Category: William Pierce

Who We Are, 19

Post author By C .T.
Post date December 24, 2012

The following is my abridgement of chapter 19 of William Pierce’s history of the white race, Who We Are:

Iberians, Phoenicians, Celts, Romans, Goths, Jews,
and Moors Gave Spain Racial Diversity
Jews Infest Spain, Betray it to Muslim Invaders
Moors End Gothic Rule, Are Stopped by Franks
White Reconquest of Spain Takes Over 700 Years

Just as the southeastern-most region of Europe—the lands bordering the Black Sea on the west and north—has been a borderland contested between Whites and non-Whites over the course of most of our recorded history, so also has Europe’s southwesternmost projection, the Iberian peninsula, been a racial battlefield throughout the centuries. Serving as a natural gateway into Europe from Africa, Iberia has repeatedly been used by invaders from the south, and the racial consequences may be seen in Spain and Portugal today, where an exceptionally wide range of racial types is to be found.

Greeks and Celts. Cadiz, Malaga, and Cordoba were all established originally by the Phoenicians, and the name Spain itself is of Phoenician origin.

As early as 600 B.C. the Greeks had also established colonies in Iberia, mainly on the coast of northern Catalonia (the northeastern part of the peninsula), for the same reason as the Phoenicians. The Greeks later expanded southward along the Catalonian coast and down into Valencia.

Around 500 B.C. the first Celts arrived. Only in the northwestern part of Iberia, in Galicia and Asturias, did the Celts remain relatively unmixed.

The Basques have undoubtedly undergone a certain amount of racial admixture with Indo-Europeans over the last 2,500 years, but their speech remains as the sole example of a Mediterranean language still extant on western European soil.

In 480 B.C. the Carthaginians, a Semitic people of Phoenician origin, in response to a plea for help from their Phoenician cousins in Cadiz who were attempting to put down an Iberian insurrection, invaded the peninsula. Once in, the Carthaginians decided to stay and they settled down to a long period of expansion and economic exploitation.

Semitic Beachhead. In 237 B.C., after the First Punic War, in which Rome took Sicily away from Carthage, the Carthaginians made the fateful decision to strengthen their beachhead on European soil. They began a general conquest and colonization of those parts of Iberia not already under their control. During this process the Carthaginian general Hamilcar Barca founded the cities of Cartagena and Barcelona, the latter named for his own family.

Rome regarded the Carthaginian moves in Iberia—in particular, the siege of the Greek colony of Saguntum (modern Sagunto, on the Valencian coast)—as a casus belli; thus commenced the Second Punic War. After a long and difficult struggle against the redoubtable Hannibal, Rome crushed Carthage and found herself in possession of a new province: Iberia. Although it then took the Romans 75 years to pacify all the Iberians, Celts, and Celtiberians of the peninsula, it remained Roman for more than five centuries. The Roman imprint on Spanish culture and politics, as well as on the racial destiny of the peninsula was very strong.

The Roman conquest ended the power of the Semitic Carthaginians in Iberia, but on the heels of Rome’s legions came another plague of Semites to batten on the rich province: the Jews. In their inimitable fashion they wormed their way into every aspect of the Iberian economy, and it was not long before there was hardly a commercial transaction anywhere in the peninsula in which money did not rub off on some Jew’s palm.

So many Jews flocked to Roman Spain, and they multiplied so prodigiously there, that today the Jews of the world still divide themselves into two categories: those descended from the Jews of the Iberian peninsula, who are called Sephardim, and those descended from the Jews who battened on central and eastern Europe instead, who are called Ashkenazim. Spain was for the Jews like New York and Miami Beach rolled into one: a commercial center with great natural resources where they could become filthy rich, and a place in the sun where they could then sit on their accumulated shekels in leisure and comfort.

Jews vs. Goths. Euric may be considered the founder of the Gothic Kingdom of Spain. He died in 484. His successors, Visigoths and Ostrogoths, ruled the peninsula for the next 227 years.

By the time of Recared I, who reigned from 585 to 601, Gothic Spain was again renowned for its wealth—and again the Jews found that wealth irresistible. The Goths, however, were not so willing as the Romans had been to allow the Jews to eat up the whole country, and in consequence there was almost continual strife between Goths and Jews, with the latter incessantly scheming, agitating, and whining of “persecution.”

Much to their later regret, the Goths did not deal decisively with their Jewish problem. Instead, they allowed themselves to be convinced by their bishops that a sprinkling of holy water would cure the Jews of their ancestral ways. King Sisibert, around the year 620, forced 80,000 Jews to be baptized, and an even larger number were driven from the kingdom.

Half a century later one of his successors, Wamba, was obliged to take similar measures against the Jews, so troublesome had they again become. In 673 he expelled from the Gothic realm all who would not submit to baptism, while the citizens of several Spanish communities acted on their own initiative and dealt with local Jewish merchants and moneylenders in a more forceful and effective way.

Although King Wamba was a strong ruler, who successfully put down a Basque rebellion and maintained his frontiers against his Frankish neighbors to the north and Arab pirates raiding by sea from the south, prosperity had already begun taking its toll of Gothic vigor. It was Wamba’s immediate predecessor, Recesuinto [Recceswinth], who, at the insistence of the Church, took the first direct step toward Gothic racial suicide (if we do not count as such Sisibert’s allowing baptized Jews to pass as Gentiles a few years earlier) when he abolished the longstanding ban against intermarriage.

Prior to Recesuinto’s reign, the racial pride of the Goths had remained intact. None but Goths might rule, and Goths might marry none but Goths. The penalty for violation of this ban was quite severe: both partners were burned at the stake. Thus, the blood of the Goths had remained unmixed with that of their Roman, Iberian, and Jewish subjects. Recesuinto allowed Goths to marry baptized Jews and anyone else who claimed Christian beliefs, and the nobility of Spain has since been tainted heavily with the Semitic blood of department-store heiresses, or the equivalent thereof in that pre-department-store era.

The Jews conspired all the more against the Goths, and the successors of Recesuinto and Wamba were obliged to take measures against them on a number of occasions. They failed, however, to rid their kingdom of the pestilence, because they did not apply the same measures against baptized Jews as against their unbaptized brethren. This shortsightedness finally led to the undoing of the Goths during the reign of Roderic, who took the throne in 709.

While the men of Roderic’s race had grown soft and indecisive over the course of the dozen generations which had passed since the time of Adolf, unable finally even to cope with a gaggle of money-hungry Semites in their midst, a new Semitic danger had begun to rise to the south of them.

Fall of Spain. Treason delivered Ceuta into the hands of the Arabs and their allies in 711, and an Arab-Moorish invasion force sailed across the strait and seized a beachhead in Andalusia. Roderic’s army fought the invaders in a fierce, three-day battle at Xeres (now Jerez de la Frontera), about 13 miles inland from Cadiz, under a blazing July sun. The Moors under their Berber general Tariq, won, and the Goths retreated to their cities.

The Gothic cities were well fortified and had withstood Arab raiding parties more than once, but as soon as Tariq’s dusky horde appeared outside the walls of each city in 711, the Jews inside, by prearrangement, threw open the gates.

For their part, the Jews were more than ready to trade masters. They had hopes, which were soon realized, that under Arab rule they would be able to regain the wealth, power, and privileged position they had held under the Romans. They bitterly hated the Goths for attempting to assimilate them into the Spanish population and make them work for their daily bread alongside Christian Spaniards.

Before word of the Jews’ treachery could be spread and the Goths could separate them—baptized and otherwise—from the general population and neutralize them, the invaders held virtually all the strong-points. Within a few months the greater part of Gothic Spain was in Muslim hands, and only scattered survivors made their way northward across the Pyrenees or into one of two remaining Gothic enclaves. One of these, in the southeast, fell to the Arabs a few years later. Only in the mountains of the north, in Asturias, were the Goths able to hold back the Semitic tide permanently.

Even today, twelve centuries after the fact, Jews still gather in their synagogues on holidays to gloat over their destruction of the Goths, and Jewish writers openly boast of their treachery. The popular Jewish author and lecturer, Max I. Dimont, has taken particular satisfaction in the fate of the Gothic women, both in Spain and in those areas of Gaul subject to Moorish raiding parties from the south. In his best-selling book, The Indestructible Jews, Dimont writes:

“As blond Christian maidens fetched fancy prices in the slave markets, raids in Christian lands by Muslim private entrepreneurs became big business. Female captives were pedigreed like dogs. Their Christian antecedents, their genuine blondness, their virginity, and their ability to bear children were all ascertained and notarized before they were marketed.”

Dimont discreetly avoids mentioning that the slave merchants doing the pedigreeing and marketing of these White girls were, in most cases, Jews. What he does say is: “From the inception of Islam’s conquest, Spanish Jews had soared to the highest government posts. A series of brilliant Jewish viziers—viceroys—enriched the caliphate’s coffers and helped usher in an age of splendor and learning.”

Battle of Tours. The victorious Semites and their mixed-race allies from north Africa did not long remain content with their conquests south of the Pyrenees. In 722 they invaded Gothic Gaul and seized Narbonne, Carcassonne, and several other towns. Ten years later, with an enormous army of Arabs and Moors behind him, the Arab governor of Spain, Abd ar-Rahman (whose name is spelled in various ways by different authors), began a new drive to the north, laying waste Gothic and Frankish areas of Gaul alike. His aim was to add all of Europe to the Muslim realm.

(A self-depiction by the Muslims in Iberia)

Eudes, also known as Odo, the Gothic count of Aquitaine, tried to hold back the invaders at the Garonne but failed. He then combined his remaining forces with an army of Franks and German volunteers from across the Rhine, under the leadership of Charles (Karl), count of the Austrasian Franks. The armies of Charles and Abd ar-Rahman met in the rolling champagne country of east-central France, between the towns of Tours and Poitiers, in October 732. The ensuing battle was one of the most momentous in the history of our race.

The great historian Edward Gibbon also draws on medieval sources in his description of the battle:

No sooner had (Charles) collected his forces than he sought and found the enemy in the center of France, between Tours and Poitiers. His well-conducted march was covered by a range of hills, and Abderame appears to have been surprised by his unexpected presence. The nations of Asia, Africa, and Europe advanced with equal ardor to an encounter which would change the history of the world. In the six first days of desultory combat, the horsemen and archers of the East maintained their advantage: but in the closer onset of the seventh day the Orientals were oppressed by the strength and stature of the Germans, who, with stout hearts and iron hands, asserted the civil and religious freedom of their posterity. The epithet of Martel, the Hammer, which has been added to the name of Charles, is expressive of his weighty and irresistible strokes….

The victory of the Franks was complete and final; Aquitaine was recovered by the arms of Eudes; the Arabs never resumed the conquest of Gaul, and they were soon driven beyond the Pyrenees by Charles Martel and his valiant race.

Though forced to retreat south of the Pyrenees, the Arabs and the other Muslim invaders of Spain remained in the peninsula for nearly 800 years, and the genetic damage they wrought there was great. Islam, like Christianity, makes no distinction of race; all that counts is religion, not blood.

After this the Arabs and Moors were gradually pushed back toward Africa in a series of bloody wars with their neighbors to the north. Not until 1492 was the reconquest of the peninsula finally completed. In that year the unbaptized Jews were expelled en masse from the country they had betrayed eight centuries earlier, and the remaining pockets of Moors followed them ten years later. The Inquisition, which had been established in 1478, dealt to a limited extent with the baptized Jews.

Tags Christian problem (CP), Germany, History, Jewish Question (JQ), Spain

Ethnic cleansing Islam Miscegenation Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Who We Are, 20

The following is my abridgement of chapter 20 of William Pierce’s history of the white race, Who We Are:

Unending Struggle Between European and Asian in the East
Slavic Lands Repeatedly Overrun by Asian Hordes
Sviatoslav, Viking Ruler, Stamps out Khazar Pest
Mongol Terror Rules Russia for 250 Years

Today the geographical boundary between Europe and Africa-Asia runs roughly from the Strait of Gibraltar eastward across the Mediterranean to the Aegean Sea, along the eastern and northern shores of the Black Sea, thence along the spine of the Caucasus range to the Caspian Sea, and northward along the Urals to the Arctic Ocean. Somewhat more roughly a racial boundary follows the same course, dividing Whites to the north and west from non-Whites to the south and east.

Throughout history the borderlands on either side of this boundary have been contested between White and non-White, between European and Asian, and the contest has been fiercer, bloodier, crueler, and more unrelenting than any of the wars Europeans have fought among themselves. This is as it should be, considering the vastly greater stakes: when European fought European, the outcome determined which sovereign taxes would be paid to or the language one’s descendants would speak, but when European fought Asian the issue was whether or not one’s descendants would be White.

Three-phase Struggle. The contest actually began long before the dawn of history, nearly 10,000 years ago, when the Mediterraneans of northern Africa and the Middle East began infiltrating Europe during the Neolithic period, Mediterraneanizing the southern coastal regions of the continent.

The second phase began about 6,000 years ago with a European counterattack. The Nordic Indo-Europeans sent wave after wave of conquerors, not only into Mediterraneanized Southern Europe and the Cro-Magnon realm in the North, but also into Asia and northern Africa. This phase lasted roughly 4,000 years and, as we have seen in earlier installments in this series, had mixed success.

The third phase began about 16 centuries ago, in the year 372, when the Huns came swarming around the north end of the Caspian Sea into southern Russia, a Brown pestilence from Mongolia.

Europe managed to stem the Brown tide in each case, but only at enormous cost. Huge areas of Europe were overrun by the Huns and their successors: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, Magyars, Patzinaks, Cumans, Mongols, and Ottomans. Sometimes it was more than a century before the invaders could be expelled, and a great deal of racial mixing took place meanwhile.

Some European territory was lost permanently. Even today a large section of the ancient Indo-European homeland on the western shore of the Caspian Sea remains racially Mongoloid, while pockets of racially mixed population can be found throughout Eastern and Southeastern Europe. In other areas the languages of the invaders have displaced the original European languages, even where most of the Asian genes left behind have been thoroughly diluted.

Will there be a fourth phase in the age-old struggle between Europe and Asia? Without a doubt, although it is difficult to forecast the exact form it will take, or even which side will be on the offensive. Certainly, Central Asia has thoroughly lost the threatening aura it had in the days of Genghis Khan and the Golden Horde, and modern Turkey, wracked by internal problems, does not seem a menace to Europe, except in the stream of immigrant workers it is sending into the Western nations.

On the other hand racial Europe—including both Russia and the United States—is as disunited and as spiritually confused as it has ever been. If it is to regain the initiative in the struggle for possession of the planet, it must first regain a measure of unity, based on racial consciousness, and build new spiritual foundations for itself. The principal purpose of this series is to aid in the building of the necessary racial consciousness. So, let us begin looking again at the details.

End of the Golden Age. Perhaps the greatest tragedy of the Hun invasion was the disaster which befell the Alans. The godlike race of Odin and Frigg, of Thor and Balder, met its Ragnarok.

Although the Alan nation was not annihilated, its Golden Age was over. Some were driven south into mountain strongholds high in the Caucasus, where they maintained a national identity for another five centuries. Others fled westward, and most of these shared the fate of the Vandals in Africa. The rest became vassals of the Huns and were turned against their own race.

Then, in the middle of the sixth century, even before Europe had recovered from the desolation left by the Huns, the next Brown wave struck. Driven westward by intertribal warfare in Central Asia, an amalgamation of Mongol tribes known to Europeans as the Avars invaded the Russian steppe in 560. Conquering the Slavs as they went, they were only halted when they came up against the Franks on the Elbe, in 562.

The Avars virtually annihilated the Gepids, to which nation the noble Ardaric, vanquisher of the Huns, had belonged, and seized the Gepids’ territory in Pannonia (modern Hungary), thenceforth centering the Avar empire there. They also dislodged the German Lombards (Langobarden, i.e., “long-beards”) from their ancestral lands, and the latter then invaded Italy, seizing most of the northern half of the peninsula (568-572) and making Pavia the capital of a new Lombard kingdom.

The Avar strength peaked before 600 and declined quite rapidly thereafter, except in Pannonia. Throughout the first quarter of the seventh century one group of Slavs after another asserted its independence of the Avar rulers, and by 626, in which year an Avar attack on Constantinople was repelled, the Slavs had inherited nearly the whole of the Avar empire outside Pannonia.

In 576 another Brown wave lapped at Europe’s eastern frontier, as a Turkish tribe invaded the Caucasus and established a beachhead along the northwestern shore of the Caspian. Compared to the two waves which had preceded them, this was a relatively minor one, but it was to have by far the most lethal consequence for Europe in the long run: the new invaders called themselves Khazars.

Origin of the Ashkenazim. The Khazars themselves also underwent a transformation during the eighth century: they adopted Judaism as their religion, and thereafter their national character began to change. From a warlike, nomadic people interested mainly in raiding and fighting, they became a nation of armed merchants and tax collectors. As the principal power in the region north of the Caucasus, they controlled trade between the Arab power to the south, the Turkish power to the east, the Volga-Bulgar power to the north, the Magyar power to the west, and the Byzantine power to the southwest.

Unfortunately, a substantial portion of the trade controlled by the Khazars was in White slaves, with the Slavs bearing the brunt. So many Slavs, both male and female, were shipped southward and eastward by their Khazar rulers that their very name gave rise to the word “slave.”

Birth of a Nation. Rurik arrived in northern Russia, near Novgorod, in or about the year 856, and his arrival is considered to mark the beginning of Russian national history.

Prince Rurik, ruler of Novgorod, died in 879, and he was succeeded by his kinsman Oleg, a Norwegian by birth, who united the principalities of Novgorod and Kiev and then energetically expanded the territory under Rus rule. Viking Russia rapidly became the principal power in the east.

In 964 Rurik’s grandson Sviatoslav, later acclaimed “the Great,” ascended the throne of Russia. Christian missionaries were beginning to ply their trade in Russia, and Sviatoslav’s mother Olga had allowed herself to be baptized, but this proud Viking lord would have none of it; he insisted on holding to the faith of his Scandinavian forebears.

It is fitting that such a warrior, almost as soon as he took the rule, chose as his first task the elimination of the Khazar pestilence. In 965 he utterly laid waste the Khazar empire (to the accompaniment, no doubt, of loud wails protesting his “anti-Semitism”). It can only be regretted that he did not hunt down and dispatch the last member of the tribe; instead he merely scattered them to the four winds, and their descendants, who make up the bulk of eastern Europe’s Jews, are taking their revenge to this day on the White world.

Back in Central Europe the Magyars, as soon as they had taken possession of Hungary, became the scourge of their German, Slav, and Byzantine neighbors for the next half century, raiding as far afield as Bremen, Orleans, and Constantinople. In 954 a raiding party of close to 100,000 Magyars swept through Bavaria and into Franconia, crossed the Rhine at Worms, and devastated northeastern France. They raped, burned, and butchered their way through Rheims and Chalons into Burgundy, then crossed the Alps into Italy to pillage Lombardy.

Again it was the Germans to the rescue. The following year another Magyar army invaded Bavaria and besieged Augsburg. Otto I, the Saxon king, arrived with an army of only 10,000 men and annihilated the Magyar force, in the battle of the Lechfeld. The Germans pursued and slew fleeing Magyars for three days following the battle, and the Magyars were never after that a major threat to Europe.

Diversity of the Invaders. It should be noted here that there was a fair amount of diversity in the various Asian waves which had been impinging on Europe’s eastern frontier since the fourth century. All the groups involved spoke languages of the Ural-Altaic group (the Magyars spoke a Uralic language; all the others spoke Altaic); they were all mounted nomads; and they all contained a strong Mongoloid racial element.

It was primarily in this last feature that the diversity was found. Each group passed through a vast expanse of territory in reaching Europe, and this territory was not empty. Although the Sarmatians were the last White group to enter Europe from the east, there were other Whites left in Turkistan—and even further east—who didn’t make it to Europe before the first Brown wave from Central Asia washed over them and submerged them.

Some of the Asian invaders traveled quite rapidly through the peoples between their own homelands and Europe, absorbing little if any White blood on the way, while others took centuries to make the passage. Even those who did not linger among White or part-White populations often had absorbed some White genes as a result of the slave trade. From the fourth century through the 15th century there was an enormous traffic in White slaves, with millions of Slavs trudging eastward in slave caravans.

Thus, while the Mongols who struck in the 13th century passed like lightning from Mongolia to the eastern border of Europe, their chieftain, Genghis Khan, was described by contemporaries as having green eyes and reddish hair—undoubtedly a consequence of the slave trade. Some Turkish leaders were described as almost White in appearance.

Finally, we must remember that race treason is not a new phenomenon. Conquered Slav, Sarmatian, and German peoples sometimes became military auxiliaries of their Brown conquerors. When Attila was defeated by the Visigoths in 451 at Chalons, his horde consisted not only of Brown Huns but also of a number of White allies from the territories through which he had passed.

“Lord of the Earth.” The first years of the 13th century saw the rise of the next and most terrible of the Asian menaces. In 1206 a Mongol chieftain, Temujin, succeeded in unifying the numerous, perennially quarreling factions and tribes of Mongolia. He then set out on a career of conquest which has never been equaled. In preparation for this career he changed his name to Genghis Khan, “lord of the earth.”

Genghis Khan’s first raiding parties reached Europe in 1221 and won several victories over the princes of southern Russia. He died in 1227, giving Europe a brief respite which it failed to put to good use. When the Mongol horde appeared on Europe’s border again in 1236, a campaign of terror not matched since the days of the Huns was unleashed.

Whole areas of southern Russia were depopulated, and Mongol raiders struck deep into the Balkans, Hungary, northern Russia, Poland, and even Germany. In scenes foreshadowing the winter of 1944-5, hundreds of thousands of terrified refugees fled westward as the Mongols, moving rapidly across frozen rivers in the dead of winter, destroyed everything in their path. In Russia the Mongols even sent squadrons back into cities which had been sacked a few days earlier, in order to hunt down and kill any survivors who might have crept out of their hiding places.

An army of Germans, Poles, and Teutonic Knights, under the command of Duke Henry II of Silesia, attempted to halt the Mongols at Liegnitz, Prussia. In a battle fought there on April 9, 1241, the Europeans were decisively defeated. Just two days later another Mongol column completely destroyed the Hungarian army at the SajoRiver, about 100 miles northeast of Budapest.

These two crushing defeats left Central Europe completely at the mercy of the Mongols, who proceeded to consolidate their hold on Hungary and made plans to invade Italy, Austria, and Germany the following winter.

Just after Christmas of 1241 they started westward across the frozen Danube—when suddenly a messenger arrived from Karakorum, 6,000 miles to the east, bearing word that Ogatai, Genghis Khan’s successor, had died. The Mongols immediately turned their army around and marched back to the east, never to return.

All of eastern and southern Russia remained under occupation by the Mongol horde, however, and the rest of Russia escaped occupation only by acknowledging itself a vassal state and paying tribute to the Mongols.

[After a few paragraphs Pierce writes of another type of calamity of Asian invaders into Europe: the Muslims]

The most effective means which the Ottomans employed in their struggle against White Europe, and the most humiliating to their White adversaries, was their corps of Janissaries. The Janissaries were the Ottomans’ elite army and they were entirely White.

During the reign of Emir Orkhan (1326-1359), the Ottoman ruler who first seized European soil, an edict was issued commanding the Emir’s White subjects to deliver to him each year exactly 1,000 young, male children.

These children, who were required to have faces “white and shining,” were torn from their mothers’ breasts and then raised by the Turks with special care and rigor, trained in arms from a tender age and conditioned to give absolute obedience to their masters. Their military discipline was especially severe, but they were liberally rewarded for courage and proficiency.

The yearly levy of 1,000 White children was continued for 300 years, until 1648, and during that period the Janissaries came to be the most efficient and feared corps of warriors in the world. They sustained the Turkish power in Central Europe, while the Mongol power in Eastern Europe withered.

Hungary was the unfortunate battleground between Europeans and the Turks and their Janissaries during much of this time, with ownership of various parts or the whole passing back and forth from one side to the other.

At times the Turks entertained dreams of a general conquest of Europe, and it was not until the failure of their second siege of Vienna in 1683 that they began a slow retreat which lasted almost another two and one-half centuries. Even today Turkey retains a beachhead of several thousand square miles on the European side of the Bosporus.

Bastardized Balkans. The Ottoman Turks were the last of the Asian invaders of Europe, but they were certainly not the least. Their occupation has left as severe a racial imprint on the Balkan peoples—Yugoslavs, Albanians, Greeks, Bulgarians, and Rumanians—as the Mongol occupation did on the Russians.

Nevertheless, there remain today many groups throughout the Balkans which are as White as any group in Western Europe: some are immigrants from the north during recent centuries, while others are the descendants of clans and tribes which jealously guarded the purity of their blood and were able to avoid substantial racial mixture even during the darkest days of Asian occupation.

Tags Asia, Europe, History, Jewish Question (JQ), Middle Ages, Russia

Axiology Eschatology Mainstream media Turner Diaries (novel) William Pierce

A postscript to Dies Irae

On the morality of dispatching
500 million of degenerate whites

The following are excerpts from Andrew Hamilton’s November article, “Flawed Racism,” potentially the most axiological-shattering article that, without the knowledge of its readership including the author himself, has been published at Counter-Currents:

The depth of evil

The mass media and state-controlled education have displaced the family in the formation and transmission of attitudes, beliefs, behavior, and culture. In addition, the mass media winnows candidates for public office at every level, thereby exerting effective control over the (formerly) democratic political process.

There are many unexplored reasons why TV, movies, video games, pop music, and other forms of media exercise such tremendous influence over our ideas and behavior. A “simple” one, I believe, is the (literal) hypnotic effect they have on us.

The Jews, as William Pierce recognized, control the mass media of news and entertainment (which he invariably denominated the “controlled media”). There is perhaps no other truism of modern life that he emphasized so repeatedly. It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that he never developed, or at least never publicly articulated, a theory of media control, or analyzed the nexus between media messages and human psychology and behavior. Instead, he stated his case axiomatically:

By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by parents, schools, or any other influence… To permit the Jews, with their 3000-year history of nation-wrecking, from ancient Egypt to Russia, to hold such power over us is tantamount to race suicide…

William Pierce also taught that the vast majority of whites are neither good nor evil; they will think and behave in whatever manner the powers that be direct them to. Most people that is, will conform and obey, no matter what. (Pierce called them “lemmings.”)

Only a tiny handful, he said, are truly good or evil—he estimated 1 to 3 percent in either direction. For some reason he believed the number of “good” people, though exceedingly small, was roughly double the number of intrinsically bad people.

My own inclination is perhaps closer to the Christian belief that humans are afflicted with original sin, and can only be saved (become good) through a process of change and redemption.

What I failed to realize for many years was the depth of the evil and the resistance to individual redemption. Obviously, if people are evil when evil people rule, and good only when good people rule, they are not really good.

Nevertheless, people’s beliefs and behaviors can change radically. Change (for the worse) during my lifetime has been massive. Of course, it is easier to destroy than to build.

Unfortunately, if Pierce’s assumptions are correct—and, apart from his optimistic overestimation of the number of good to evil people, they appear to be—then it is comparatively easy with modern technology and dedicated ruthlessness for a small, domineering elite to continuously identify and destroy the tiny handful of good people on the margin, as they did under Communism and have continued to do in the post-WWII era.

As a result, whites opposed to genocide or totalitarianism have failed to gain any traction.

My thoughts

“What I failed to realize for many years was the depth of the evil and the resistance to individual redemption. Obviously, if people are evil when evil people rule, and good only when good people rule, they are not really good,” wrote Hamilton.

In other words, people, including the overwhelming majority of whites, are not really good.

If they are not good what could be wrong with the genocidal fantasy in my “Dies Irae”, with a vindictive Star Child calling home 500 million whites (and of course, all non-whites, including Jews) to, paradoxically, make sure that Lane’s words be fulfilled?

Had the Star Child spared the degenerate whites, how could we be sure that, say, a deranged liberal would not advance the idea of freezing a few of the non-white dead bodies for future cloning to recreate the multiracial utopia—with another surviving white, say a Christian billionaire, sponsoring the project after no non-whites were left alive in the world?

The fact is that, insofar as moral values are inverted throughout the West, the depth of evil among present-day whites is something that, with the honorable exception of William Pierce, no white advocate that I am aware of has been willing to digest.

From Pierce’s immortal novel

Then we formed the people into labor brigades to carry out a number of necessary functions, one of which was the sanitary disposal of the hundreds of corpses of refugees. The majority of these poor creatures were White, and I overheard one of our members refer to what happened to them as “a slaughter of the innocents.”

I am not sure that is a correct description of the recent holocaust. I am sorry, of course, for the millions of White people, both here and in Russia, who died—and who have yet to die before we have finished—in this war to rid ourselves of the Jewish yoke. But innocents? I think not. Certainly, that term should not be applied to the majority of the adults.

After all, is not man essentially responsible for his condition—at least, in a collective sense? If the White nations of the world had not allowed themselves to become subject to the Jew, to Jewish ideas, to the Jewish spirit, this war would not be necessary. We can hardly consider ourselves blameless. We can hardly say we had no choice, no chance to avoid the Jew’s snare. We can hardly say we were not warned.

Men of wisdom, integrity, and courage have warned us over and over again of the consequences of our folly. And even after we were well down the Jewish primrose path, we had chance after chance to save ourselves—most recently 52 years ago, when the Germans and the Jews were locked in struggle for the mastery of central and eastern Europe.

We ended up on the Jewish side in that struggle, primarily because we had chosen corrupt men as our leaders. And we had chosen corrupt leaders because we valued the wrong things in life. We had chosen leaders who promised us something for nothing; who pandered to our weaknesses and vices; who had nice stage personalities and pleasant smiles, but who were without character or scruple. We ignored the really important issues in our national life and gave free rein to a criminal System to conduct the affairs of our nation as it saw fit, so long as it kept us moderately well-supplied with bread and circuses.

And are not folly, willful ignorance, laziness, greed, irresponsibility, and moral timidity as blameworthy as the most deliberate malice? Are not all our sins of omission to be counted against us as heavily as the Jew’s sins of commission…?

I cannot think of any segment of White society, from the Maryland red-necks and their families whose radioactive bodies we bulldozed into a huge pit a few days ago to the university professors we strung up in Los Angeles last July, which can truly claim that it did not deserve what happened to it. It was not so many months ago that nearly all those who are wandering homeless and bemoaning their fate today were talking from the other side of their mouths.

Not a few of our people have been badly roughed up in the past—and two that I know of were killed—when they fell into the hands of red-necks: “good ol’ boys” who, although not liberals or shabbos goyim in any way, had no use for “radicals” who wanted to “overthrow the gummint.” In their case it was sheer ignorance.

But ignorance of that sort is no more excusable than the bleating, sheep like liberalism of the pseudo-intellectuals who have smugly promoted Jewish ideology for so many years; or than the selfishness and cowardice of the great American middle class who went along for the ride, complaining only when their pocketbooks suffered.

No, talk of “innocents” has no meaning. We must look at our situation collectively, in a race-wide sense. We must understand that our race is like a cancer patient undergoing drastic surgery in order to save his life. There is no sense in asking whether the tissue being cut out now is “innocent” or not. That is no more reasonable than trying to distinguish the “good” Jews from the bad ones—or, as some of our thicker-skulled “good ol’ boys” still insist on trying, separating the “good niggers” from the rest of their race.

The fact is that we are all responsible, as individuals, for the morals and the behavior of our race as a whole. There is no evading that responsibility.

From “Why the West will go under”

The essential aspect of what is happening to the West is spiritual. It is decadence which has sealed the fate of the West, not the birthrate in the Third World. It is the absence of a common purpose which has sapped the West’s viability, not just the scheming of the Jews. It is the loss of racial consciousness which has left the West defenseless, not the growing strength of our enemies.

What is important is that the corruption of the West’s spirit will continue in the years ahead—perhaps for decades—while the increasing anarchy, the more frequent breakdowns of order and flareups of violence, the economic disintegration, will be only incidental. There undoubtedly will come a great bloodletting, a time of mass throat-cutting and mass rape, when the West’s internal enemies will have free rein for a while. But the West will already have sunk before then.

And most of the inhabitants of the West will have sunk too, to the point where little of value will be left to be lost in the bloodletting. This is a point worth emphasizing again: the majority will perish with the civilization to which they are inseparably bound.

The problem is not to cull out the mongrels, the Judaized, the degenerates, the moral prostitutes from a healthy mass, so that the cull can be destroyed and the mass saved. The problem is to pick the few who embody the best of what the West once was and to take the necessary measures to see that that which they embody does not perish with the mass.

Those who would survive—more correctly, those who would have a hand in determining which genes and which values survive, for the time scale of the West’s sinking is such that no individual now alive can be sure of living to see the new age dawn—must have these qualities:

They must be both willing and able to fight for the right to determine the shape of the future; the meek and the disarmed will vanish without a trace.

They must be free of the superstitions and prejudices of this age; those who are mentally bound to this age will go down with it.

They must be pure in spirit and strong in will; this is the age of egoism and materialism, of self-indulgence and permissiveness, but the passage into the new age demands both selflessness and self-discipline.

They must be united in an organization which combines their strengths and focuses their wills; in this age of atomized individuals, where each person is submerged in the mass, without identity and without power, only those who are united can prevail.

They must be motivated by a single purpose, the overwhelming importance of which is always foremost in their minds; it has been the purposelessness of this age on which the West has foundered, but the new age will be illuminated and shaped by a common purpose transcending all other considerations: namely, the purpose of bringing forth a higher type of man and attaining thereby a higher level of consciousness in the universe.

Tags Degeneracy, Genuine spirituality, Jewish Question (JQ)

Individualism Real men Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Who we are, 21

Post author By C .T.
Post date December 21, 2012

The following is my abridgement of chapter 21 of William Pierce’s history of the white race, Who We Are:

Mighty Saga of the Northmen
Ninth and 10th Centuries: Viking Triumphs in Western Europe
Purest White Heritage Survives in North Atlantic
Land Scarcity, Spirit of Heroism Impelled Vikings
Christianity, Lack of Northern Solidarity Bring End to Viking Age

Just as it was the Northmen who, by imposing order on Europe’s eastern frontier in the second half of the first millennium, stiffened that frontier and made Russia a White racial bulwark against the non-White hordes of Asia, it was also the Northmen who, in the same era, pushed Europe’s western frontier westward across the great, unknown Ocean Sea, opening up new lands for settlement by succeeding generations of our race.

Called many names—Danes, Geats, Norsemen, Rus, Swedes, Varangers—they are best known to us by the name which is also used to characterize both the age in which they flourished and the way of life of many of them: Vikings. Like two great waves of raiders, conquerors, and colonizers before them, the Goths and the Anglo-Saxons, they came from the Nordic heartland: southern Sweden and Norway, the Danish peninsula, the adjoining portion of northern Germany, and the nearby North Sea and Baltic islands.

They are of special interest to us in our endeavor to understand who we are, not so much because most of us have Viking forebears (although a great many people with immediate roots in Ireland, Scotland, England, and northwestern France, as well as in Scandinavia, do), but because they give us a clearer, more detailed picture of that pure essence of Indo-Europeanism of Whiteness—which is the common heritage of all of us, whether our recent ancestors were Germans, Celts, Balts, or Slavs, than we can obtain from a study of any other European people.

German in language like the Goths and the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings retained other aspects of Germanic culture which those earlier emigrants from the Nordic heartland had already lost by the dawn of the Viking Age. In particular, the Vikings held to their Indo-European religion and world view longer than any of the other Germanic peoples. They also remained hardier, fiercer in battle, and more venturesome than those who had been softened by the more civilized living to the south.

The Vikings not only serve us as an especially useful epitome of Whiteness at a time when our survival demands a renewal of the best of our old values and strengths, but they also provide us with a clear reminder of the danger inherent in one of our most lethal weaknesses: excessive individualism and lack of racial solidarity. A study of the Vikings acquaints us with both the best and the worst (or, in this age, the least affordable) of the characteristics of our race.

♣

A tenth-century Viking narrative poem, Rigsthula (Song of Rig), provides a fanciful account of the origins of the Scandinavian population. In it a traveler named Rig (i.e., “king”) is given lodging at three dwellings. At each he manages to impregnate the woman of the house before he leaves, thereby fathering three sons.

The first woman is old and wrinkled, and she dwells in a hovel. The son she bears for Rig is dark, stooped, and ugly. He is named Thrall, and from him is descended the race of serfs and slaves, the hewers of wood and the carriers of water.

The second woman is younger, better looking, better housed, and more industrious. Her son by Rig is a sturdy, light-eyed boy, and is given the name Karl. From Karl is descended the race of free peasants and craftsmen.

The third woman is young, tall, blond, and lovely, and the house in which she lives is large and magnificent. She bears Rig a son who is strong and straight of limb, white of skin, fair of hair, light of eyes, and quick of mind. He is named Jarl (Earl), and he quickly learns the magic of the runes and the mastery of weapons. He hunts, rides, fights, and fears no man. From him is descended the race of kings and lords of the earth.

Rig himself is identified with the Norse god Heimdall, the whitest of all the gods and the father of all mankind. Rigsthula reminds us of the ancient Aryan religious work, the Rigveda, which, more than 20 centuries earlier, also gave a fanciful account of the origins of the races. It is clear that Rig’s descendants via Thrall represent the dark, round-headed element in the Scandinavian population, and that this element was at some time in the past held in a servile status by a largely Nordic ruling class.

Scandinavian mythology may also reflect racial memories of early contacts between Nordic invaders and Cro-Magnon natives, in the numerous references to “frost giants.”

In any event, by the dawn of the Viking Age a general mixing had taken place. Thralls may still have been darker, on the average, than the free farmers or the nobility, but one could find Nordic slaves, largely the consequence of the Viking policy of enslaving prisoners of war, and one could also find darker elements among the wealthy and powerful, as evidenced by the names of such leaders as Halfdan the Black (ninth-century king of a Viking realm in southern Norway). By far the dominant racial element among the Vikings, however, was Nordic.

To the north of the Northmen, in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, were the Lapps, a very primitive race which lived a nomadic life and gained its sustenance primarily from the reindeer of the forest and tundra. The sixth-century historians Jordanes and Procopius describe the Lapps as being culturally little above the beasts on which they preyed.

Both racially and linguistically the Lapps were closely related to the Finno-Ugric tribes to the east. They were short, predominantly dark (although today some Lapps are blond, apparently having absorbed Nordic genes), broad-nosed, and extremely round-headed. They were certainly partly, and perhaps wholly, responsible for the dark element among the Vikings, although there was little mixing between Vikings and Lapps during the Viking Age, because of their entirely different lifestyles. The mixing must have taken place during the prehistoric period, perhaps shortly after the proto-Germans arrived in Scandinavia and before they had driven the ancestors of the Lapps further north.

The isolation by terrain and climate of many Viking communities did not prevent the Vikings from having a remarkable unity of culture, language, and spirit but it certainly did not encourage political unity. Viking individualism seemed to be inimical to a sense of racial solidarity. While more subjective races to the south were often drawn together by the perceived need for mutual support in the face of a hostile world, Vikings were much more inclined to face the world as individuals.

Their loyalty and sense of community seldom extended beyond the fighting band to which they belonged—or, at most, to that limited region of Norway or Denmark or whatever which they considered “home”—and they would as gladly, or almost as gladly, hew down the Vikings of a rival band as a monastery full of trembling priests in some southern land. Within the band, however, the Viking ethos demanded a solidarity as uncompromising as that of the other Germanic peoples of their time.

On the Continent too the ninth century was a period of growing pressure from the north. A Frankish chronicler writes:

The number of ships increases; the endless flood of Vikings never ceases to grow bigger, Everywhere Christ’s people are the victims of massacre, burning, and plunder. The Vikings overrun all that lies before them, and none can withstand them. They seize Bordeaux, Perigueux, Limoges, Angouleme, Toulouse; Angers, Tours, and Orleans are made deserts. Ships past counting voyage up the Seine…. Rouen is laid waste, looted, and burned. Paris, Beauvais, Meaux are taken; Melun’s stronghold is razed to the ground; Chartres occupied; Evreux and Bayeux looted; and every town invested.

Just as in England and Ireland, however, Vikings who at first came only to seize women and gold later came to seize land as well. This process reached its climax early in the 10th century when a Viking band wrested away from the West Franks a substantial piece of territory in northwestern France, south of the lower Seine. In 911 the Frankish king Charles the Simple, the great-great-grandson of Charlemagne, gave legal sanction to this conquest by recognizing the Viking leader Ganga-Hrolf as his vassal and confirming the latter in the ownership of the land which his band had already seized.

Ganga-Hrolf (i.e., Hrolf the Ganger or Ralph the Walker, so named because he was too large to be carried by any horse), called Rollo by the French, in turn submitted to baptism and settled down to the task of enlarging and consolidating his domain. He was the first Duke of Normandy, as his land came to be known, after its Nor(se)man conquerors.

First White American. In the year 986 the Viking Bjarni Herjulfsson, sailing from Norway to Greenland, missed his intended destination and instead found himself off the coast of a previously unknown land: North America. Bjarni did not land, but he carried the news of his sighting back to Greenland.

Leif, the son of Eric the Red, bought Bjarni’s ship from him and set out to see the new land for himself. He established a small settlement at a place he called Vinland, on the island of Newfoundland, but he only spent one winter there.

A few years later another Greenland Viking, Thorfinn Karlsefni, made a determined effort to establish a permanent Viking presence in America. He fitted out three longships and recruited 160 men and women to accompany him on the westward voyage. They built a community in North America which they called Straumfjord, and in 1004 Thorfinn’s wife Gudrid bore him a son, Snorri, there: the first native White American.

Unrelenting attacks by Indians—Skraelings to the Vikings—made life very difficult for Thorfinn’s American colonists, however, and after three years they abandoned their settlement and returned to Greenland.

Had the Vikings’ weapons been technologically superior to the bows and arrows of the Skraelings—as Columbus’ firearms were—then White history in America would have begun 500 years sooner than it did. As it was, the individual superiority of the Viking warriors in battle could not make up for the enormous numerical advantage enjoyed by the hordes of Red men who opposed them.

In 1962 archaeologists excavated the ruins of what is believed to have been Straumfjord, near the present Newfoundland village of L’Anse aux Meadows.

In Greenland too, with is utterly inhospitable environment, the Viking presence did not last. Initially there were no hostile Skraelings in Greenland—in fact, the first Eskimos did not arrive on the island until nearly 400 years after the Vikings—but the total lack of trees, metal ores, and other natural resources, together with the scarcity of farmland, kept the White population down to a maximum of 3,000 persons, scattered among some 300 farms.

Ironically, it seems to have been piracy which was the undoing of the Greenland Vikings. Although they were Christianized shortly after the year 1,000 and gave up their warlike ways and the raiding of other lands for gold and women, there was still a strong demand for blond slave girls in Moorish Spain and North Africa and in the Turkish lands to the southeast. The demand was met by pirates recruited in England and Germany by Jewish middlemen, who began raiding the island settlements of the North Atlantic in the 14th century.

Purest Cultural Heritage. Iceland—which suffered its last attack by White-slaving pirates as late as the 19th century—and the other Viking islands survived the raids, but Greenland did not.

Today these North Atlantic islands, of which Iceland with its quarter-million inhabitants is the most significant, preserve the Viking cultural heritage in its purest form. The modern Icelandic and Faroese languages are nearly identical to the Old Norse spoken by the Vikings, while English and the other Germanic languages have undergone great changes during the last 1,000 years. In folkways as well, many Viking traits have been preserved in the islands, especially in Iceland and the Faroes. There has even been a return to the Viking religion by some Icelanders in recent years.

Racially, Iceland does not present quite as pure a picture as one might wish, for the ninth-century Viking settlers were not all jarls and karls; they brought their thralls along with them as well. Despite this lapse, their descendants today are biologically closer to the original Viking stock than the population of any other country. This racial quality is reflected not only in the tallest average statute in the White world, but in the highest literacy rate (100 per cent) as well.

Not only do all Icelanders read and write, but a far higher proportion of them are authors than is true for any other country. And, despite her tiny population, which is able to support only a single university, Iceland is able to boast a larger per capita Nobel Laureate quota than any other nation on earth.

Iceland is outstanding in another respect as well: alone among the White nations of the world it does not bear the curse of non-White minorities; it has no Blacks, no Jews, no Vietnamese, no Mexicans. Iceland has not been invaded for the last 1,000 years, except during the Second World War, when the country was occupied by American troops. The bulk of the foreigners withdrew after the war, and Icelanders insisted that future U.S. troops sent to man the air base which the United States was allowed to maintain on the island include no non-Whites.

The greatest debt that the White race owes to Icelanders is for their preservation of the Norse literary heritage: the Viking sagas. While church officials in other European countries were rounding up and burning all the pre-Christian books they could lay their hands on during the Middle Ages, Icelandic scholars were busy writing down the sagas which still existed only in oral form and transcribing, annotating, and expanding those which had been put into writing earlier.

Even where we must use extreme caution in drawing historical data from the sagas, they give us a clear and unambiguous picture of the Viking ethos and the Viking world view, of Viking attitudes, beliefs, feelings and temperament.

Fortunately, when it is Norse history we want we have the records of the Vikings’ literate Frankish and English cousins to supplement and clarify the semi-legendary material of the sagas. From these records we can also gain a good deal of insight into some of the external forces and circumstances which raised the curtain on the Viking Age in the eighth century and then lowered it in the 11th.

One of the forces was certainly the tide of Christendom which was rising over Europe from the south during the eighth century. The Franks had become Christianized during the sixth century, after their king, Chlodwig (Clovis), accepted baptism, but the Saxons, the immediate neighbors of the Northmen, rejected the alien religion from the Levant and held to their ancestral ways, as did the Northmen themselves, of course.

Genocidal Evangelism. Beginning in 772, a year after he became sole king of the Franks upon the death of his brother Carloman, Karl, later known to the French as Charlemagne, son of Pepin the Short and grandson of Karl the Hammer, waged a 32-year campaign of genocidal evangelism against the Saxons. The campaign began with Karl’s destruction of the Irminsul, or World Pillar, the Saxon equivalent of the Norse World Ash, Yggdrasil, located in the Saxons’ most sacred grove, at Eresburg (on the site of the present Marburg), and it became bloodier, crueler, and more intolerant as it wore on.

In 774, at Quierzy, Karl issued a proclamation that he would kill every Saxon who refused to accept the sweet yoke of Jesus. Henceforth a contingent of Christian priests accompanied the Frankish army on its expeditions against the Saxons, and in every Saxon village those who refused to be baptized by the priests were slaughtered on the spot.

Karl’s savagery reached a peak in the tenth year of the evangelism: in 782, at Verden on the Aller, with the blessing of the Church, he had 4,500 Saxon nobles beheaded. Twelve years later, in 794, he introduced a policy under which every third Saxon was uprooted from his land and forced to resettle among Franks or other Christianized tribes.

Fairly early in this campaign, in 777, one of the most prominent of the Saxon chieftains, Widukind, took shelter among the Danes and appealed to their king, Sigfred, for assistance against the Franks. Although the Danes were wary of becoming involved in a full-scale war against the formidable Karl, they and the other Northern peoples were put on their guard, and they became increasingly indignant over the Frankish suppression of the Saxons’ religion.

Karl’s brutal campaign against the Saxons undoubtedly helped raise a certain consciousness in the North of the spiritual and cultural differences which separated Scandinavia from those lands which had fallen under the yoke of the Christian Church.

♣

The internal forces leading to the eruption of the Vikings from their Northern fjords were even stronger than the external ones. Among the former was a very high birthrate specifically among the most active and aggressive of the Northmen, the result of their customary practice of polygyny.

According to the 11th-century German ecclesiastical historian, Adam of Bremen, every Swede of more than average substance kept two or three wives, while the nobility had no limit to the number of women they allowed themselves. For example, Harald Fairhair, the Norwegian warrior who unified Norway in the ninth century and became its first king, had as many as 40 sons by some accounts, at least nine of whom are known to history; and Harald’s son Erik Bloodaxe had at least eight sons who grew to manhood.

In the capitalistic South such a practice may have meant only that the cleverest and crookedest paper-shufflers—i.e., the richest men—would have more progeny, on the average, than honest workingmen, but in the hard living North, where every man’s mettle was tested almost daily by his environment and by his fellows, it was marvelously eugenic: the strong, the able, and the aggressive had proportionately more children than they would have had in a monogamous society.

Another interesting eugenic contrast between North and South is provided by the Christian practice of clerical celibacy. Although there were many periods during the Middle Ages in which violations were commonplace, as early as the fourth century the Church began insisting on total celibacy for the higher clergy. With the growing incidence of monasticism after the sixth century, a greatly increased portion of the population of Christian Europe was subjected to the rule of celibacy.

In the Middle Ages the clerical life was not, as is often the case today, simply a refuge for those who could succeed at nothing else; it was usually the only route to scholarship—and often the only route to literacy as well—and it attracted many able and intelligent men, whose genes were then lost to their race. For a thousand years, until the Reformation, there was a selective draining away of Christian Europe’s intellectual vitality.

A Mighty Hive. The high birthrate among the most active and energetic elements of the population in the Northern countries led to land-hunger and the drive for external conquests. In the words of 17th-century English statesman and writer Sir William Temple: “Each of these countries was like a mighty hive, which, by the vigor of propagation and health of climate, growing too full of people, threw out some new swarm at certain periods of time that took wing and sought out some new abode, expelling or subduing the old inhabitants and seating themselves in their rooms.” This state of affairs also held long before the Viking Age, of course.

In addition to the generalized effects of a high birthrate, two other consequences of polygyny which bore on the rise of viking as a way of life were the large numbers of second, third, fourth, and later sons in the families of Norse landholders—sons left without inheritance and without land, unless they could wrest it away from someone else—and a shortage of women.

The most popular way to solve the latter problem was to go on a raid and carry off women from Ireland, England, or France, although there was also a heavy traffic in Slav slave girls from the Rus realms. The Hrafnsmal tells of life in Harald Fairhair’s court: “Glorious is their way of life, those warriors who play chess in Harald’s court. They are made rich with money and fine swords, with metal of Hunaland and girls from the east.”

The political consolidation which began taking place in Scandinavia in the ninth century served as an especially strong impetus to Viking colonizers. As mentioned earlier, the Vikings were extremely individualistic, extremely resentful of any encroachments on their freedom of action. After Harald Fairhair won a great sea victory at Hafrsfjord over the Viking chieftains of western Norway in 872, many of them left Norway with their households and their followers and settled in Iceland and the smaller islands of the North Atlantic rather than submit to Harald’s rule.

A century later, political consolidation having been achieved, Scandinavian monarchs began to realize the policy advantages in bringing their people into the same religious camp as their neighbors to the south. The first to take the step was Denmark’s Harald Bluetooth, son of King Gorm the Old. In 965, fifteen years after Gorm’s death, Harald allowed himself to be baptized, and then he undertook the forcible conversion of the rest of the Danes: a move which did not sit well with many and led to further emigration and turmoil in the North. It also led eventually to Harald’s deposition and banishment.

The Last Viking. The coming of Christianity to the Viking world eventually meant the end of that world, but it did not change the Viking ethos immediately, as is evidenced by the life of a man who was certainly one of the most remarkable of all the Vikings, and the last of the truly great ones: Harald Sigurdsson, who, after he became king of Norway, was also known as Harald Hardraada (Hard Ruler) and Harald the Ruthless.

His deeds are the subject of one of the most fascinating of the Viking sagas (King Harald’s Saga), which we would be inclined to dismiss as an unusually imaginative work of heroic fiction, were it not solidly confirmed by the historical record.

The Vikings’ fighting spirit had been sapped by Christianity, but an even larger factor in their demise was their inability to keep in check their quarrels among themselves, combine their forces against outsiders, and thus match the growing power of kings in more unified lands than their own. Excessive individualism took its final toll.

Tags Christian problem (CP), Europe, History, Norway, Sweden

2001: A Space Odyssey (movie) Arthur C. Clarke Axiology Day of Wrath (book) Deranged altruism Eschatology Friedrich Nietzsche Hate Justice / revenge Neanderthalism William Pierce

Dies Irae

For a few years I have been reading racialist literature and have come to the conclusion that William Luther Pierce ought to be considered the central intellectual figure of American racialism (George Lincoln Rockwell on the other hand was perhaps the noblest individual on this side of the Atlantic). Besides his superb essays Pierce inaugurated the novelesque genre of a revolutionary takeover of white societies, and his axiological ruminations about the history of the white race in Who We Are are still unsurpassed among American racists. Unlike the national socialists and William Pierce, nowadays white advocates are comfortably living under the sky of Christian and liberal ethics, as I will try to argue in this article. Greg Johnson for one, the editor-in-chief of the webzine Counter-Currents Publishing, has been ambivalent on Pierce. He wrote:

Some time later, on April 22, 2000, I purchased [the novels] The Turner Diaries and Hunter from Dent Myers at his Wildman’s Shop in Kennesaw, Georgia. Frankly, I found them repulsive, The Turner Diaries in particular. Pierce may have been inspired by National Socialism, but his model of revolution was pure Lenin and his model of government pure Stalin. If he had the power, he would have killed more people than Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot combined.

Johnson, overwhelmed by his morals, is not even recognizing here that the national socialists were the good guys for Aryan preservation, and the heads of the states he mentions the bad guys.

He epitomizes everything about the Old Right model that I reject: one party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide. At the time, I remarked that as a novelist and political theorist Pierce was a first rate physicist.

I regarded him as a monster…

Take note that Johnson’s webzine is considered by some the crème de la crème of white nationalist blogsites, something like a haute culture magazine for the sophisticate, and that he presents himself as a fan of Friedrich Nietzsche to his readership. The trouble with Johnson is not only that he’s living a double life—criticizing Christianity online and delivering pious, traditional homilies at the Swedenborgian Church of San Francisco—; he really wants to have it both ways. Sometimes he seems to be in favor of revolutionary action but other times he condemns violence. In Johnson’s own words in his so-called “New Right” manifesto, “the only gun I want to own is made of porcelain.” Doesn’t this amount to say that he rejects winning, since throughout history there has been no nation-building without violence? This is Alex Linder’s pronouncement on Johnson: “His attempt to claim heir to the legacy of Hitler and Mussolini while renouncing actual fighting, and going beyond that to denounce those men’s movements in pretty much the same terms Jews do [“I regarded him as a monster…”] is simply bizarre. And that, in particular, he should not be allowed to get away with.”

Elsewhere I have quoted Nietzsche’s Zarathustra having in mind Johnson’s manifesto. But what would a genuine Zarathustran voice sound like? Simply put it, someone who advocates the transvaluation of values back to the pre-Christian mores in the West.

Hitler contemplating a bust of Nietzsche

What stands between Moses’ old Tablets and Zarathustra’s new, half-written Tablets—the new ethical code that, ideally, will rule white behavior in a coming thousand-year Reich? At Radio Free Mississippi, Linder has blamed Christian scruples by way of an example. My paraphrases: What would be our first reflex when watching an adult, African-American male in a park replete with blond, unprotected toddlers? Pull the trigger on the intruding nigger of course! Linder then asked rhetorically what on Earth is functioning as malware for the white mind that impedes us from following our primitive, natural instincts? His answer: “It’s Christianity,” in the sense that our basic moral grammar is Christian even among atheists: a sort of hypertrophy of our sense of decency from a survivalist point of view.

Even racialist Christians concede a point. Brad Griffin, a southern nationalist, has been unearthing citations of the Yankee mentality in antebellum America. Griffin’s conclusion is that abolitionism was caused by “a moral, religious, and ideological revolution in worldview,” and that “the twin doctrines that are to blame for our decline, which brought about this critical shift in moral outlook, are the Enlightenment’s ideology of liberal republicanism and the spread of evangelical Christianity.” Griffin of course is afraid to mention the C word: Christianity without adjectives. In my own words, the moral grammar ingrained to our psyches that places limits to the fourteen words comes not only from Christianity, but from Christianity’s secular offshoot, liberalism or as I like to say, “Neochristianity” (see The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour).

Billions will die, we will win

Are you a Nietzschean or, like Johnson and many white nationalists, a religious Christian / secular Neochristian? The following is my litmus test to gauge who, despite claims to the contrary, is still internalizing the meta-ethics of our parents instead of taking a leap into full-blown Nietzscheanism. In the coming racial wars of the 21st century that, according to Guillaume Faye, will come under the apocalyptic sign of Mars and Hephaestus, how many racial enemies do you think will have to be slain to fulfill the fourteen words? This is my straight answer: If I have to kill five people to fulfill our most cherished words I kill five people. If I have to kill five billion I kill five billion.

Unlike the mere reactionary writers and pseudo-apostates from Christianity in the movement I consider myself a genuine son of Zarathustra who finds himself sitting and waiting —old Mosaic, broken tablets around me and also new, half-written tablets—, wondering when cometh mine hour. On the other hand, Christians, secular liberals, reactionaries and even white nationalists have a sort of malware or computer bug within their skulls that compels them to place limits after the first few thousand killings. Johnson is only one example among many secular Neochristians in the white nationalist movement.

The current paradigm that enslaves almost all whites is like a Red Giant star that has already exhausted its hydrogen core (Christianity). After the French Revolution the enormous inertia of Christian ethics engendered a meta-ethical monster, now producing carbon from helium. This giant, secular, red shell of liberalism is but the sign of an approaching death of a star of that size. Though inflated and tenuous, the red shell is still very hot and makes the star’s radius immense. Presently liberalism is covering, and slowly engulfing and burning, the entire West and specifically targets the Aryan DNA for destruction. As explained in The Fair Race, the Red Giant is the present, secularized form of Christian ethics that has exhausted its creed. In this moribund stage, out-group (non-whites) altruism takes over liberal society. This happens, paradoxically, at the expense of traditional religious doctrine. On the other hand, after the genocide of Germans from 1944 to 1947, the Hellstorm Holocaust (again, cf. The Fair Race), genuine Aryan nationalism is not even one of our firmament’s stars. Like a tiny gaseous sphere already leaving the cradle of the nebulae, Aryan nationalism is accumulating more and more mass that is forming a center of higher density to form a protostar. When enough pressure in the interior rises—when a considerable mass of Nordish Aryans wake up again and fight in the real world as the Germans did—, it will increase the density and temperature until the gas turns into plasma. Only then a nuclear fusion will be ignited at the core and a new baby star will be visible again in the canopy of heaven.

What prevents nationalists from attracting, by the sheer force of their gravitas, increasingly more spiraling mass to make nuclear reaction possible, as happened in the Third Reich? Answer: Most whites, including white nationalists, still gravitate around the dying Red Giant that, by the next century, will become a white dwarf. They’re not really gravitating around the gaseous corpse of the National Socialist nebulae that is forming another new star even while Christianity is dying and will certainly be dead in the next century. The goal of my books is to point out at the firmament the new constellation of ethics that is being formed before any serious discussion can even take place on how to fulfill the fourteen words, our half-written Tablets.

The Star Child

One of the earliest reviewers of 2001: A Space Odyssey wrote in 1968 that it was the first Nietzschean movie in history, and it is too bad that Arthur C. Clarke’s literary agent, Scott Meredith, showed Clarke the green bill in the early 1980s to tempt the author into betraying his philosophy and original movie script by writing cretin sequels to his magnum opus. Anyway, before the sequel prostitution took place, in the epilogue to The Lost Worlds of 2001 Clarke wrote:

What lies beyond the end of 2001, when the Star Child waits, “marshaling his thoughts and brooding over his still untested powers,” I do not know. Many readers have interpreted the final paragraph to mean that he destroyed the Earth, perhaps in order to create a new Heaven. This idea never occurred to me; it seems clear that he triggered the orbiting nuclear bombs harmlessly…

But now, I am not so sure. When Odysseus returned to Ithaca, and identified himself in the banquet hall by stringing the great arrow bow that he alone could wield, he slew the parasitical suitors who for years had been wasting his estate.

Why should we expect any mercy from a returning Star Child? Few indeed of us would have a better answer, if we had to face judgment from the stars. And such a Dies Irae may be closer than we dream…

In the culminating scenes of the film Kubrick’s use of Thus Spake Zarathustra, Richard Strauss’ tone-poem after Nietzsche includes the returning, placental child.

If something has any resemblance to science-fiction’s cathedral it is what in my soliloquies I call “Neanderthal extermination,” exemplified by Pierce in both The Turner Diaries and in all seriousness in a few passages of Who We Are. Der Juden saw it all right with their book of Joshua: only ethnic cleansing protects the race from the interbreeding that invariably occurs with time, and the moral I gather from Kevin MacDonald’s second book of his trilogy is that whites should imitate the tribe by adopting an endogamous form of collectivism diametrically opposed to our naïve, individualist societies. In a radio debate on exterminationist anti-Semitism Griffin told Linder that we must describe the Jewish problem like MacDonald does: never hinting to final solutions for fear of being called evil Nazis. But even MacDonald hints to a solution not only to the Jewish problem, but to the many other racial problems that are afflicting the race—though he will never formulate it openly for fear of losing his tenure: “The Greek and Roman pattern of conquest and empire-building, unlike that of the Israelites described in the Tanakh [Pentateuch], did not involve genocide followed by the creation of an ethnically exclusivist state…” (A People that Shall Dwell Alone, page 368). What MacDonald refrains from discussing, the ethical conundrum between extermination or expulsion, Pierce already discussed in the chapter of Who We Are about the last Nordic invasion of ancient Greece. But let’s elaborate my litmus test even further where I left it—“wondering when cometh mine hour…”

A thought experiment

While driving your car in the routine trip to your job imagine you are given a one week, Star Child powers over planet Earth like those described by Clarke and indulge yourself in a thought-experiment: that you are the metamorphosed astronaut Dave Bowman that returns to your home planet after a journey beyond the stars. What would you do?

Monday. After your second coming to Earth, this time above the clouds and with great power and glory, the first thing that comes to your mind are the traitors in charge of the white nations, so firmly decided to exterminate their own people through genocidal levels of immigration and mestization. You condemn to death the 5 heads of the most powerful Western states. At any event, there’s no human power that matches yours…

Tuesday. But is this enough to secure the existence of your people and the future of white children?, enough to be sure they will survive the West’s darkest hour after your week of Overlord power is over? What about terminating 50 of the most notorious, powerful enemies of whites, the Jewish moguls of the media that have been poisoning the well for so long?

Wednesday. “But that’s still too short” you wake up and say to yourself in anguish during these nights of virtual insomnia. After all, you want to be sure that the fourteen words are not threatened by ulterior human behavior in the centuries to come. What about eliminating 500—you say to yourself in the morning—or, still better, 5000 you conclude in the afternoon, of the most notorious leftist academics: those Jews and non-Jews who have been trying to deconstruct the West and have corrupted the minds of the young?

Thursday. Alas for the earthlings!: you’re still confronted by the voice of your consciousness! The academics and media moguls were not enough! The poisoning continues. This day you have to be bold enough and get rid of 50,000 of the media staff, mostly Jewish, that have been demonizing whites and your culture through the TV and Hollywood.

Friday. But aren’t you still too short on numbers? your inner daemon asks. What about those non-media guys who believe that the best of the goyim must be destroyed, i.e., the white Aryans? They’re still breathing and their hatred for your people has not diminished… What about calling home 500,000 non-gentiles, or even more conclusively 5,000,000; —oh no!—, better fifteen million for a final solution of the non-gentile problem, you conclude in the evening.

Saturday. Alas! You find out that you’re still too short to be a hundred percent sure that our most sacred words will be fulfilled after your power evaporates by tomorrow midnight. You just remembered that the Red Giant is still covering the whole West with the suicidal flames of Neochristianity. And you are not a monocausalist after all… Wiping out the subversive tribe was not enough, not barely enough, you are starting to realize, in a world where most whites have been turned into body-snatched pods. In this weekend that your powers will vanish you must confront the view that the zeitgeist that has been destroying your people since the Second World War is ultimately based on Christian ethics, and that this hypertrophy of the Aryan super-ego has virtually infected all whites. You don’t want to take any chances unless and until they have been cured of their suicidal, malignant lunacy—which won’t happen by itself within your weekend of Overlord power. Why not calling home once and for all 500 million of the infected whites, the deranged, out-group altruists?

Sunday, Day of the Lord. Not enough! (sob…). Your dwindling powers are not enough to see the future and be certain that the very traditional whites whose lives you just spared will have the nerve to deport those millions of non-whites who have been breeding like rats throughout your sacred lands. So you take a fateful, ultimate decision. You will make of this final day a scorched-Earth moment, a wrathful and vindictive day. (Only full revenge can heal the soul after all…) Only thus you will make it sure that the racial aliens won’t be invited again by the potential altruists who, unbeknownst to you, escaped justice yesterday and may fall into their old habits in the future. After all, doesn’t the mental disease of whites, universal moralism, predates Christianity (for example, in the Aryan Buddha)? And after Christianity started to expand a thousandfold into Neochristianity, didn’t your people’s sense of fairness and pity towards non-whites became infinitely more threatening for your goal than the depredations of the (now defunct) tribe?

Now you remember the last chapter of the Zarathustra, “The Sign,” when Zarathustra rises in the morning and finds a lion outside his cave, which he takes to be a sign that the Overman is finally coming. This new Zarathustra —you— rises triumphantly, realizing you have overcome your final sin: pity. And so you don’t want to take any chances with the surviving Neanderthals—not in this big day of yours! You go for the only figure that really solves the problem in a single stroke. You play God. You take the lives of 5 billion or even more of non-whites experiencing the same remorse that you experienced when you took the first 5 lives almost a week ago…

A favor

How far would you go chasing over Dave’s 14 words—white children for the endless ages to come before the Sun really turns into a Red Giant? I ask you this favor: Indulge yourself in the above thought-experiment when you go to work and suffer the sight of those non-white faces that the system socially-engineered to exterminate your kind through miscegenation. But please first watch 2001 in one of your days off so that you may grasp the film’s religious message unmolested by any external noise.

Don’t respond in the comments section of my blog which number of deaths, or until which day of the week, you imaginary chose to intervene in mankind’s destiny. My Gedankenexperiment only gauges your internal morals for you.

Tags Christian problem (CP), Priesthood of the sacred words, Transvaluation of all values

Ancient Rome Egypt Tacitus Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Who We Are, 23

The following is my abridgement of chapter 23 of William Pierce’s history of the white race, Who We Are:

Jew vs. White: More than 3,000 Years of Conflict
Jewish Religion Holds Jews To Be “Chosen” as Rulers of World
Jewish Leaders Find Hatred Necessary
There Can Be No Peace Between Predator and Prey

The purpose of this series of historical articles is the development of a fuller knowledge and understanding of the White past in its readers, in the hope that these things will in turn lead to a stronger sense of White identity and White solidarity. Other races—Arabs, Mongols, Amerinds, Negroes, and the rest—have come into the story only to the extent that they have interacted with Whites and influenced the White destiny. One can turn to other sources for more information on them.

There is one alien race, however, which has exerted such a strong influence on the White destiny since Roman times—and especially during the past century—and which poses such an overwhelming threat to that destiny today that it deserves special treatment.

That race—which in the taxonomic sense is not a true race at all, but rather a racial-national-ethnic entity bound together partly by ties of blood; partly by religion; partly by common traditions, customs, and folkways; and wholly by a common sense of identity and perceived common interests—is, of course, the Jewish race.

Desert Nomads. In early Neolithic times the ancestors of the Jews shared the Arabian peninsula with their Semitic cousins, the Arabs, and presumably were indistinguishable from them. Desert nomads like the other Semites, they gained their sustenance from their herds of camels, sheep, and goats.

In the first half of the second millennium B.C. the first written references to the Jews appeared, the consequence of their contacts with literate peoples in Egypt and Mesopotamia during their roamings. The reviews were uniformly unfavorable.

In a research paper published this year, for example, the noted Egyptologist, Professor Hans Goedicke, chairman of the Department of Near Eastern Studies at Johns Hopkins University, associates an inscription on an Egyptian shrine of the goddess Pakht, dated to the 15th century B.C., with the departure of the Jews of Egypt which is fancifully related in the Old Testament’s Book of Exodus. The inscription reads, in part: “And when I allowed the abomination of the gods to depart, the earth swallowed their footsteps.”

The Egyptians had reason enough to consider their departing Jewish guests “the abomination of the gods,” if there is any truth in the Biblical description of the Jews’ sojourn in Egypt. In the Book of Genesis the Jewish narrator boastfully tells of his fellow tribesmen’s takeover of the Egyptian economy and virtual enslavement of the Egyptian farmers and working people through the sort of financial chicanery which still seems to be their principal stock in trade today: When Joseph, the son of Israel (Jacob), became “ruler over all the land of Egypt” after gaining a corner on the local commodities market, he invited all his relatives in to “eat the fat of the land.” (Genesis 41-45)

But eventually, according to the first chapter of the Book of Exodus, there ascended the throne of Egypt a new pharaoh “who knew not Joseph” and who liberated the country from the grip of the Jewish moneylenders and grain brokers, eventually driving them from Egypt.

So the Egyptians may have been “prejudiced”—but, then, so was everyone else. The great Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 55-117 A.D.) wrote: “When the Assyrians, and after them the Medes and Persians, were masters of the Oriental world, the Jews, of all nations then held in subjection, were deemed the most contemptible.” (Histories, book 5, chapter 8)

Jewish Invasion of Palestine. The Jews first came into contact with Whites in the Middle East no later than the 12th century B.C., during the Jewish migration into Philistia (Palestine). The Philistines themselves, an Indo-European people, had invaded the area and conquered the native Canaanites only a few years before the Jews arrived (see the 11th installment in this series for a narrative of the Philistine-Jewish conflict).

In later centuries the Jews spread beyond Palestine into all the corners of the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern world, in part by simply following their mercantile instincts and in part as a consequence of their misfortunes in war. In the eighth century B.C. they were conquered by the Assyrians, who deported some 27,000 of them, and in the sixth century by the Babylonians, who hauled another batch of them away. It was during these forcible dispersions that the Jews’ view of themselves as a “chosen people,” infinitely superior to their conquerors, first stood them in good stead by helping them maintain their solidarity.

Esther Turns a Trick. The sort of resentment and hostility which the Jews generate among their Gentile hosts by behavior based on the deep-seated belief that the world is their oyster is illustrated well by the Old Testament tale of Esther. Set in the fifth century B.C., it suggests that the Persians of that era had already had their fill of Jewish arrogance and pushiness and wanted badly to get rid of their Semitic guests.

The Jewish response to Persian anti-Semitism was to slip a Jewish prostitute into the palace of the Persian king, concealing her Jewishness until she had used her bedroom skills to win the king’s favor and turn him against his own nobles. The ensuing slaughter of 75,000 Persian noblemen described in the Book of Esther is probably a figment of the Jewish imagination, but it is nevertheless still celebrated with glee and gloating, more than 2,400 years after the event, by Jews around the world in their annual Purim festival.

Unfortunately, later massacres instigated or perpetrated by the Jews against their non-Jewish hosts in response to anti-Semitism were all too real. The great English historian Edward Gibbon describes some of these which took place in the first and second centuries A.D.:

From the reign of Nero (54-68) to that of Antoninus Pius (138-161) the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections.

Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives, and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of the legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government but of human kind.

In Cyrene they massacred 220, 000 Greeks; in Cyprus 240,000, in Egypt a very great multitude. Many of these unhappy victims were sawn asunder, according to a precedent to which David had given the sanction of his example. The victorious Jews devoured the flesh, licked up the blood, and twisted the entrails like a girdle round their bodies. (History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter XVI)

Actually, very little of humanity is shocked at the recital of these Jewish atrocities today, for the simple reason that the carefully laundered “approved” textbooks used in the schools omit any mention of them. Instead, humanity is treated to one television “documentary” after another, from “Holocaust” to “Masada,” in which the blameless, longsuffering Jews are “persecuted” by their enemies.

When one looks at all of Jewish history from the time of the Egyptian sojourn to the present, the outstanding feature which emerges is its endless series of cycles, each consisting of a period of increasingly arrogant and blatant depredations by the Jews against their hosts, followed by a period of reaction, in which either the exasperated Gentiles slaughter, drive out, and otherwise “persecute” the Jewish offenders; or the Jews manage to get the drop on their hosts instead and arrange a slaughter of Gentiles; or both.

Dual Existence. Indeed, this feature of Jewish history is not only outstanding, it is essential: without it the Jews would have ceased to exist by Roman times, at the latest. For the Jews are a unique people, the only race which has deliberately chosen a dual mode of national existence, dispersed among the Gentile nations from which they suck their sustenance and at the same time fiercely loyal to their center in Zion, even during the long periods of their history when Zion was only an idea instead of a sovereign political entity.

Without the diaspora the concrete Zion—i.e., the state of Israel—could not exist; and without the abstract Zion—i.e., the concept of the Jews as a united and exclusive whole, divinely ordained to own and rule the world—the diaspora could not exist.

Israel would not survive a year, were it not for the flow of “reparations” payments from West Germany, the billions of dollars in economic and military aid from the United States, and, most of all, the threat of armed retaliation by the United States against any Arab nation which actually makes a serious effort to dispossess the Jews of their stolen Arab territory.

It is certainly not love for the Jews on the part of the masses of Germans and Americans which maintains this support for Israel. It is instead a combination of two things: first, the enormous financial and political power of the Jews of the United States, the latter exercised primarily through the dominant Jewish position in the controlled news media; and second, the influence of a relatively small but vocal and well-organized minority of Jew-worshipping Christian fundamentalists, who accept at face value the Jews’ claim to be the divinely ordained rulers of the world.

And the diaspora would survive little more than a generation, were it not for the Jewish consciousness, the concept of Zion. It is this alone which keeps the dispersed Jews from becoming assimilated by their Gentile hosts, for the Jewish consciousness inevitably raises a barrier of mutual hatred between Jews and Gentiles.

How can a Jew of the diaspora, who is taught from the cradle that he belongs to a “chosen race,” do other than despise the goyim around him, who are not even considered human beings by his religious teachers? How can he do other than hate them for holding back him and his fellow Jews from the world dominion which he believes belongs rightfully to the Jewish nation? And how can Gentiles fail to sense this contempt and hatred and respond in kind?

Action and Reaction. In recapitulation, the dynamic of the interaction between Jew and Gentile is this: as soon as the Jews have infiltrated a Gentile land in sufficient numbers so that their organized efforts can be effective, they begin exploiting and manipulating. The more wealth and power they accumulate, the more brazenly and forcefully they attempt to accumulate still more, justifying themselves all the while with the reminder that Yahweh has promised it all to them anyway.

Any tendency to empathize or identify with their hosts is kept in check by a nonstop recitation of all the past wrongs the Gentile world has done them. Even before anti-Semitism exists in reality, it exists in the Jewish imagination: the Gentiles hate them, they believe, and so they must stick together for self-protection.

Sure enough, before the Jews’ solidarity has a chance to erode appreciably, the Gentiles are hating them. The Gentiles react to the Jews mildly at first and then with more and more resentment and energy as the Jewish depredations continue. It is this action-reaction combination, the hatred and counter-hatred, which keeps the Jews from being absorbed into the host nation.

Finally there is an explosion, and the most nimble Jews flee to begin the cycle over again in another Gentile land, while the slow ones remain to suffer the pent-up fury of their outraged hosts. The memory of this explosion is assiduously cultivated by the surviving Jews and becomes one more grudge they bear against the Gentile world. They still remember and celebrate the explosions of the Egyptians, the Persians, the Romans, and two dozen other Gentile peoples over the last 35 centuries or so, exaggerating their losses and embellishing the details every time in order to make the memories more poignant, while the Gentiles in each case forget within a generation or two.

These periodic outbursts against the Jews have actually served them doubly well: not only have they been invaluable in maintaining the Jewish consciousness and preventing assimilation, but they have also proved marvelously eugenic by regularly weeding out from the Jewish stock the least fit individuals. Jewish leaders, it should be noted, are thoroughly aware of the details of this dynamic. They fully recognize the necessity of maintaining the barrier of hatred between their own people and the rest of the world, just as they understand the value of an occasional explosion to freshen the hatred when assimilation becomes troublesome.

The blame for the decay of the Roman world has often been placed on the Jews. Indeed, some especially brazen Jewish writers have proudly accepted that blame and have even boasted that Christianity was invented deliberately by zealous Jews to further subvert and weaken the Roman Empire.

The truth of the matter, however, is that, so long as Roman society was healthy and the Roman spirit strong and sound, both were immune to Jewish malice and Jewish scheming. It was only after Rome was no longer Roman that the Jews were able to work their evil there.

After the old virtues had already been largely abandoned and the blood of the Romans polluted by that of a dozen races, the Jews, of course, did everything to hasten the process of dissolution. They swarmed over decaying Rome like maggots in a putrefying corpse, and from there they began their infiltration of the rest of Europe.

Thus, the Jews established themselves in every part of Europe over which Rome claimed dominion, and, wherever they could, they remained after that dominion ended. Except in the Mediterranean provinces and in Rome itself, however, their numbers remained relatively small at first.

Despising farming and all other manual activity, they engaged almost exclusively in trade and finance. Thus, their presence was confined entirely to the towns, and even a relatively large commercial center of 10 or 15 thousand inhabitants might have no more than a few dozen Jews.

Even their small numbers did not prevent nearly continuous friction between them and their Gentile neighbors, however. As Europe’s population, commerce, industry, and wealth grew during the Middle Ages, so did the numbers of Jews everywhere and with them the inevitable friction.

Everyone has heard of the wholesale expulsions of Jews which occurred in virtually every country of Europe during the Middle Ages: from England in 1290, from Germany in 1298, from France in 1306, from Lithuania in 1395, from Austria in 1421, from Spain in 1492, from Portugal in 1497, and so on. What many do not realize, however, is that the conflict between Jew and Gentile was not confined to these major upheavals on a national scale. Hardly a year passed in which the Jews were not massacred or expelled from some town or province by an exasperated citizenry. The national expulsions merely climaxed in each case a rising popular discontent punctuated by numerous local disturbances.

Bred to Business. In addition to the benefits of racial solidarity, the Jews were probably better businessmen, on the average, than their Gentile competitors. The Jews had been bred to a mercantile life for a hundred generations. The result was that all the business—and all the money—of any nation with a Jewish minority tended to gravitate into the hands of the Jews. The more capital they accumulated, the greater was their advantage, and the easier it was to accumulate still more.

Of course, the Jews were willing to share their wealth with their Gentile hosts—for a price. They would gladly lend money to a peasant, in return for a share of his next crop or a lien on his land; and to a prince, in return for a portion of the spoils of his next war. Eventually, half the citizens of the nation were hopelessly in debt to the Jews.

Such a state of affairs was inherently unstable, and periodic explosions were inevitable. Time after time princes and people alike found that the best way out of an increasingly tight financial squeeze was a general burning of the Jews’ books of account—and of the Jews too, if they did not get out of the country fast enough. The antipathy which already existed between Jews and Gentiles because of the Jews’ general demeanor made this solution especially attractive, as did the religious intolerance of the times.

One would think that one episode of this sort in any country would be enough for the Jews, and that they would thenceforth stay away from a place where they were so manifestly unwelcome. But they could not. Any country in Europe temporarily without a Jewish minority to soak up the country’s money like a sponge had an irresistible attraction for them. Before the embers of the last general Jew-burning were cool, other Jews were quietly sneaking in to take the place of the ones who had been slaughtered.

The great 19th-century Russian writer Nikolai Gogol embodied this extraordinary Jewish peculiarity in a character in his Taras Bulba, the story of a Cossack chieftain. The character, Yankel, is one of a group of Jewish, merchants and their dependents who have attached themselves to the Cossacks’ camp. One day the Cossacks rid themselves of the Jewish pests by throwing them all in the Dnieper and drowning them—all except Yankel, who hides beneath a wagon.

While the massacre is taking place, Yankel trembles in fear of being discovered. As soon as it is over and things have quieted down again, he creeps from his hiding place. The reader expects that Yankel will then waste no time putting as much distance between himself and the Cossacks as possible. But, no; Yankel instead rushes to set up a stall and begin selling gunpowder and trinkets to the men who have just drowned his kinsmen. His eagerness to resume business seems doubled by the fact that now he has no competitors.

The Jews were often able to ameliorate their situations greatly during the Middle Ages by establishing special relationships with Gentile rulers. They served as financial advisers and tax collectors for the princes of the realm and of the Church, always ready with rich bribes to secure the protection of their patrons when the hard-pressed common folk began agitating against them. They made themselves so useful to some rulers, in fact, that they were favored above Christian subjects in the laws and decrees of those rulers.

The Frankish emperor Charlemagne was one who was notorious for the favors and privileges he bestowed on the Jews, and his successor followed his example.

The medieval Church was at least as much at fault as the royalty in showing favor to the Jews. There were exceptions to the rule, however: several Church leaders heroically stood up for the common people and condemned the Jews for exploiting them. One of these was Agobard, a ninth-century bishop of Lyons.

Agobard lost his struggle with Louis, but his efforts had a long-range effect on the conscience of many of his fellow Franks. Despite the enormous financial power of the Jews and the protection their bribes bought them, they were continually overreaching themselves: whenever they were given a little rope, they eventually managed to hang themselves. No matter how much favor kings, emperors, or princes of the Church bestowed on them, the unrest their usury created among the peasants and the Gentile tradesmen forced the rulers to slap them down again and again.

The hatred between Jews and Gentiles was so intense by the 12th century that virtually every European country was obliged to separate the Jews from the rest of the populace. For their own protection the Jews retreated into walled ghettos, where they were safe from the fury of the Gentiles, except in cases of the most extreme unrest.

And for the protection of the Gentiles, Jews were obliged to wear distinctive clothing. After the Church’s Lateran Council of 1215, an edict forbade any Jew to venture out of the ghetto without a yellow ring (“Jew badge”) sewn on his outer garment, so that every Gentile he met could beware him.

But these measures proved insufficient, for they failed to deal with the fundamental problem: so long as the Jews remained Jews, there could be no peace between them and any other people.

Edward the Great. In England, for example, throughout the 13th century there were outbreaks of civil disorder, as the debt-laden citizens sporadically lashed out at their Jewish oppressors. A prominent Jewish historian, Abram Sachar, in his A History of the Jews (Knopf, 1965), tells what happened next:

At last, with the accession of Edward I, came the end. Edward was one of the most popular figures in English history. Tall, fair, amiable, an able soldier, a good administrator, he was the idol of his people. But he was filled with prejudices, and hated foreigners and foreign ways. His Statute of Judaism, in 1275, might have been modeled on the restrictive legislation of his contemporary, St. Louis of France. He forbade all usury and closed the most important means of livelihood that remained to the Jews. Farming, commerce, and handicrafts were specifically allowed, but it was exceedingly difficult to pursue those occupations.

Difficult indeed, compared to effortlessly raking in capital gains! Did Edward really expect the Jews in England to abandon their gilded countinghouses and grub about in the soil for cabbages and turnips, or engage in some other backbreaking livelihood like mere goyim? God’s Chosen People should work for a living?

Edward should have known better. Fifteen years later, having finally reached the conclusion that the Jews were incorrigible, he condemned them as parasites and mischief-makers and ordered them all out of the country. They were not allowed back in until Cromwell’s Puritans gained the upper hand 400 years later. Meanwhile, England enjoyed an unprecedented Golden Age of progress and prosperity without a Jew in the land.

Unfortunately, the other monarchs of Europe, who one after another found themselves compelled to follow Edward’s example, were not able to provide the same long-term benefits to their countries; in nearly every case the Jews managed to bribe their way back in within a few years.

Tags Europe, History, Jewish Question (JQ), Middle Ages

Moses (fictional Hebrew lawgiver) Reformation Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Who We Are, 24

Post author By C .T.
Post date December 5, 2012

The following is my abridgement of chapter 24 of William Pierce’s history of the white race, Who We Are:

Middle Ages Were Era of Slow, Ordered Evolution
Eastern Europe Had Different Experience With Jews than West
Reformation Resulted in Increased Judaization of Western Europe
Inside the White Citadel, Jews Wreak Havoc on Society
Capitalists, Reds Collaborate Against West

This installment continues the history of the interaction of the Jews with the European peoples, begun in the previous installment, and carries it from the Middle Ages into the modern era.

The salient characteristic of the Middle Ages was order. The feudal society of the early Middle Ages (from ca. 700 until ca. 1200) was a highly structured society: not only did every man have his place and every place its man, but the relationship of each man to every other was strictly defined. From the lord of the manor down to the village idiot, every person was bound to others by mutual responsibilities and obligations.

The corporate society which flourished in Western Europe from the mid-12th century until its destruction by the rise of finance capitalism in the 18th century was able to approach the ideal primarily because it was a substantially homogeneous society, and its institutions had developed organically over a very long period of time.

Both in theory and in practice corporatism had its flaws, the principal one being that it gained stability at the expense of innovation: medieval society was extraordinarily conservative, and technical progress came at a somewhat slower pace than it might have in a less-regulated society. On the other hand, a reasonable degree of stability is always a prerequisite for continuing progress, and the medieval compromise may not have been so bad after all.

Insofar as personal freedom was concerned, the socially irresponsible “do your own thing” attitude definitely was not so common as it is today, but neither was there a lack of opportunities for the adventurous element among the population to give expression to its urges. It should be remembered that the most common theme of the folk tales which had their origin in the Middle Ages—exemplified in the Grimm brothers’ collection—was that of the young man setting out alone into the world to make his fortune. Certainly, there was more personal freedom, in practice, in the Middle Ages for the average craftsman than there was in the capitalist period of mass production which followed.

For our purpose here, the essential thing about medieval society was that it was an ordered, structured society, with a population base which was, in each particular region, homogeneous. Thus, it was a society imbued with certain natural defenses against penetration by alien elements.

The Jew in medieval Europe had relatively little elbow room. He did not fit into the well established, well ordered scheme of things. He was an outsider looking into a self-sufficient world which had little use for his peculiar talents.

This was the situation for the better part of a millennium, and throughout that long period the foremost goal of the Jew was to destroy the order, to break down the structure, to loosen the bonds which held European society together, and thereby to create an opening for himself.

Order is the Jew’s mortal foe. One cannot understand the role of the Jew in modern European history unless one first understands this principle.

It explains why the Jew is the eternal Bolshevik: why he is a republican in a monarchist society, a capitalist in a corporate society, a communist in a capitalist society, a liberal “dissident” in a communist society—and, always and everywhere, a cosmopolitan and a race mixer in a homogeneous society.

And, in particular, it explains the burning hatred the Jews felt for European institutions during the Middle Ages. It explains why the modern Jewish spokesman, Abram Sachar, in his A History of the Jews, frankly admits that the universal attitude of the Jews toward medieval European society was, “Crush the infamous thing!”

Yet, even in the Middle Ages the Jews did not do badly for themselves, and they certainly had little cause for complaint, except when their excesses brought the wrath of their hosts down on their heads. As was pointed out in the previous installment, the Jews established an early stranglehold on the commerce of Europe, monopolizing especially foreign trade.

Their real forte, however, was in two staples of commerce forbidden to most Gentiles in Christian Europe: gold and human flesh. Aristotle’s denunciations of usury had influenced the leaders of the Church against moneylending, and the practice was consequently forbidden to Christians on religious grounds—although the ban was not always strictly observed. The field was left almost entirely to the Jews, who, in contrast to the Christians, used their religion as an explicit justification for usury.

Moses, the purported author of this basis for all Jewish business ethics, was speaking from the experience the Jews had already gained in Egypt when he indicated that the ultimate goal of moneylending to the strangers in a land “to which thou goest” was to “possess” the land. When it came to the slave trade, the words of Moses were not just permissive, but imperative: “Both thy male and female slaves, whom thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen [goyim] that are round about you; of them shall ye buy male and female slaves…” (Leviticus 25:44-46). It is truly said by the Jews themselves that the Hebrew spirit breathes in every word of the Old Testament!

In Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean area the guild system did not reach the full development that it did in the West and the North of Europe, and Jews in Russia, Poland, Lithuania, and parts of Italy engaged in a few trades besides moneylending and slave dealing: the liquor business, in particular. Jews eventually owned most of the inns of Eastern Europe. They also monopolized the garment industry throughout large areas of the East and the South, and the Jewish tailor, the Jewish rag-picker, and the Jewish used clothes peddler are proverbial figures.

The relatively greater opportunities for exploitation of the Gentiles in the East, not to mention the strong presence of the Khazar-descended Jews there, led to a gradual concentration of Europe’s Jews in Poland and Russia during the Middle Ages. By the latter part of the 18th century, half the world’s Jews were living in Poland. Their power became so great that many medieval Polish coins, minted during periods when Jews were in charge not only of collecting the taxes, but also of administering the treasury itself, bore inscriptions in Hebrew. The Jews even acquired title to the land on which many Polish and Russian churches stood, and they then charged the Christian peasants admission to their own churches on Sunday mornings.

In the West the Europeans froze the Jews out of the industrial and much of the commercial life of medieval society; in the East the Jews froze the Europeans out. In much of Eastern Europe, Jews became the only mercantile class in a world of peasants and laborers, and they used all their cunning and all the power of their wealth to keep their Gentile hosts down.

Reaction inevitably set in the East, however, just as it had in the West. The 17th century was a period of great uprisings against the Jews, a period when such heroes as the great Cossack hetman and Jew-killer, Bohdan Khmelnytsky, flourished.

In the 18th century the rulers themselves were finally obliged to take strong measures against the Jews of the East, so bad had the situation become. Russia’s Catherine the Great (1729-96), who had inherited most of Poland’s Jews after the partition of the latter country, extended and enforced prohibitions against them which not only limited their economic activity but banned them altogether from large areas.

It is this which goes a long way toward explaining how the Poles, saddled with a communist government consisting almost entirely of Jews after the Second World War, have been able in the last three decades to do what Adolf Hitler could not: namely, make Poland into a country which is virtually Jew-free today. Of more immediate relevance at this point in our story, it is the relatively weaker natural resistance to Jews in the West which suggests why it was relatively easy for the Jews there to take advantage of the breakdown of the medieval order and the dissolution of long-established social structures in order to make new openings for themselves.

The Reformation

Another factor which undoubtedly made the West more susceptible to the Jews was the Reformation, the lasting effects of which were confined largely to Europe’s northwestern regions, in fact, to the Germanic-speaking regions: Germany, Scandinavia, England and Scotland, Switzerland. The Church of Rome and its Eastern Orthodox offshoot had always been ambivalent in their attitudes toward the Jews. On the one hand, they fully acknowledged the Jewish roots of Christianity, and Jesus’ Jewishness was taken for granted. On the other hand, the Jews had rejected Jesus’ doctrine and killed him, saying, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:25), and the medieval Church was inclined to take them at their word.

In addition to the stigma of deicide the Jews also bore the suspicion which naturally fell on heretics of any sort. During the Middle Ages people took Christianity quite seriously, and anyone professing an unorthodox religious belief, whether he actively sought converts or not, was considered a danger to the good order of the community and to the immortal soul of any Christian exposed to him.

What the Protestant reformers did for the Jews was give the Hebrew Scriptures a much more important role in the life of the peoples of Europe than they had enjoyed previously. Among Catholics it was not the Bible but the Church which was important. The clergy read the Bible; the people did not. The people looked to the clergy for spiritual guidance, not to the Bible.

Among Protestants that order was reversed. The Bible became an authority unto itself, which could be consulted by any man. Its Jewish characters—Abraham, Moses, Solomon, David, and the rest—became heroic figures, suffused with an aura of sanctity. Their doings and sayings became household bywords.

It is ironic that the father of the Reformation, Martin Luther, who inadvertently helped the Jews fasten their grip on the West, detested them and vigorously warned his Christian followers against them. His book Von den Jueden und ihren Luegen (On the Jews and their Lies), published in 1543, is a masterpiece.

Luther’s antipathy to the Jews came after he learned Hebrew and began reading the Talmud. He was shocked and horrified to find that the Hebrew religious writings were dripping with hatred and contempt for all non-Jews. Luther wrote:

Do not their Talmud and rabbis say that it is no sin to kill if a Jew kills a heathen, but it is a sin if he kills a brother in Israel? It is no sin if he does not keep his oath to a heathen. Therefore, to steal and rob, as they do with their usury, from a heathen is a divine service. For they hold that they cannot be too hard on us nor sin against us, because they are the noble blood and circumcised saints. We, however, are cursed goyim. And they are the masters of the world and we are their servants, yea, their cattle.

Alas, Luther could not have it both ways. He had already sanctified the Jews by elevating the status of their history, their legends, and their religion to that of Holy Writ. His translation of the Old Testament into German and his dissemination of the Jewish scriptures among his followers vitiated all his later warnings against the Jews. Today the church he founded studiously ignores those warnings.

Luther had recognized the evils in the Christian Church of his day and in the men who ruled the Church. He also recognized the evil in the Jews and the danger they posed to Europe. He had the courage to denounce both the Church and the Jews, and for that the White race will be indebted to him for as long as it endures.

The great tragedy of Luther is that he failed to go one step further and to recognize that no religion of Jewish origin is a proper religion for men and women of European race. When he cut himself and the majority of the Germanic peoples off from Rome, he failed at the same time to cut away all the baggage of Jewish mythology which had been imposed on Europe by Rome. Instead he made of that baggage a greater spiritual burden for his people than it already was.

The consequence was that within a century of Luther’s death much of Northern Europe was firmly in the grip of a new superstition as malignant as the old one, and it was one in which the Jews played a much more explicit role. Before, the emphasis had been on the New Testament: that is, on Christianity as a breakaway sect from Judaism, in which the differences between the two religions were stressed. The role models held up to the peoples of Europe were the Church’s saints and martyrs, most of whom were non-Jewish. The parables taught to children were often of European origin.

Among the Protestants the Old Testament gained a new importance, and with it so did the Hebrew patriarchs as role models, while Israel’s folklore became the new source of moral inspiration for Europe. Perhaps nothing so clearly demonstrates the change, and the damage to the European sense of identity which accompanied it, as the sudden enthusiasm for bestowing Hebrew names on Christian children.

The Reformation did more for the Jews than merely sanctifying the Old Testament. It shattered the established order of things and brought chaos in political as well as spiritual affairs—chaos eagerly welcomed by the Jews. Germany was so devastated by a series of bloody religious wars that it took her a century and a half to recover. In some German principalities two-thirds of the population was annihilated during the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in the period 1618-1648, commonly known as the “Thirty Years War.”

Everywhere during the 17th century the Jews took advantage of the turmoil, moving back into countries from which they had been banned (such as England), moving to take over professions from which they had been excluded, insinuating themselves into confidential relationships with influential leaders in literary and political circles, profiting from the sufferings of their hosts and strengthening their hold, burrowing deep into the rubble and wreckage of medieval society so that they could more easily undermine whatever rose in its stead.

An 1806 French print depicts
Napoleon Bonaparte emancipating the Jews

In the following century came Europe’s next great cataclysm, which broke down what was left of the old order. It was the French Revolution—and it was the first major political event in Western Europe in which Jews played a significant role, other than as financiers. Even so, public feeling against the Jews was such that they still found it expedient to exercise much of their influence through Gentile front men.

Honore Gabriel Riqueti, Comte de Mirabeau (1749-91), the Revolution’s fieriest orator—the spendthrift, renegade son of an aristocrat, disowned by his father and always in need of a loan—was one of these. Another was the bloodthirsty monster Maximilien Marie Isidore de Robespierre (1758-94), dictator of the Revolutionary Tribunal which kept the guillotine busy and spilled France’s best blood into the gutters of Paris while the rabble cheered. Both Mirabeau and Robespierre worked tirelessly for their Jewish patrons, supporting legislation granting new rights and privileges to the Jews of France and denouncing French patriots who opposed the Jewish advances.

It was in the new series of European wars spawned by the Revolution, in which Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) was the leading figure, that the Jews extended the gains they had made in France to much of the rest of Europe. Behind Napoleon’s armies, which were kept solvent by Jewish moneylenders, marched a ragtag band of Jews to oversee the pulling down of all barriers against their brethren in each country in which French arms triumphed. Ghettos were abolished, all restrictions on Jewish activities were declared void, and anyone who spoke out against the Jews was in danger of being put before a military firing squad.

Despite the enormous services he performed for the Jews, it is clear from his comments, on many different occasions, that Napoleon personally despised them. “The Jews are a vile people, cowardly and cruel,” he said in reference to some of the atrocities committed by Jews during the Reign of Terror.

In a letter of March 6, 1808, to his brother Jerome, Napoleon wrote: “I decided to improve the Jews. But I do not want more of them in my kingdom. Indeed, I have done all to prove my scorn of the vilest nation in the world.” And when, in 1807, Napoleon issued decrees limiting the extent to which Jewish moneylenders could prey on the French peasantry, the Jews screamed in rage against him.

But the damage had already been done; Napoleon had pulled down the last of the barriers, and by the time of his disgrace and exile the Jews were solidly entrenched nearly everywhere.

It was those Jews who pushed their way into the professions—into teaching Gentile university students, into writing books for Gentile readers, into composing music for Gentile audiences, into painting pictures and directing films for Gentile viewers, into interpreting and passing judgment on every facet of Gentile culture and society for Gentile newspaper readers—who really got inside the Gentile citadel.

Tags Europe, France, Jewish Question (JQ), Middle Ages

Americanism Evil Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Who We Are, 25

The following is my abridgement of chapter 25 of William Pierce’s history of the white race, Who We Are:

The Second World War: Greatest Watershed of World History
Racial View of Life Governed Germany
War Propaganda Depended on White Provincialism
Tide of Western Civilization Turned at Stalingrad
After War U.S. Got Same Dose as Forced on Germans

In recent installments we have seen the White race expand outward from Europe over the globe, conquering and colonizing; we have traced its interactions with alien races in particular, with the Jews; and we have seen its way of life transformed radically, as the feudalism and then the corporatism of the Middle Ages gave way to new social forms in the modern era. We have also witnessed two major upheavals: the Reformation, followed by the ruinous Thirty Years War; and the French Revolution, followed by the Napoleonic Wars. In both cases White society was badly disrupted, and the race’s defenses against its enemies were weakened. As we saw in the last installment, the Jews were quick to take advantage of this.

Nevertheless, when the 20th century dawned European man was still firmly in control everywhere, and he was on the verge of some of the most magnificent victories of his entire history.

But the same quarter-century also saw White men slaughter one another on an unprecedented scale. Although only the American promoters of the slaughter were so brazen as to openly proclaim that its purpose was to “make the world safe for democracy,” that, in fact, was the outcome which the First World War went a long way toward establishing. It was a democratic war, in which finance-capital and the manipulators of the rabble joined hands to finish the job begun 125 years earlier with the storming of the Bastille.

With the politicians cheering them on from a safe distance, sixty-one million White men (plus some four million assorted Japanese, Turks, and Negroes) marched forth to do battle. Nine million of them never marched back. Seven million White civilians also lost their lives, many of them from the starvation caused by a British naval blockade of Germany and her allies which was maintained even after hostilities on the battlefield had ended.

But the cause of democracy was definitely advanced. In the first place, by selectively killing off the brightest and the bravest as never before, the war left a population more susceptible to the type of mass manipulation inherent in democratic rule. And, of course, autocratic rule suffered a major setback, as Kaiser and Tsar met their ends.

In Russia the social and economic ravages of the war provided the necessary preconditions for the success of the Bolshevik Revolution, another giant step forward for democracy—at least, in the eyes of President Wilson and others of a similar mindset. Addressing the U.S. Congress on April 2, 1917, Wilson said: “Does not every American feel that assurance has been added to our hope for the future peace of the world by the wonderful and heartening things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia?”

Those who, like Wilson, fawned on the Jews also found “wonderful and heartening” the consolidation of democracy in Russia which soon followed, when the triumphant Bolsheviks murdered most of the Russian intelligentsia.

The National Socialist Revolution. Of greater significance ultimately than all these scientific and technological advances [omitted in this abridged edition] was the dawning of a new sense of racial consciousness and racial mission during the second quarter of the century, and the establishment of a new society based on this awakened racial feeling and dedicated to the goal of racial progress. The new society was that built by Adolf Hitler and his followers in National Socialist Germany between 1933 and 1945.

It was a society from which alien racial elements and alien spiritual and cultural influences were progressively excluded. The Jews who had been burrowing into German cultural life since the Napoleonic Wars of the previous century were rooted out of the universities and the government bureaucracy, the newspapers and the cinema, radio broadcasting and book publishing.

The homosexuals who had been parading along Berlin’s main streets in women’s clothing were rounded up and packed off to labor reeducation camps to think things over. Drug dealers and communist activists found themselves facing the executioner’s ax. The mulatto offspring of French-colonial Negro occupation troops and German women, stemming from the postwar period, were sterilized, along with tens of thousands of congenitally defective Germans.

An enormous investment was made in educational and recreational programs: curricula for the schools were redesigned to develop a strong sense of racial identity in each child; young adults were taught to look for the best racial qualities when seeking mates and to think of marriage as a sacred institution for producing the next generation of the race; workers were taken on group outings to different parts of the country in order to broaden their outlooks and augment parochial loyalties with national feelings; pageants, public lectures, folk festivals, fairs, parades, and other activities were used extensively to stimulate an understanding of and an appreciation for their cultural heritage among the people.

The differing values of human beings were no longer determined by the amounts of money they were able to accumulate, but by their inherent racial quality and by the social value of their work.

Hitler was determined from the beginning that the new Germany would be a state ruled by a definite view of life, and not by politicians chosen either by power brokers in smoke-filled back rooms or by the fickle and easily manipulated masses. The leaders of the state would henceforth be men trained, screened, and selected for that task from their early youth, not those political candidates with the most fetching smiles and convincing lies, as was the rule elsewhere in the West.

The degeneracy and decadence which had characterized the democratic Weimar regime in Germany prior to 1933, with all its prancing homosexuals, self-destructive drug addicts, jaded thrill seekers, musical and artistic nihilists, pandering Jews, Marxist terrorists, and whining self-pitiers, were gone, and in their place was a nation of healthy, enthusiastic, self-reliant, and purposeful Germans.

Implacable Hostility. Thus, it was world Jewry which publicly declared war on National Socialist Germany only six months after Hitler took office as chancellor. In his declaration of war (published in the August 7, 1933, issue of The New York Times), Jewish leader Samuel Untermyer explicitly noted that he expected the Jews’ Christian friends to join them in their “holy war” (his words) against Germany.

And, of course, they did—not just the illiterate fundamentalists from America’s Appalachia, who, not knowing any Jews personally, found it easier to believe the Old Testament claim of Jewish “chosenness” than those who lived in closer proximity to the Self Anointed Ones, but also the mainline Christians of America and Britain, the more intelligent of whom recognized in the National Socialist world view a creed antithetical to their own.

In the 1930’s and early 1940’s the Jews had not yet consolidated their grip on all the news and entertainment media of the English-speaking world. There were no television networks, of course, and there were still many independent newspapers and magazines. A united opposition to Jewish war plans by alert Whites might have won the day.

Most Whites, however, were neither alert nor united. Their “leaders,” the products of a democratic system, were generally devoid of both character and any sense of responsibility. Only an exceptionally bold, selfless, and responsible few—men like aviation pioneer Charles Lindbergh—spoke out effectively. The Jews, on the other hand, found many prominent and powerful Whites with no scruples against taking their money and following their lead.

Still, it was not an easy job to convince millions of White men—the majority of them originally of German origin—to march off to Germany in order to butcher their White cousins, just because the latter had dared raise their hands against the Chosen People.

[William Pierce explains in the following paragraphs that, although the racial feeling was not dead, the spiritual dimension among Americans was almost completely lacking, and that this was aggravated by a lethal form of American provincialism that became an easy target for Jewish war propaganda, through which outrageous lies were aired about German plans to invade the country. Then, under the subheading “Racial Suicide,” Pierce adds:]

When huge fleets of RAF and USAAF heavy bombers destroyed Hamburg in July and August 1943, killing 70,000 German civilians, the foolish British and Americans imagined that they had struck a great blow against their enemies. They little suspected that their true enemies rejoiced to see them killing so many of their own kind.

And when the raping queues of Mongol soldiers formed in every residential neighborhood of a shattered and defeated Berlin, in front of every house where they found a pretty German girl or woman, there was dancing in the streets of London and New York by throngs of empty-headed Whites who did not even dream that what they had caused to happen to the women of Germany would soon enough begin happening to their own women, on their own streets and in their own homes, and that Jew-instigated “civil rights” laws would render them powerless to defend their womenfolk against growing and ever-bolder swarms of savages from every non-White corner of the earth.

Postwar Payoff. And so it was that when the war was finally over—and to the people pulling the strings that meant when Germany was defeated, for Italy and Japan were wholly secondary concerns—it seemed only natural that many things should begin changing. After all, the people had assented to the destruction of everything for which National Socialist Germany stood.

Should Americans and Britons have given their all to smash racism in Germany, only to tolerate racism in America or in Britain? Should people who had just finished killing millions of Germans, in order to teach them that they did not have the right to exclude Jews from their society, still believe that Mexicans could be excluded from the United States or Pakistanis from Britain?

No, it is quite clear that the era of social turmoil and change which followed the war grew inevitably out of the new attitudes deliberately inculcated in order to make the war possible.

And it is clear that the war not only resulted in a vast spread and strengthening of Marxist power, but that it also brought about a significant decline in the moral authority of the White world relative to Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The White man had questioned his own right to rule, and so he could hardly expect non-Whites not to ask the same questions. Thus, the dissolution of the British Empire, and the end of European colonialism everywhere, were direct consequences of the changed attitudes accompanying the war.

Finally, just as clearly as the Germans lost the war, so did Britain and the United States. In fact, the loser was the White race: European man, whatever his nationality. It was the greatest, most catastrophic loss the race has yet suffered. Whether the loss will prove to be irreparable and decisive remains to be seen.

Tags 2nd World War, Europe, Germany, History, Jewish Question (JQ), United States

Kali Yuga Philosophy of history Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Who We Are, 26

Post author By C .T.
Post date December 1, 2012

– The West’s Darkest Hour –

The following is my abridgement of “The Race’s Gravest Crisis Is at Hand,” the last chapter of William Pierce’s history of the white race, Who We Are:

Since the end of the Second World War the situation and the prospects of the White race have plummeted, both morally and materially.

As bad as the moral condition of the race was before the war, it became incalculably worse afterward. Not since the Thirty Years War had White men murdered one another with such religiously motivated ferocity and on such a scale. But this time the superstitions which had been employed to justify all the killing were not so deep-seated as they had been 300 years earlier.

When the bomber-sown fire storms which had incinerated hundreds of thousands of German women and children in Dresden, Hamburg, and a dozen other cities had cooled; when the last mass shooting of prisoners of war by the Americans was over; when the British had finished delivering hundreds of thousands of anti-communist Croats and Cossacks at bayonet point to their communist executioners in Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union; when the roving gangs of rapists in Soviet-occupied Berlin had finally become sated; when the orgies of murder in Paris and Prague and the other capitals of “liberated” Europe had died down; when the war and its immediate, bloody aftermath were over and the White men of America and Britain had an opportunity to survey their handiwork and reflect on it, the first doubts came.

One of those most directly responsible for the catastrophe, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, expressed those doubts more bluntly and succinctly than the rest. As he contemplated Britain’s problematic future in a postwar Europe overshadowed by the new grown Soviet colossus during one of his rare moments of sobriety, he blurted out: “We killed the wrong pig.” This was the same Churchill who a few months earlier, in a less sober moment, had symbolized his contempt for the defeated Germany by ostentatiously urinating into the Rhine in the presence of a group of newsmen.

Many of the Western leaders who had been involved in the war had no more moral compunction or sense of responsibility for what they had done than did Churchill. Their hue and cry about “German war crimes” was often the most effective way of diverting attention from their own crimes and the crimes of others.

The details of the history of the postwar era varied in Britain, in America, in France, and in the other Western nations, but the general trends were the same everywhere. The following paragraphs refer specifically to the United States, but the conclusions to which they lead apply to the West generally.

♣

Civil Rights. And then, before anyone could catch his balance and figure out what it meant and where it would lead, the “civil rights” phenomenon burst upon postwar America. What would have been impossible before the war gathered momentum in the late 1940’s and carried all before it in the next two decades. When the smoke began to clear late in the 1960’s, White Americans found that they had bamboozled themselves out of their most precious and fundamental civil right: the right of free association.

No longer could they pick and choose their neighbors, taking reasonable measures to ensure that the racial makeup of the communities in which they lived would not deteriorate; any attempt to do so had become illegal and was punishable with a term of imprisonment in a Federal penitentiary.

No longer could they send their children to schools, supported by their own taxes, which were attended by other children of their own race.

No longer could those of them who were employers hire men and women of their own choosing.

Every place and every social grouping in which the White men and women of America had associated freely with their own kind—residential neighborhoods and workplaces, schools and recreation areas, restaurants and cinemas, military units and municipal police forces—was now open to non-Whites, and the latter were not slow to push their way in.

Multiracial Pseudo-nation. What had been accomplished in the astonishingly short time of a little over two decades was the transformation of the strongest, richest, and most advanced country on earth from a White nation, in which racial minority groups had been effectively excluded from any significant participation in White society except as laborers, to a multiracial pseudo-nation, in which non-Whites not only participated but were a privileged and pampered elite.

The magnitude of the transformation is not apparent to many Whites who were born after it began, but it can be comprehended easily enough by surveying the cultural records of the earlier era. A comparison of magazine advertisements or photographed street scenes, of popular fiction or elementary school textbooks, of motion pictures or faces in high school yearbooks from 1940 with those of the last decade tells the story in stark terms.

Not only was this radical dispossession of White Americans carried out in the name of “justice” and “freedom,” but hardly a shot was fired in the process: all together no more than a dozen Whites fell in the weak and utterly ineffectual resistance mounted against it. More than anything else, this lack of resistance indicates the moral state of the race in the postwar era.

It is true, of course that the Jews, who planned and played a large part in directing the dispossession, had prepared well. A few years prior to the war there were still major segments of the American news and entertainment media in the hands of racially conscious Whites. Major publishers in the 1920’s and 1930’s published books dealing frankly with eugenics, with racial differences, and with the Jewish problem. America’s foremost industrialist, Henry Ford, for a while in the 1920’s was presenting purchasers of his automobiles with complimentary copies of The International Jew, a strongly anti-Jewish book which had earlier been serialized in his newspaper, The Dearborn Independent.

In the 1930’s Father Charles Coughlan, an independent-minded Catholic priest with a radio program which was heard by millions, spoke out strongly against Jewish political scheming, until he was silenced by an order from the Vatican.

But by the war’s end the Jews had fastened their grip so tightly on the media that dissent against their policies was denied any large-scale public hearing. No major newspaper, motion picture company, radio broadcasting network, or popular magazine was left in the hands of their opponents.

Some institutions, most notably the Christian churches, already contained in themselves the seeds of racial destruction and required relatively little effort to be brought into alignment with Jewish schemes. Others (the Ford Foundation is a striking example) were infiltrated, taken over, and turned in a direction diametrically opposite to that intended by their founders.

Profound Moral Illness. In the final analysis, however, none of these things changes the fact of profound moral illness on the part of the White populations of the Western nations in the postwar era. It is an illness with roots deep in the past, as has been pointed out in earlier installments, but in postwar America it bloomed.

It is difficult to analyze the witches’ brew and place exactly the proper amount of blame on each ingredient. There was the trend toward an ever more vulgar and dishonest democracy, which began well before the war and reached a new depth with the advent of Franklin Roosevelt on the national political stage in 1932.

There were the loss of rootedness and the concomitant increase in alienation stemming from the greater mobility of a motorized population.

There was the powerful new propaganda medium of television, with its frightening ability to mesmerize and manipulate.

But it was the unspeakably atrocious crime of the war itself and its effect on those who participated in it which served as the catalyst, causing all the elements to react with one another, and the disease itself to metastasize.

The evil spirit of the immediate postwar period was, at the time, apparent only to an especially sensitive few, while most could not see beneath the superficial glitter of change and motion.

The present threat to the survival of the White race is physical as well as moral: while the numerical balance of the races is shifting rapidly from White to non-White, both in the world as a whole and in most of the formerly White nations of the northern hemisphere, the average racial quality of those in the White camp is declining.

The world racial balance has shifted from 30 per cent White in 1900 to just under 20 per cent White in 1982. By the end of the next decade the world will be less than 16 per cent White. The population explosion in the southern hemisphere which is responsible for this racial shift is largely the consequence of the export of White science and technology, which have dramatically reduced death rates in Africa, India, and other non-White areas of the world.

Postwar racial mixing has been accompanied by an enormous increase in miscegenation. Prior to the war, marriage between Whites and Blacks in the United States was nowhere socially acceptable, and it was illegal in many states. The few mulatto offspring produced were nearly always born to Black mothers and remained in the Black racial community. After the war an unrelenting propaganda brought down all legal and most social barriers to miscegenation, and the second generation of mixed-race offspring is now approaching breeding age.

Grim Recapitulation. To recapitulate the present situation of the White race:

White geographical expansion, which was the rule for the last four centuries, has not only been halted in the 20th century, with the end of European colonialism, but it has been reversed in the period since the Second World War.

There are now more than four non-Whites for every White living on the planet, and the ratio is shifting toward an even greater non-White preponderance at an accelerating rate.

The prognosis is grave. If the present demographic trends continue unabated for another half-century, and if no sustained effort to ensure an alternative outcome is made during that time by a determined and farsighted minority of people of European ancestry, then the race whose history we have traced in these 26 installments will have reached the end of its long journey.

It may linger another century or more in isolated enclaves, such as Iceland, and its characteristic features or coloring will recur with diminishing frequency in individuals for the next millennium, but before the middle of the 21st century it will have reached its point of no return.

Then, gradually or quickly, the race which built the glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome, which conquered the earth and established its dominion over every other race, which unlocked the secret of the atom and harnessed the power which lights the sun, and which freed itself from the grasp of gravity and reached out to new worlds will vanish into the eternal darkness.

And the present demographic trends will continue so long as the political, religious, and social concepts and values which presently circumscribe the thinking of the Western peoples and their leaders continue to have a determining role. For at root it is a moral defect which threatens the race’s survival.

If the will to survive existed among the White masses, and if they were willing to take the necessary measures—which would require that they act contrary to the dictates of the religion—, then the physical threat could be overcome, certainly and quickly. Non-White immigration could be halted immediately, with relatively little effort. Undoing the effects of earlier non-White immigration and of miscegenation would be a much larger task, involving major economic readjustments and undoubtedly a substantial amount of bloodshed as well, but it would be a task well within the physical capabilities of the White majority.

These things could be accomplished, even at this late date. And once accomplished in one major country, they could be extended worldwide, though perhaps not without another major war and its attendant risks. But, of course, they will not be accomplished, because the will to survive does not exist, and has not existed in the White population of any major power since the end of the Second World War. The race’s last chance to overcome its problems in this relatively painless manner died in January 1943, at Stalingrad.

So, much will inevitably be lost during the next few decades. The population balance everywhere will shift even more rapidly toward the non-Whites, the mongrels, and the unfit. The world will become a poorer, uglier, noisier, more crowded, and dirtier place. Superstition, degeneracy, and corruption will be pervasive, even among those Whites of sound racial stock, and much of the best stock will disappear forever through racial mixing.

And repression will certainly increase everywhere: those who stand for quality over quantity and for racial progress will be denied the right of dissent and the right of self-defense, in the name of “freedom” and “justice.”

Ultimately, however, none of these losses need be decisive or even significant, frightening though they may be to contemplate now, and terrible though they may be to experience in the dark years immediately ahead. All that is really important is that a portion of the race survive, keep itself pure physically and spiritually, continue propagating itself, and eventually prevail over those who threaten its existence, even if this take a thousand years; and to ensure this outcome is the urgent task of the racially conscious minority of our people in these perilous times.

A Few Guidelines. A detailed elaboration of this task here would take us beyond the intended scope of this series, which, as stated in the prologue to the first installment, has been merely to provide for its readers a better understanding of their own racial identity. It may be appropriate, however, to conclude the Who We Are series by drawing on its lessons in order to set out a few very concise guidelines for addressing ourselves to the task ahead:

1) The duration of the task will be decades, at the least, and perhaps centuries. History has a very great inertia; a historical process of long duration may culminate suddenly in a single, cataclysmic event, but every major development in the history of the race has had deep roots and has grown in soil thoroughly prepared for it by preceding developments. The course of history now, so far as our race is concerned, is steeply downward, and to change its direction will be no overnight matter, nor will this be accomplished by any gimcrack scheme which promises success without first building a foundation for that success, block by carefully laid block.

2) The workers at the task will be only a tiny minority of the race. Any program which envisages an “awakening of the masses” or which relies on the native wisdom of the great bulk of our people—which is to say, any populist program—is based on a false vision and a false understanding of the nature of the masses. No great, upward step in all of our long history has ever been accomplished by the bulk of any population, but always by an exceptional individual or a few exceptional individuals. The masses always take the path of least resistance: which is to say, they always follow the strongest faction. It is important to work with the masses, to inform them, to influence them, to recruit from among them; but they must not be counted on for determinative, spontaneous support until after a small minority has already, by its own efforts, built a stronger force than that of any opposing faction.

3) The task is inherently fundamental, and it will be accomplished only through a fundamental approach. That is to say, those who devote themselves to it must be pure in spirit and mind; they must understand that their goal is a society based on quite different values from those underlying the present society, and they must be committed wholeheartedly and without reservation to that goal; they must be prepared to outgrow all the baggage of superstition and convention inherent in the present society. Thus, the task is not one for conservatives or right wingers, for “moderates” or liberals, or for any of those whose thinking is mired in the errors and in the corruption which have led us to the downward course, but it is a task for those capable of an altogether new consciousness of the world.

The task is a biological, cultural, and spiritual one as well as an educational and political one. Its goal has meaning only with reference to a particular type of person, and if this type cannot be preserved while the educational and political aspects of the task are being performed, then the goal cannot be achieved. If the task cannot be completed in a single generation, then there must exist, somewhere, a social milieu which reflects and embodies the cultural and spiritual values associated with the goal, and serves to pass these values from one generation to the next. The preservation of a social milieu, just as the preservation of a gene pool, requires a degree of isolation from alien elements: the longer the duration of the task, the higher the degree. This requirement may be difficult of fulfillment, but it is essential. What should be envisaged, then, is a task with both an internal, or community-oriented aspect, and an external, or political-educational-recruiting aspect. As the task progresses and both external and internal conditions vary, the relative weight given to the two aspects will undoubtedly vary as well.

♣

The task set out here is a very large one, and accomplishing it will require greater will, intelligence, and selflessness than demanded from the race in any previous crisis. The danger we face now, from the enemy within our gates as well as the one still outside, is greater than the one we faced from the deracinated Romans in the first century, the Huns in the fifth century, the Moors in the eighth century, or the Mongols in the 13th century. If we do not overcome it, we will have no second chance.

What we must do, however, is understand that all our resources in the coming struggle must come from within ourselves; there will be no outside help, no miracles. If this Who We Are series has helped even a few of us better understand ourselves and the resources therein, then it has accomplished its purpose.

________________________________

Wm. Pierce’s final note: “The 26 installments of Who We Are will be amplified, edited, and consolidated into an illustrated book, which will be published by the National Alliance in the next few months. Watch for an announcement of its appearance in National Vanguard.”

Evil Kali Yuga Philosophy of history Who We Are (book) William Pierce

The West’s Darkest Hour

To avoid replicating the texts,
I’ve moved the content of this post: here

Tags 2nd World War