web analytics

Category: William Pierce

Categories
Ancient Greece Demography Iliad (epic book) Indo-European heritage Miscegenation Philosophy of history Racial studies Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Nordic invasion precedes rise of Classical Civilization

Excerpted from the tenth article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:

Greece was invaded by Greek-speaking Northerners several times during prehistory. Those who arrived in the period 2,100-1,900 B.C. founded the great Mycenaean civilization, which flourished from the end of the l6th century until about 1,200 B.C.

Homer, whose Iliad and Odyssey describe Mycenaean Greece, refers to the Greeks, or Hellenes, inclusively as “Achaeans.” In fact, however, the Achaeans were only one of the Hellenic tribes which were in Greece in Mycenaean times.

Aeolians and Ionians

In addition to the Achaeans, who occupied most of the Peloponnesus (the southern peninsula of Greece, in which Mycenae was located), there were the Aeolians and the Ionians, who occupied other portions of the mainland, many of the Aegean islands, and the west coast of Asia Minor. The Ionians, in particular, settled in Attica and were the founders of Athens.

These tribal divisions apparently predate the arrival of the first Hellenes in Greece, and it seems likely that the Achaeans, Aeolians, and Ionians invaded the Aegean region separately, over a period of several centuries.

And there were also the non-Greek Pelasgians, the Mediterranean aborigines, who occupied the lowest stratum of Greek society and substantially outnumbered the Hellenes in Mycenaean times. As pointed out in the last installment, the Mycenaean Greeks were influenced culturally by these Mediterraneans—and, as time passed, racially as well.

Divine-Born Heroes

In the late 14th and early 13th centuries B.C. more Greek-speaking Indo-Europeans arrived, coming westward across the Aegean in ships. They were Homer’s “divine born” heroes, the fathers and grandfathers of the warriors who sacked Troy about 1,250 B.C.: golden-haired Achilles, the sons of Atreus, and the other princes and kings of the Iliad. They settled in Greece, founded dynasties, and lived in a manner remarkably like that of northern Europe’s feudal lords more than 20 centuries later.

A couple of generations after the fall of Troy—exactly 80 years afterward, according to Greek tradition—a new group of divine-born warriors swept down on Greece, this time from the north. They were the Heraclidae, the supposed descendants of the blond demigod Hercules, and with them came the Dorians, the last of the major Hellenic tribes to reach the Aegean region.

Dorian Invasion

The Dorians, who had settled in central Greece a few years earlier, proceeded to conquer the Achaeans, occupy the Peloponnesus, and extinguish Mycenaean civilization. But, in so doing, they prepared the way for the rise of a new civilization which would greatly surpass the old one.

The Dorian invasion was actually a more complex phenomenon than the preceding lines might suggest. It involved repeated interactions with other peoples on a protracted journey which, although generally southward, included a number of detours, loops, and rest stops. And their legendary leaders, the Heraclidae, had already been south once before, prior to the Trojan war.

It also involved the displacement of other peoples, and it came during a period when lesser Greek-speaking tribes were undertaking invasions of their own to the south. Displaced Achaeans, Aeolians, and Ionians migrated to new areas, sometimes displacing those people already there and sometimes amalgamating with them.

Blond but Rude

The Dorians were blonder than the Achaeans they conquered, but that is only because the Achaeans had been mixing with the Mediterranean aborigines for several centuries before the Dorians arrived; originally the two tribes had been of the same racial composition.

But the Achaeans were certainly more civilized than the rude, new arrivals from the north, and it was 400 years before Greece recovered from the cultural shock of the Dorian invasion. When the civilization of Classical Greece bloomed in the seventh century B.C., it comprised some elements of the old, Mycenaean culture and some which were the consequence of the social, political, and demographic changes wrought by the newcomers.

Dark Age

The four centuries between the Dorian invasion and the flowering of the literate Classical civilization are referred to by most historians as “the Dark Age,” for much the same reasons that the period between the fall of Rome, more than 15 centuries later, and the flowering of Mediaeval civilization is also called “the Dark Ages.”

In both cases a people of an older civilization, who had begun to succumb to racial mixing and decadence, was overwhelmed by a more vigorous and racially healthier but culturally less advanced people from the north. And in both cases a period of gestation took place over a dozen generations or so, during which a synthesis of old and new elements, racial and cultural, occurred, before a new and different civilization arose from the ruins of the old.

Historians’ Bias

Unfortunately, most historians tacitly assume that the records of political and cultural activity which have come down to us from periods of civilized literacy provide all the data needed to yield an understanding of the historical process. The state of development and degree of organization and complexity of city life are taken as a yardstick by which to evaluate the significance or historical importance of a particular period. And if one’s standards of value are geared to such things as the volume of commerce, the gross national product, or even the intensity of scientific, literary, and artistic activity, such a yardstick may seem, at first glance, to be proper.

Racial Values

But there are other standards of value, such as those of the National Alliance, which differ somewhat from the customary ones. For it is not in the external forms of organization and activity of a people that we see the most important criteria for making a judgment as to the significance of a particular period, but rather in the actual racial constitution of a people and in the dynamic processes which, for better or worse, are influencing that racial constitution.

Although the basic racial constitution of a people is always intimately related to that people’s achievements in commerce, science, industry, art, politics, and warfare, still the two sets of criteria can lead to fundamentally different evaluations of a given historical period.

This is a consequence of the fact that race building and decay are usually strongly out of phase with civilization building and decay.

Rise and Fall of Races

Thus, the long ages between the periods of maximum civil activity—ages which the historian customarily ignores as being of only slight importance—may very well be periods of the greatest interest from a standpoint of racial dynamics.

It is, of course, true that the periods of maximum civil activity are precisely those which yield a maximum of written records, artifacts, and the other raw materials from which the historian builds his tale. But relative abundance of evidence should not be interpreted as equivalent to relative historical significance, regardless of the historian’s value criteria.

The record of the rise and fall of pure races constitutes the primary history of mankind, and the rise and fall of civilizations occupy a place of secondary importance. This statement may seem self-evident to those already accustomed to looking at history from a racial viewpoint, but it is by no means generally accepted by historians today. Until it is, much historical writing will continue to be flawed in a fundamental way.

Categories
Ancient Greece Demography Miscegenation Racial studies Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Mixing and Retrogression

Excerpted from the ninth article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:



From the far north they came, the xanthoi, the golden-haired ones: tall, blue-eyed and grey-eyed giants, on horseback and on foot, carrying their battleaxes and their spears, bringing their women and their wagons and their cattle. Warrior-farmers, craftsmen and traders, they worshipped the shining Sky Father and spoke an Indo-European language. They were the Greeks.

The Greeks—or Hellenes, as they later called themselves—crashed down upon the Mediterranean world in a long sequence of waves. The first wave, a relatively weak one—and more properly described merely as Indo-European rather than as specifically Greek—hit about 5,100 years ago, and it apparently took a roundabout course, passing first from the north into western Asia Minor, and thence, by way of the Cyclades and other islands of the southern Aegean, westward into Crete and Greece.

♣

The Minoan civilization was in its essence, however, much more a Mediterranean than a Nordic civilization. The Greeks did not bring civilization to Crete; they brought only the tendency toward civilization and the capacity for building it inherent in the higher human type which they represented.

But inevitably racial mixing occurred, sometimes soon and sometimes later. The Nordics would disappear into the mass, and the civilization they had created would lose its vital spark, stagnating and eventually retrogressing, although it might coast for centuries on its momentum after the disappearance of the Nordic element before retrogression set in. (Racemixing and retrogression were avoided only when the Nordics exterminated the non-Nordic natives of an area instead of merely conquering them. But then there was left no large serf-class for the maintenance of a culturally innovative aristocracy.)

♣

Because the Mediterraneans were only conquered and not exterminated; because they formed the bulk of the economic base on which Greek society rested; because the lifestyle of Hellenes themselves changed, becoming more dependent on agriculture than before; and because race mixture inevitably followed conquest, it is not surprising that the religion of the conquerors underwent a change and assimilated many elements from the religion of the conquered natives.

Categories
Racial studies Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Racial Classifications

Excerpted from the sixth article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:



European anthropologists have developed a somewhat involved scheme of racial classification to comprise these non-White Mediterraneans, with groupings designated as Hither Asiatic, Oriental, Hamitic, etc.

Since we are concerned only with the ancestors of today’s Whites, we will not become involved further with the subtleties of these groupings but will merely try to indicate whether any particular Mediterranean group should be considered fully White, marginally White, or non-White. Because of the racial mixing which has taken place in the Mediterranean area, with a consequently large number of gradations of racial character, such indications may sometimes be arbitrary.

Categories
Demography Egypt Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Blond Pharaohs

Excerpted from the fifth article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:


There was never total isolation between the Upper Paleolithic people and the Mediterraneans. In North Africa and in the Middle East there are a few Ice Age fossils of the taller, more rugged Upper Paleolithic types as well as of the smaller Mediterraneans. And later, during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods, groups of men from northern Europe evidently wandered as far south as Libya, because Egyptian artists (who were of the Mediterranean type) portrayed Libyans as blond, with Nordic features. Today, of course, these Libyan Nordics have disappeared without a trace into a dark sea of Mediterraneans and Mediterranean-Negro hybrids.

Mediterraneans, however, have predominated heavily in north Africa and the Middle East for at least the last 10,000 years. In the Middle East it was they who first turned from food gathering to food producing, thus introducing the Neolithic revolution. To be sure, other subracial types made their presence felt in the south during Neolithic times—the Sumerians, for example, differed in several subracial characteristics from their Mediterranean neighbors, and several members of the Egyptian royalty were blond, the first known instance being Queen Hetep-Heres II of the IVth Dynasty, daughter of Cheops, builder of the great pyramid—but it was much more the Mediterraneans who made their presence felt in the north.

Categories
Science Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Our First Kinsmen

Excerpted from the fourth article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:



Sexual dimorphism [physical differences between men and women] varies greatly among the present-day races. Mongoloids, for example, have relatively slightly developed secondary sexual characteristics, while Europeans, on the average, show much greater secondary differences between the sexes. And among the subraces of the White race sexual dimorphism increases from south to north, with Mediterraneans exhibiting the least dimorphism and Nordics the most.

In general, a large degree of sexual dimorphism in a race is an indication of evolutionary adaptation to markedly different male and female social roles. When men and women have similar lifestyles, there is relatively little need for them to differ physically, except in their reproductive organs. But in the big-game hunting society of Upper Paleolithic Europe, the men went out into the forests or the tundra to do the hunting and killing, and the women stayed at home to bear and raise the children—for a thousand generations.

Our First Kinsmen

Whether neoteny provides the correct explanation for the developments of the Upper Paleolithic period or not, it is clear that the race which hunted reindeer on the tundra of northern Europe from the second Wuerm glacial advance until about 10,000 years ago was essentially modern, not only physically but also psychically, and was, therefore, the first race to appear on this earth with whom we can feel the bond of full kinship.

In the next installment we will follow the Upper Paleolithic people of Europe into the Mesolithic period, and we will examine the cultural and subracial developments which took place then, including the first appearance of the Indo-Europeans, or Aryans.

Categories
Feminism Liberalism Science Sexual "liberation" Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Origin of the Family

Excerpted from the third article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:



Since the use of [Paleolithic] tools required a larger brain than before, and since the birth canal had become smaller, infants had to be born in a premature state, with a relatively long period of postnatal development and growth ahead of them. This meant a long period of incapacitation for mothers, while they nursed and cared for their helpless young. And this in turn required a prolonged dependence of the female on the male.

Thus, stable male-female pairing, with the male taking the role of hunter-provider and the female the role of mother-nurse, became established in our evolutionary line hundreds of thousands of generations ago. It is what is natural for our race, in that a predisposition for it is born with us. The foolish liberals who see it as the “oppression” of women and imagine that they can abolish it with a few acts of Congress or a Constitutional amendment have not the faintest understanding of what they are tampering with.

Categories
Goths Miscegenation Who We Are (book) William Pierce

On mixed blood

Excerpted from the first article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:



As already noted, there are a great many instances of pairs of groups which can interbreed with each other but, under natural conditions, either do not or do so relatively seldom, so that their genetic differences are not “swamped.” Such groups are customarily regarded as specifically distinct, in accord with Dobzhansky’s criterion.

One example of such a pair is provided by two very similar species of gazelles, Grant’s gazelle and Thomson’s gazelle. The two intermingle with each other in the wild, and they are interfertile, but they do not mate with each other. Although the morphological difference between the two species is slight—much less than the difference between a Nordic and a Mediterranean, not to mention the difference between a White and a Negro—the gazelles are able to recognize this difference (probably with their sense of smell), and mating is psychologically blocked.

Many other examples—not only among mammals, but also among birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and even invertebrates—could be given of pairs of species whose separateness is maintained only by an instinctive, psychological barrier against miscegenation. This general revulsion in Nature against miscegenation has long been recognized by zoologists, and more than a century ago the distinguished French surgeon and naturalist Paul Broca wrote: “Animals that live in complete liberty and only obey their natural instincts seek ordinarily for their amours other animals that are altogether similar to their own kind, and mate almost always with their own species.”

Domesticated Man

Man, of course, is the most domesticated of all animals, and it is not surprising that his natural inhibition against miscegenation has become confused—even without the perverse efforts of the egalitarians to promote racial mixing. We should instead wonder at the degree to which this healthiest and most essential of our natural sexual predispositions has survived centuries of a most unnatural lifestyle.

There is a great deal of evidence, historical and otherwise, indicating that in the past the White race, at least, felt a much stronger inhibition against miscegenation than it does today. As urbanization has spread, so has racial mixing. The evidence also indicates a marked variation from race to race in the strength of the inhibition against miscegenation—a variation which, to be sure, may only reflect the effect of different racial lifestyles.

Aryans, Dorians, Goths

The ancient Nordic tribes of Europe universally abhorred racial mixing. The Aryans who conquered India more than 35 centuries ago imposed a strict ban on any sexual contact with the non-White indigenous population, a ban which survives in vestigial form to this day as the Indian caste system. The Dorians who conquered the Peloponnesus at about the same time—and were later known by the name of their chief city, Sparta—likewise forbade miscegenation with the non-Nordic Pelasgian natives. And the Goths who conquered Italy 2,000 years later refrained from mating with the mixed, partly Mediterranean population they encountered there.

In every case the inhibition eventually broke down, as the hardy conquerors settled into a new and softer lifestyle and departed more and more from their ancestral ways. As warriors, hunters, farmers, and craftsmen living in close communion with Nature in their northern fields and forests, their sexual instincts remained sound. But when they became city dwellers and merchants and clerks and administrators, their instincts became blunted, and this fact was reflected in gradually changing sexual mores.

Latin Miscegenation

In other races and subraces the pattern has been different. The Mediterranean peoples of southern Europe have generally shown less disinclination to mate with other races than have Nordics. One can see the effect of this difference most strikingly in the different colonial histories of North America and South America. The early colonists who settled the former were predominantly Nordic, and racial mixing with the indigenous Indians was minimal. But the latter continent was settled by Portuguese and Spaniards, both of whom had a heavy Mediterranean admixture. They interbred widely with the indigenous population, as well as with the Black slaves they imported from Africa.

The same difference can be noticed in the European colonization of Africa. The Portuguese interbred with the Blacks in their colonies of Angola and Mozambique, while the Dutch and English in South Africa and Rhodesia kept their blood largely untainted. Such mongrels as the Nordic settlers did produce were not absorbed into the White population, whereas those produced by the Portuguese were.

Categories
Audios Judeo-reductionism Kevin MacDonald Michael O'Meara Tom Sunic William Pierce

Are monocausalists paranoid?




At Age of Treason, last March an interesting debate ensued when the admin expelled a regular commenter (no ellipsis added between unquoted sentences):

Tanstaafl said…

Daybreaker, I get the distinct impression you are in some way jewish. Would you mind setting the record straight, one way or the other?

Daybreaker said…

I’m not Jewish.

My personal background is not your business, and I’m not going to share it on the Internet, but I’ve been looking it up and I’m definitely not Jewish.

Your “distinct impression” lacks any foundation. The quote you gave just before saying you have this “distinct impression” (“Our default setting is highly universalistic compared to Jews, and likely compared to anybody else” [–Daybreaker]) is not a rational basis for an impression that I’m Jewish in any way.

Let me be blunt. You’re being paranoid.

Pat Hannagan said…

Well, Tan’s impression is one I got Daybreaker, or at least I questioned.

Your comments in this thread were beautiful but, when I’ve read you elsewhere you seem to me to have flip slopped and taken on the opposition’s side. It’s not paranoia, just trying to work out if you’re legit or not.

Daybreaker said…

I’ve said what I am, minus what particular countries my all-White and all non-Jewish ancestors hail from. And I’ve done what I can to clear up the main points that may cause confusion.

There’s nothing else I can do. I accept that you and Tanstaafl are not being paranoid. But you’ll just have to keep wondering and working on it, because I can’t make myself any plainer than to give you a straight no, which I already have.

Tanstaafl said…

Daybreaker, let me be blunt. Your comments, here and on previous posts, are too long and too many. You seem to be trying to take charge of the discussion, to manage it. Stop it.

That’s one of several indicators that gives me the distinct impression you’re a jew. Calling me paranoid is another. People think you’re a jew because you act like one.

Daybreaker said…

That’s a “shut up” and I will.
But first…

“That’s one of several indicators that gives me the distinct impression you’re a jew. Calling me paranoid is another. People think you’re a jew because you act like one.”

Based on that additional evidence, I retract my retraction. You definitely are paranoid about Jews and imagined Jews.

Tanstaafl said…

You definitely won’t be missed.

Rollory said…

“Daybreaker, let me be blunt. Your comments, here and on previous posts, are too long and too many. You seem to be trying to take charge of the discussion, to manage it. Stop it. That’s one of several indicators that gives me the distinct impression you’re a jew.”

Wow, that’s all it takes to avoid the accusation?

♣

What alarmed me was that other commenters at Age of Treason I respected continued to comment as if Daybreaker’s ethnicity had been properly demonstrated. It looked unfair to me even though I had no means to ascertain if Daybreaker was telling the truth. I felt disappointed and promised to myself, silently, not to comment at that blog again. But…

Yesterday and today I received some emails from Tanstaafl asking me if I have Jewish blood in my veins! Apparently Tanstaafl is now trying to see a Jew under the wrong stone because he’s extremely upset about my recent posts criticizing his pet theory, “monocausalism.” However upset he may be, that is no excuse for his rudeness in his recent emails. Here there are some sentences of our email exchanges. Originally, he reacted as a result of my comments at Carolyn’s blog:

Tanstaafl wrote…

Could you tell me what is going on in your mind? Do you not recognize a criticism of your position? Are you not willing or able to defend it? Did you discover some marrano roots or something?

I replied…

If you don’t mind, I will respond in my blog, but first I must know if it’s OK with you to quote your email.

Tanstaafl replied…

Haven’t you been “responding” at your blog, and elsewhere, for months already? You can’t sum up whatever you have to say to me in an email?

I replied…

I can sum up: as far as I know I have zero J ancestry (a couple of old uncles are pretty obsessed with genealogy and I trust their research). And I am astounded that you may think of me having “marrano” ancestry.

Tanstaafl replied…

Why would this be astounding anyway, then or now? Were you not aware of the marrano element sprinkled throughout latin America?

What is astounding about the question considering this position you’ve taken? Being marrano would help explain it.

Tan

♣

Did Tanstaafl imply that I lied in my previous email when I explicitly said that I have zero Jewish blood? Since I consider his rudeness a personal insult (not only is he apparently doubting my word, marrano also means “pig” in Spanish) now I don’t feel compelled to ask permission to publish his above emails. This said, another clarification is in order. In his last email he also said:

“You seem similarly single-minded in your drive even farther back into Roman history. Naturally I’m curious why excusing the jews has become so important to you, especially when your criticisms are aimed, at least in part, at me.”

Where the hell Tanstaafl got the idea that I am “excusing the jews”? My criticism of monocausalism has nothing to do with defending Jews and everything to do with accusing Whites of weakness—as Severus Niflson explained so well last Monday in Yeager’s show, the subject of my previous entry.

It now looks to me that Tanstaafl is the symmetrical opposite of Fjordman. Just as Fjordman gets mad every time I suggest at Gates of Vienna that Jews have been involved in the West’s crisis, so Tanstaafl gets mad when I suggest at other forums that Whites are involved too in the same crisis. Although Fjordie and Tan are ideological antipodes with regard to the Jewish Question, for them the whole question is “either or”, never—God forbid!—“both.” As Niflson put it in his audio reply to Tanstaafl:

“We can’t just go out there and mention the jews the jews the jews, yeah we can mention other people, but we can’t be childish and just think that it’s all to blame on other people and by magically addressing the issue of their existence that suddenly our character will become magically well.”

Niflson is not alone speaking out about the character flaws of present-day whites. If I wrote for this blog the articles criticizing monocausalism it’s because notable people moved my train of thought toward that direction after Michael O’Meara became disenchanted with the webzine Counter-Currents:

1) Tom Sunic for one has been openly dismissive of monocausalism in his radio podcasts.

2) Michael O’Meara’s best 2011 article at Counter-Currents dismissed monocausalism as something silly and quite stupid.

3) Many of Harold Covington’s radio rants convinced me that, although the subversive Jew must be named, something horribly wrong—“yellow dogs” is one term used by Covington—is going on within the character of today’s Whites.

4) Hunter Wallace has been contradicting monocausalism for at least two years at Occidental Dissent. Although I disagree with his claim that America is run by blacks (I believe that Jews are far more influential) I have quoted some of his recent pronouncements on monocausalism, which Wallace calls “single-cause hypothesis.”

5) The harshest diatribes against these weakened whites I’ve read comes from the pen of William Pierce: one of the best minds that the movement produced in the continent.

6) Even Kevin MacDonald himself doesn’t seem to support strict monocausalism!

The heavyweights convinced me that strict monocausalism is silly, and that besides naming the Jew we must also note our flaws that empowered the tribe since the French Revolution.

Perhaps the next step in Tanstaafl’s escalating paranoia will be to ask these notable people if they too have some Jewish blood—and when receiving answers in the negative then insisting in follow-up emails that they must, notwithstanding, be Jewish?

♣

This is the second time that this happens to me since I became involved in the white nationalist movement by the end of 2009. The first time happened when I criticized the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Monocauslaist J Richards, who even blames the American Civil War on the Jews, claimed at Majority Rights that that alone was proof that I was Jew! (see my comment about it here). Again, since the Majority Rights admin never apologized for allowing Richards’ claim within the main text of an article, I promised never to comment at that site again.

Aside of these insults directed at me by mail and in the blogosphere the real issue is, Are other monocausalists paranoid too?

I would appreciate comments on this question. It seems to me that character flaws are far more endemic in the movement than what I previously thought.


Postscript

When I finished the above writing I learnt that Severus Niflson recorded a follow-up audio response to Tanstaafl even if this time Niflson didn’t name him. At Carolyn’s blog Niflson added a textual reply as well, of which I’ll quote a sentence:

Generally, my point is more on the side of practicality and honesty. The honest truth is that we have plenty of blame for our current situation, we could all make a list. This isn’t to remove blame on other people, but to be reasonable and forthright. Anybody who claims that all of our issues are to be laid on the feet of Jews is basically crossing the line into the realm of religion and faith, which in all honesty isn’t my favorite area since it crosses from rational into emotional.

Listen to Niflson here.

Categories
Ancient Rome Hate Justice / revenge Real men William Pierce

The future is for the bloodthirsty,

not for the alt-righters



Panina said…

There are very tangible reasons to stop associating with the “white nationalist” movement:

1) It is dead. Anyone with two eyes, a brain and enough courage can attest this fact. Though disappointing, it is understandable that it has not achieved a single victory in its entire history. What is far more problematic is that it is losing adherents and sympathizers at a steady pace instead of gaining new ones. This is a raw estimation, but I don’t think there are more than 50,000 active and declared WNs in the entire US territory as of now… That’s called a sect, a cult.

2) It is pathetic. Read Stormfront, the world hub of WNism, to understand what I mean. Who wants to associate with those who post there? I’d rather live among Hispanics or Asians than among the lowbrow skinheads, mixed-race “Whites”, Slavs, feminist women and Christian creationists of Stormfront.

3) The term “white nationalism” bothers me because “white” is too vague. I’ve seen enough specimens of white Untermenschen in my life to understand that skin color alone is unfortunately not enough, in times of accelerating dysgenism, to assert the nobility, intelligence and probity of someone.

I like the terms “realism” (since were are, in fine, observers and accepters of scientific truths), “white advocacy”, “pro-white” (which has a double meaning), or “new right”.

I replied…

White nationalism is a term for American whites (I have the impression you live in Europe. Am I wrong? I for one live in Mestizo America). American whites need a nation now that they are becoming a minority.

I don’t believe that the movement is dead. It’s just a tiny embryo that has chances to grow after the dollar crashes.

It has scored zero victories not because the story of the movement or the character flaws of nationalists, but because after the war America reached a period of economic prosperity unparalleled in history, and now that I am studying the history of the decline and fall of Rome it’s clear that people tend to become lazy and even self-destructive in periods of easy panem and free circenses. If we have to blame something, we must blame the increasingly degenerate westerners of the last forty or fifty years.

The movement has no chance to make a real breakthrough unless and until the dollar crashes. After the coming financial armageddon we will experience runaway racial turmoil in western cities and after that continuing crisis, since the race problem cannot be solved until the ethno-state is established in NorthAm and non-whites expelled from Europe. Then the entire world will suffer from the peak-oil, energy devolution crises. The convergence of catastrophes predicted by Faye will become reality for sure. All of this will happen within the lifetimes of some of us, and contrary to Greg Johnson et al’s reactionary, non-revolutionary stance, I look forward to watch, as Pierce put it, “blood flowing ankle-deep in the streets of many of Europe’s great cities.”

Yesterday I listened the two hours of the opening podcast of Carolyn Yeager and Tanstaafl’s new internet radio show. It was good. If I were billionaire I’d purchase Fox News and invite these bloggers for a daily show. The sound of their voices is exactly right during pre-crash America.

But there’s no question that the dollar will collapse. And after the collapse people will be mad as hell. Then, and only then, will bloodthirsty revolutionaries like me have a chance.

Categories
Civil war Ethnic cleansing Holocaust Justice / revenge William Pierce

Just an email

Or:

Where is the Pierce of the 21st century?



Mark:

In his most recent article, “New Right vs. Old Right” Greg Johnson said:

The North American New Right is founded on the rejection of Fascist and National Socialist party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide… For instance, latter-day National Socialist William Pierce routinely pooh-poohed the Holocaust. But he was willing to countenance real terrorism, imperialism, and genocide on a scale that would dwarf anything in the 20th century. [Chechar’s note: see e.g., here] That spirit is what we reject.

While I am closer to David Irving, Mark Weber and Matt Parrott about the so-called “holocaust” than Pierce and most people in the movement, I am tempted to write a short rebuttal to Johnson’s piece because:

1. Fascist and National Socialist party politics would become handy after the crash (cf. Covington)

2. Totalitarianism could be useful for a while to completely eradicate The Enemy and all of our Enemy Worldview after the ethnostate is founded

3. Terrorism is imperative: Without a little revenge (Rope Day) no hard lesson will be learnt by deracinated whites

4. Imperialism will be a must. After the astronomic blunder of exporting Western technology to non-Western nations, some of which are nuclear by now, the only way to make sure that Caucasians will survive with such aggressive competitors is to conquer entire continents for our white children, starting e.g. with Africa and Latin America

5. Comparatively humane genocide—e.g., by separating nonwhite males from nonwhite females, thus preventing mass reproduction—will be unavoidable if such continents are to be fully conquered (as was unavoidable when the Anglo-Saxons conquered your precious lands).

Tempted to write a refutation I said, but these days that I want to study Gibbon seriously don’t have time for a formal rebuttal to Johnson’s reactionary, non-revolutionary article. Nonetheless, I’m so fed up by those unbelievable cheers that his article got in the commentariat section that something must be said anyway. Would you like to write an in-depth article or should I just publish at WDH this email?

We need someone of the stature of William Pierce to write a proper rebuttal to Johnson’s piece. Where the hell are Pierce’s intellectual followers, Mark? Gosh! I only have a couple of years in the movement and it looks to me like the new breed of white nationalists are a sort of typical feminized bourgeois males, unfit for the tough job coming ahead (cf. what Breivik has recently said about the currency crash that’s just around the corner).

Is this a fair appraisal of 21st century White Nationalism?

C.