’t do point by point because, as I said, it would take me days).

Regarding the rest of what you say, as well as what Pierre de Craon tells me about the evangelist John, in order not to overwhelm this discussion thread I think I’ll answer it in the next entry of my blog.

The only thing I would like to clarify now is that the thesis that Judeo-Christianity is a Jewish psyop is not exactly my thesis, but Skrbina’s. Rather than blaming St Paul et al, I blame Constantine and the house of Constantine (except Julian) for using the most toxic religion of the Mediterranean, the one inspired by intolerant Judaism, to control the population of the empire. If you don’t want to read the mini-book by the Spaniard Velasco that I linked above, see at least these excerpts from Vlassis Rassias’ book about how the Judeo-Christians of the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries destroyed the temples, sculptures, art and books of the classical world.

That is the starting point to understand the darkest hour of the West.

______ 卐 ______

 
The above is what I posted today on TOO. In one of his several replies to my yesterday’s retort, RockaBoatus said: ‘Jews did NOT “invent” Christianity.’ But he omits that St Paul was Jewish. He omits that the rabid hatred of John of Patmos, the author of the last book of the Christian Bible, was anti-Roman and that the ‘Seven Churches’ to which he wrote (Book of Revelation, 1:11) were in towns replete with Jews. He also omits that even Christian theologians admit that evangelists like Matthew were Jewish, and also the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Another Christian, who has frequently commented on TOO discussion threads, Pierre de Craon, responded to me by claiming: ‘attributing Revelation to John the Apostle is a sound judgment.’

That caught my attention since the consensus of New Testament scholarship is that the Book of Revelation dates from the end of the first century c.e., and a putative apostle from the beginning of the 1st century wouldn’t have lived that long. But to understand cultured Christians like Pierre de Craon I would like to digress a bit.

NT scholars can be classified into three groups: fundamentalists (there are also Catholic fundamentalists, not just Protestants, who believe in the historicity of the Garden of Eden, etc.), liberal Christians and non-Christians.

Since I come from a very Catholic family, in the 1980s I began to read liberal theologians, such as Hans Küng, who unlike the fundamentalists incorporated, to a certain extent, the textual criticism of the NT that has been doing since the Enlightenment, sometimes admirably summarised by Christians such as Albert Schweitzer’s classic The Quest of the Historical Jesus.

Fundamentalists haven’t responded honestly to this textual criticism which, I insist, sometimes comes from exegetes who have not apostatised from Christianity. And exactly the same can be said of the racial right.

Generally, Christians on the racial right as Pierre de Craon belong to the first group: that of Catholic and Protestant traditionalists. They haven’t even managed to assimilate what the liberal Christians have conceded long ago (e.g., Schweitzer’s 1906 classic). In my first retort I mentioned Ian Wilson, who with his books on the Shroud of Turin has even tried to create a kind of contemporary apologetics to support the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. But many of the Christians who comment these days in the discussion thread of the aforementioned TOO article don’t even know that a textual criticism of the NT exists: criticism that Christians like Wilson have already incorporated, for so many decades, into their way of seeing the world.

And what about the third group: the non-Christian scholars who dedicate themselves to studying the NT? What does one of them say about the book of Revelation, say, Carrier?

Revelation was written in the reign of Domitian (the 80s or 90s AD) and used Matthew as its base text. It is indeed an anti-Pauline document, but so is Matthew. And both were written in Greek, and thus for audiences outside Palestine. There is no evidence anyone was alive at that time who would know anything first-hand about the origins of Christianity, least of all the Pillars (they would be two generations gone by then), much less any who would ever have even heard of, much less read, Revelation (or Matthew for that matter). We also have no reactions to Revelation’s publication, so we have no idea how anyone responded to it anyway.

Revelation references no sources; in fact, it claims to have all its information from mystical visions, not any objective evidence at all. Someone, in other words, just dreamed all this (or was claiming to). And so far as we know it had no sources, other than “The Gospel according to Matthew,” which was simply an expanded redaction of the “Gospel according to Mark.” Revelation is therefore derivative and thus cannot corroborate anything. All it does is prove Matthew’s historicism existed at that time. Which we already know—from Matthew (and Mark, whose text is even earlier). It therefore can have no effect on the probability of historicity. Once the Gospels exist, it is already 100% expected there will exist texts expanding and riffing on them, like this, regardless of whether Jesus existed or not. So we are back to simply assessing the probability of the Gospels.

Nevertheless, Revelation is actually a little cagey about whether historicity is actually true, rather than symbolically represented. In Rev. 11 it sufficiently implies Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem; but in Rev. 12, Jesus is born in a lower heaven (in the vicinity of the moon), and soon whisked away to even higher levels of heaven, and seems never to leave there (in a manner that fits the Star Gospel that in OHJ I find in Ignatius and the Ascension of Isaiah). So it’s unclear which version of events the author believed actual and which merely allegorical. It could be both, depending on one’s level of initiation at the time, just as was the case for Osiris cult.

But regardless, since the author shows no sign of having any sources of information other than the Gospels we already know about, and his own imagination, it doesn’t matter. We can’t use it to prove anything in the Gospels is true. We can only use it to prove they were circulating by then, which we already knew, and thus already accounted for.

Based on what I said recently about my autobiographical work and how I can recover my previous Christian selves in exercises of the imagination, people like Miller and I are capable of psychically ‘encompassing’ folks like the Christians who comment in TOO. But they cannot return the favour because they have never experienced any apostasy in their minds (let’s say, that an apostate like Miller returned to the shelter of fundamentalist Christianity).

Update of November 6th

My last comment in that TOO thread was posted today.