Huxley noted that all actions of extraordinary men in the Americanized future—given that their acts do not fall into the egalitarian scheme—“will be regarded as a crime.” He wrote, “In this reversal of the old values, I see a real danger, a menace to all desirable progress.”
—Homo Americanus, chapter 2
“America is the least homogeneous country in the Western hemisphere… But there is one common feature which is characteristic for all Americans, regardless of their social and racial background or status; namely their rejection of their previous roots.”
—Homo Americanus, chapter 1
“The American species, Homo americanus, exists all over Europe now… Following the Second World War, hundreds of European and American authors were removed from library shelves on the basis of their allegedly extremist, racist and unscientific character.”
—Homo Americanus, chapter 1
“Ethnic or racial discrimination, let alone charges of anti-Semitism, are viewed in postmodern Americanism as the ultimate intellectual sin…
Certain dogmatic views, particularly those regarding the sacred Jewish question and inherent goodness of non-European races, are imposed by force and must be accepted by all…”
Homo Americanus, chapter 1
“It must be recalled that the passionate American desire to make the world safer for democracy also led, after World War II, to the creation of the Nuremberg Tribunal whose legal structures make up the judicial framework of the postmodern European Union, including the European Criminal Code… They opened up, long ago, a Pandora Box.”
—Homo Americanus, chapter 2
Is it not “self-evident” that men are different?
Homo Americanus, chapter 2
However, there seems to be a contradiction in their [white racialists’] analyses regarding the waning of the Euro-American world. While they bewail the passing of the white race, they fail to critically examine the economic foundations of Americanism, i.e. an ideology that is fully propitious for low wage non-European immigrant workers…
Why should one worry about the passage of the great white race if that race has only been involved in endless economic transactions? This seems to be a feature of many white American racialists who stubbornly refuse to criticize capitalism…
Homo Americanus, chapter 1
Lawrence R. Brown, in his magnum opus The Might of the West… acknowledges that the Declaration was a form of political theology, compatible with the spirit of the time of the Enlightenment, and therefore replete with platitudes and “self-evident” truths.
The Preamble of the Declaration could very well fit into the Middle Ages.
Homo Americanus, chapter 1
Both the American and the Soviet experiments were founded on the same principles of egalitarianism…
At the beginning of the third millennium, the immense egalitarian meta-narrative, encapsulated in Americanism, is very much alive… Both Homo sovieticus and Homo americanus herald the slogan that all men are created equal…
All academic discussions about genetic or racial differences are quickly neutralized by the all-encompassing words such as “racism” or “hate speech.”
Homo Americanus, chapter 2
My latest two posts dealt with Hadding Scott’s article about Dylann Roof. Today Tom Sunic took issue with the arguments of the commenters I reproduced in those posts:
Hadding is correct when stressing the importance of education in white awareness—white civility might be a better locution. This is a long and painful process. The Soviet commissars in the 70’s were far more afraid of the pen of the one single Solzhenitsyn than of millions of Bible- thumping anti-commie preachers in the USA. If Roof had had a foresight of the standard “who benefits?” question, he would have never done the killing. Unless he himself has either a very low IQ, or worse, a sizable portion of criminal chromosomes, which, to be sure one encounters among some wannabe EU and US Hollywood- Nazis and self-proclaimed White nationalists, whose actions discredit the plight of millions of other Whites.
Jack Frost responded first by quoting Sunic:
“The Soviet commissars in the 70’s were far more afraid of the pen of the one single Solzhenitsyn than of millions of Bible-thumping anti-commie preachers in the USA…”
This is the same Solzhenitsyn who said:
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?
Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if… We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more—we had no awareness of the real situation… We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.
“Education” or agitprop has its place, but in my view it’s primarily a recruitment tool. Without people willing to take action it’s useless. Eventually things come to a pass where action is required, and that’s where people like Roof and Mathews come in. I have to say that I think anyone who denigrates the actions of our street fighters or disavows them is deeply mistaken and acting in a disgraceful fashion. Withholding an endorsement is one thing, but actively attacking them and giving support to the oppressive system is really what’s foolish and counter-productive.
See also my comment below.
