THE WEST'S DARKEST HOUR – Page 564 – — National Socialism after 1945

A manifestation of an inner degenerated state

Post author By C .T.
Post date November 22, 2011
18 Comments on A manifestation of an inner degenerated state

“Tell me which music you like
and I’ll tell you who you are”

Yesterday at the comments section of Counter-Currents about music (here)—

Iranian for Aryans said referring to the CC article:

Allow me to dissent. Though the general tenor (ha ha!) of the piece (ha ha!) is salubrious, it shows a ignorance towards European music heritage. Allow me to explain.

Yes, there is a difference between “black singing” and “white singing”. Yes, the media promotes that which is bad, to put it weakly. However, the examples cited of what is good are lacking and wholly degenerated.

There is no mention of real singing as exemplified through classical music. Rather, examples are shared of Nat King Cole, Sinatra, and some other nugatory folksy personages. Personally, I think Sinatra and Cole were horrid. Real examples of singers would be Franco Corelli, Anna Moffo (mamma mia!), Renata Tebaldi, Caballe, del Monaco, di Stefano, Giacomini, Siepi, Schwartzkopf, Ludwig, Melchior, et al. These persons are our vocal stars. They might have been ugly and fat, but they were true singers, artists of the highest order. Roy Orbison? Good God…! As for the hackneyed reference to Beethoven, I’ll make a wager.

People, white people, WNs [white nationalists], can make references to classical music as much as they want, but the majority, overwhelmingly so, do not live classical music, their heritage. Do they turn on the classical radio station and listen to Haydn or Schumann? When speaking of the voice, do they go crazy over Schubert’s Die Schone Mullerin? Of course not. The espousal of amity towards classical music is disingenuous and a trite tip of the hat to “that which was”, and, as far as most are concerned, no longer is, thank God. Empty signs of respect are worthless: do you live the music? Who wants to listen to Ockeghem when there’s Prussian Blue?

Another example of ignorance of classical music is the citation of Warlock. Warlock, best known for his Capriol Suite, is a big nothing. The world expects novelty and uniqueness, even if framed in a conservative mould, from a composer. Given that Warlock’s magnum opus is a collection of Elizabethan tunes, I can’t place him as a luminary.

CC proclaims a “New Right”. Let’s proclaim it through music. Let’s open up readers to the Western musical heritage: Bruckner, Josquin, Schumann, Handel, Brahms, Vivaldi, et al.

I said:

Iranian: As much as I like WNists I feel an insurmountable abyss with them every time I learn in threads like this that they like rock, heavy metal or even old folkloric—as in Covington’s podcasts—music. This is because I learnt classical music before I was born—literally, since my mother used to be a piano concertista and throughout her pregnancy I sensed and listened the piano through my mother’s womb. And my father was a composer of classical music (when I was a small child some of my dad’s orchestral pieces were played in New York).

My first love, still as a small child of five, was Mussorgsky. Alas, musically and sexually, in today’s culture I feel like Lot in Gomorrah.

I hate monkey music as much as I hate degenerate sexual mores that are driving whites straight to the path of extinction. In fact, like Hegel I believe that if music represents the Geist then the degeneracy we see every day on the streets, TV and Hollywood is faithfully represented in the spirit of that music. For example, the Neanderthal spirit I see every day among the beaners is faithfully represented in their salsa antimusic.

I don’t know if “billions will die”, including the beaners, during the coming convergence of catastrophes (though like Lot I wish their cities burn under Heaven’s fire). But my educated guess is that, after the end of the world as we know it, there will be a resurgence of traditional sexual mores and, with it, repudiation of both violent and perverted Hollywood along with all pop music after the 1960s that “sound like demons trying to cough-up the world’s biggest hair ball”.

Iranian for Aryans said:

Chechar,

I sympathize with your feeling of alienation. I live with it and am reminded of it ubiquitously. I think your analogy of Lot in Gomorrah is good.

The monkey music (black and “white”, rap and rock, respectively) that we both loathe has become a manifestation of an inner degenerated state. But to see WNs, the so-called enlightened ones, purvey such excrescences is truly troubling and indicative of a much lowered state.

Pat Hannagan answered me:

Those “old” folkloric songs in Covington’s podcasts are the songs sung by a people who held their culture together, and successfully won their independence against an invading tyrant. My kids love them instinctively…

I replied (slightly edited):

Pat: I wholeheartedly agree with you. You know, I said that my father used to be a composer. But he abandoned composing classical music when he had to earn a buck. He taught music to children and his mantra is that folk songs are paramount for the spirit of a culture. Yes: there’s a gulf between legit folk music and what I call “Neanderthal music”: the music for whiggers, niggers, and beaners (the mexicans).

Nonetheless, when I wrote my above posts I was in soliloquy mood. To put it simply, I am stirred when I listen some music of Wagner (e.g., Parsifal), which means that musically I’m closer to the Third Reich than to the coming Northwest Republic. I simply cannot feel American folk music because Lot has no nation, and no folk music can stir the stateless individual.

In another CC thread I said that the music I most identify with is the atonal Lux Aeterna by Ligeti, especially the compasses that Kubrick chose for the scenes of desolate moon landscapes with a floating bus en-route from Clavius to Tycho. Why that cinematic vision expressing the most extreme form of solitude describes me? Because that’s the way Lot feels in Gomorrah: There’s, literally, nobody around: not even the blue sky visible in central Antarctica. (However desolate among the ice, the lone scientist in his post at least sees the blue color of the sky, meaning that there must be oxygen somewhere out there on the planet—plants, life.)

In contrast, in 2001’s moon landscapes there’s not even that: only a black sky and, without atmosphere, no shades: only black and white abyssal desolation among a world of elemental rock (link).

Update of November 23:

In the other recent CC thread about music, Iranian for Aryans said:

The espousal of amity towards classical music [in the CC article] is disingenuous and a trite tip of the hat to “that which was”, and, as far as most are concerned, no longer is, thank God.

This is exactly what Christopher Pankhurst has done in the above article (here). Pankhurst is confusing Christendom—which is dying and will finally die later in the century—with orchestral music. I would claim that, unlike Burzum, the Black Metal abomination featured in his article (what a blasphemy putting it together with Strauss’ Metamorphosen!), orchestral music has a bright future once the West awakens from its dormition.

The great musical tradition that reached a high watermark with Bach, and that subsequently sought expression through the individual genius of Beethoven and Schubert, had its funeral song in Strauss’ Metamorphosen.

False. Tragically false. Even Pankhurst concedes that after the World Wars Ligeti created numinous pieces of music.

My father also composed good pieces of music before he had to make a living through music education for children. In a more healthy culture he wouldn’t have faced economic need. Instead, he could’ve devoted all of his energies in continuing to compose (at the Utica Observer-Dispatch, in 1962 Chuck Booth wrote about my father’s symphonic piece Estirpes played in New York).

Since the whole West is in dormition, the only way that a composer of classical music can make a good living is thru soundtracks. But even in this lesser genre one can listen that orchestral music has not experienced the funeral claimed by Pankhurst.

Of the eight Harry Potter films only one, the third of the series, was superbly directed. John Williams’ music during Buckbeak’s flight and the werewolf transformation scene are examples of good orchestral music composed in the 21st century. One can imagine how far could the likes of Williams had gone if, in a non-dormition culture, they could devote all of their time composing pure music outside Hollywood. But even in Hollywood once in a while some soundtracks represent the most exquisite form of musical art. Don’t you remember how in 1968 Kubrick used Khachaturian’s most elegiac piece, Gayane Ballet Suite, when the spaceship Discovery One is bound for Jupiter?

Every time I hear stuff like paying lip service to Classical Music and at the same time promoting abominations like Heavy Metal, I cannot but compare the situation with a so-called white nationalist woman boasting a T-shirt telling us, “I had an abortion” without apparently noticing the contradiction in both statements. But again, only after the West collapses and awakens from its dormition—a cultural nightmare actually—will it be all too clear that most pop music during the interregnum was but a manifestation of an inner degenerated state, even among the white nationalists.

Tags Degeneracy

Americanism Conservatism Egalitarianism Michael O'Meara Toward the White Republic (book)

Toward the White Republic

Or:

The United States can only be repulsed
as an alien body-snatcher

The below essay, “Toward the White Republic” by Michael O’Meara, won in 2009 The Occidental Quarterly essay contest on secession. It is now the title essay of O’Meara’s book Toward the White Republic, available from Counter-Currents Publishing here.

Young Irish warrior

“Breathes there the man with soul so dead, Who never to himself hath said, This is my own, my native land!”

—Walter Scott

One.

Some time in the second half of the 1990s, a terminological change occurred in the racially conscious community.

Many who previously identified themselves as White Power advocates, segregationists, separatists, supremacists, survivalists, neo-Confederates, biological realists, etc. started calling themselves “white nationalists.”

At the time (and I didn’t know much about these things then), I thought this reflected a changing political consciousness.

For what began after 1945 as a “movement” to maintain the integrity of America’s racial character and prevent alien races from intruding into its various “life worlds” had, by the 1990s, ceased to be a realistic project—30 years of Third-World immigration, “civil rights” legislation, and various measures imposed by the federal government to subordinate white interests to those of non-whites had irrevocably transformed the American people so that it was increasingly difficult to characterize it any longer as a majority-white population.

For this reason, “white advocates” in the late 1990s started making traditional nationalist claims for secession and self-determination because the United States, in their eyes, had become a threat to their people’s existence.

Two.

This interpretation was not at all unreasonable. But, alas, it didn’t quite accord with the facts.

I’ve since learned that those calling themselves “white nationalists” are not necessarily nationalists in the sense of wanting to secede from the United States in order to form an independent ethnostate. Most, I think it’s fair to say, are racially conscious conservatives who want to work through the existing institutions to regain control of the country their ancestors made—in order, ultimately, to dismantle the present anti-white system of preferences and restore something of the white man’s former hegemony.

By contrast, white nationalists in the strict sense (i.e., those favoring secession) have no interest in restoring the old ways, let alone regaining control of the central state, whose authority is already slipping and whose rule is increasingly dysfunctional. Indeed, the American state system, as its more astute supporters acknowledge, is beyond reform.

Instead, white nationalists aspire to create a counter-elite to lead disaffected white youth in a movement to found a whites-only nation-state somewhere in North America, once the poorly managed enterprise known as the United States collapses in a centrifugal dispersion of its decaying and perverted powers.

Without an organizational presence in the real world and a “public” largely of computer hobbyists, white nationalists have no hope at present of actually mobilizing whites in opposition to the existing anti-white regime (even if they seek to influence whatever social currents might run in their general direction). Rather, their immediate goal is to prepare the way for the development of a revolutionary nationalist vanguard to lead the struggle for white liberation. They aspire thus not to recapture the rotting corpse of the US government, but to free themselves from it—in order to be themselves, in their own land, in their own way.

White nationalists, as such, politically define themselves in wanting to create a sovereign state in North America. They endeavor, therefore, not to “put things back the way they were,” as conservatives wish, but to rid themselves of them completely.

A National Revolution, they hold, will alone restore “the white man to his rightful place in the world.”

Inspired by the birthright handed down by the blood and sacrifice of ancestors, their project, relatedly, is not about restoring the Third Reich or the Confederacy, as leftists imagine, but about creating a future white homeland in which their kind will be able “to pursue their destiny without interference from other races.”

Three.

White nationalism is a variant of historic ethnonationalism, what Walker Connor calls nationalism “in its pristine sense.”

All three—racial, ethno, and pristine nationalism—define the nation in terms of blood.

The creedal or civic nationalism of the present regime, which makes loyalty to the state, not the nation, primary, is by contrast “nationalist” only in a narrow ideological sense, confusing as it does patriotism (loyalty to the state or affection for the land) with loyalty to the people (nationalism). It thus defines the nation in terms of certain abstract democratic principles, seeing it as a collection of individuals, each more important than the whole.

Though ethnonationalists privilege the nation’s spirit above all else, they nevertheless define it organically, in terms of blood, as an extended family, an endogamous kin group, or a genetic commonwealth.

Unlike European nations, formed around long-established ethnic cores (which had developed in the Middle Ages, as Germanic and other tribal confederations evolved into larger political, regional, and cultural identities), American national identity was defined, historically, in explicitly racial terms.

As Sir Arthur Keith characterized it: “In Europe the stock has been broken up into local national breeds; in America the local breeds have been reunited.”

In both cases, a national identity grew out of a real or imagined blood relationship linking the nation’s members to inherited customs and institutions.

Because the American form of racial nationhood lacks the ethnic dimension distinct to European nationalism, it is a source of some misunderstanding, especially in its purely negative expression as anti-Semitism or Negrophobia.

For example, even Euronationalists who struggle for a continental nation-state tend to dismiss white nationalism —because it seems to imply the typical American leveling of cultural and other identities by subsuming them under a homogenizing biological concept that negates the particularisms of European nationhood and subjects them to another form of Anglo-American hegemony.

In this, however, our European cousins misunderstand the aim of white nationalism, though some white nationalists in their one-sided reaction to non-whites or in their “numbskull Americanism” may, admittedly, have given cause to this misunderstanding

White nationalism is a distinctly American (or, better said, New World) nationalism, not a European one, and the two are analogous only at the highest level, where the national community, defined ethnically or racially, affirms its right to control its own destiny. Its highest loyalty, as Francis Parker Yockey held, is to the destiny of its mother soil and father culture: Europe.

This is not to say that American racial nationalism—which makes white European racial ascriptions the basis of American identity—has no ethnic or historic component.

The country’s original settlers were largely of Anglo-Protestant descent, and this had a formative effect on American institutions and folkways.

The organic basis of the American nation, however, was less English ethnicity than “whiteness.”

Even before the War of Independence (the first American war of secession), more than a quarter of the population was of non-English, mainly North European stock: Scots-Irish, German, Dutch, French Huguenots, etc. By about the mid-18th century, the “American English” were increasingly referred to as “Americans,” a people “selected by a whole series of ordeals which [had] killed off the weak and worthless” and conferred a distinct vitality on their laws, attitudes, and local institutions.

The bitterness of the War of Independence and the War of 1812, US-British acrimony and rivalry extending late into the 19th century, in addition to the “normal” nationalist compulsion to celebrate an American identity independent of the English—all tended to minimize the significance of the colonists’ original national origins, as they were reborn as pure Americans.

American nationalism arose in fact on the basis of a certain popular revulsion against the English.

Nevertheless, English-Americans were the original native Americans, and all the rest of us have since become American by assimilating something of the ethos derived from their unique genos.

Though Anglo-Protestant ethnicity continues to animate the inner reaches of American culture, it wasn’t the phenotypical basis of American identity. Rather, it was the racial experience of transplanted Englishmen in 17th-century Virginia, then the “exotic far western periphery… of the metropolitan European cultural system.”

In the New World part of this system, the ever-looming presence of African slaves, considered “by nature vicious and morally inferior,” and “savage” red Indians, who posed an ongoing threat, could not but foster an acute racial consciousness.

Given that economic opportunities, vast expanses of virgin land, and new fortunes prevented the old European social hierarchies from re-establishing themselves, these racial bearings would serve as the one fixed hierarchy ordering colonial life.

Forged, thus, in conflict with non-whites, the colonists’ early racial consciousness served to mark the boundaries of the emerging American identity. The historian Winthrop Jordan claims that “Anglo-Americans” were already identifying themselves as “whites” rather than “Englishmen” as early as 1680.

National or ethnic differences in this racially mixed environment were simply less meaningful than differences between Europeans and non-Europeans.

These differences were subsequently institutionalized, once the American colonists declared their independence, for they declared in effect their intent to become a self-determined people in the evolutionary sense, by becoming a nation, an organic body with its own sovereign state and its own laws of growth.

Then, following the revolution, as republican principles were gradually extended to all white males, the country’s Herrenvolk democracy posed an insurmountable obstacle to the extension of these principles to non-whites—for the new, explicitly white nation was based not on the liberal fiction of “humanity,” but on the assumption that human nature is a product of blood and race.

Indeed, the white egalitarianism of the early republic, shaped largely in opposition to the Toryism of anglophile Federalists (who represented the bourgeois interests of liberal market society and its connection to British commerce) was premised on the Negro’s otherness and the primacy of white racial ascriptions, all of which further contributed to the nation’s self-consciousness, coherence, and communality, as British and European Americans, largely under the leadership of Indian-fighting, pro-slavery, and expansionist Southerners, came to share not just the same horizontal sense of right and identity, but the same vertical qualities and dignities of their racial stock.

In ways different from ethnicity, race formed the psychological bonds that joined American whites and differentiated them from non-whites, just as the language, customs, and early institutions of the original Anglo-Protestant settlers established the cultural-linguistic framework in which white Americans became a self-conscious nation.

Four.

The ethnogenic process that gradually imposed a common culture and identity on the former colonists, as they became Virginians and New Englanders, and more generally, Americans, was interrupted in the 1840s by the mass influx of Irish and German Catholics—the former seen almost as an alien race. Then, in the late 19th century, this was followed by a second great immigrant wave, from Southern and Eastern Europe.

Today the Third World invasion is taking the ethnogenic process to a new extreme, as the state, with its inorganic definition of the nation, endeavors to “transcend” the perennially white, Christian character of the American people for the sake of its oxymoronic “universal nation.”

At each nodal point in this demographic transformation, except the most recent, native Americans, however resistant to the newcomers, succeeded in assimilating them on the basis of their racial ascriptions, as the Anglo-Protestant character of American identity became progressively more “ecumenical.”

Indeed, it’s increasingly difficult today to talk of “hyphenated-Americans,” given that the different European ethnic strains making up the white population have so extensively intermarried that many now no longer know their ethnic origins, European hybrids that they have become. As one historian writes: “Ellis Island whiteness” has come to replace “Plymouth Rock whiteness.”

There were obvious limits to assimilation, though. As Woodrow Wilson put it: “We cannot make a homogenous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race.” Against this view, many “new,” especially Jewish immigrants, advanced the cause for greater racial/ethnic diversity, as if America’s vocation was to become a boardinghouse to all the world’s peoples. The Old America, though, would have none of this, and, in Stoddard’s words, dismissed such claims with the insistence “that America is basically ‘made’—and that it shall not be unmade.”

Then, later, when the post-1945 National Security State, armed with its newly acquired “mandate of heaven,” endeavored to turn Roosevelt’s liberal-managerial state system into a world empire, premised on the belief that it was based on an idea, not a people, it launched what amounted to an assault on America’s historic identity—an assault whose overarching aim was to undermine the population’s racial consciousness and promote ethnocidal practices facilitating its “demographic” reconstitution.

The state’s “anti-racism” came thus to serve as an instrument of its social engineers, who sought to turn whites into herds of “tamed sheep [who] care not in which flock [they] are driven.”

It was only natural, therefore, that once the shearing got under way the most racially conscious whites began to see themselves as an oppressed nation in need of their own sovereign state.

Five.

Numerous have been the criticisms that racial conservatives make of nationalists advocating secession from the United States. The most common of these—made in a period which has witnessed successful secessionist movements (in the former SU, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc.), as well as other popular movements resisting a despotic, leveling centralization in the name of regionalism, devolution, and the defense of historic identities—is that the prospect of creating a white ethnostate in North America free of the United States is totally unrealizable… a fantasy… pure and utter folly.

But this, they fail to realize, is hardly criticism at all.

For those with the courage of their convictions, it’s never a matter of calculating the odds and going with the winning side, but of doing what needs to be done—like that Roman soldier cited by Spengler in Man and Technics, whose Aryan sense of duty kept him at his post, doing what had to be done, as Pompeii was buried in the ash of Vesuvius.

The secessionist, then, is not another party politician loyal to Washington’s New Class establishment, but a nationalist loyal to his nation—and thus to whatever political imperative the nation’s welfare demands.

He has, moreover, no illusions about what this entails.

As the Euronationalist Jean Thiriart put it: “One does not create a nation with speeches, pious talk, and banquets. One creates a nation with rifles, martyrs, jointly lived dangers.”

Six.

Viewed “objectively,” neither secession nor a white conservative reconquest has a chance, not one in a universe of infinite possibilities. Both are figments of a few white minds troubled by the prospect of their people’s imminent demise.

But that’s the way all great movements begin.

If a presently unattainable ideal is not first articulated as a mythic possibility, it remains unrealized, for its idealization is part of the process that quickens its realization (sic volo, sic jubeo).

In 1774, only a few believed in American independence, but after 1776 it was a critical mass.

Secession, as such, cannot be submitted to the usual criticism, for it’s not a fact or even an idea so much as it is a way of being—or of wanting to be.

Central to its realization, therefore, is not the objective forces opposing it, but the subjective will seeking its triumph—the triumph which comes, as Evola says, whenever “a heroic vocation awakens as an irresistible force from above and… is animated by a will to keep on going, overcoming every material or rational obstacle.”

Many things, of course, would have to change before either secession or reconquest are remotely realizable (though our postmodern age, the Kali Yuga of the Traditionalists, is an interregnum in which time and events are greatly accelerated, as all things hurtle toward the inevitable crackup, the Ragnarok, which precedes every rebirth).

The thought, nevertheless, of whites breaking free of the United States, in this period when the multi-cult empire is experiencing what may be the first of its death agonies, seems, from a secessionist perspective, somewhat less of a fantasy than trying to reform it, which 60 years of experience suggest is unreformable.

Seven.

Almost every criticism that can be made of secession is to be found in Sam Francis’s “Prospects for Racial and Cultural Survival” (1995).

Sam, to whom I have paid high tribute in these pages [Chechar’s note: The Occidental Quarterly], was an important transitional figure in the development of white nationalism.

Though one of his feet was solidly planted in the racialist camp, the other, however, was never quite freed from his former “new right” and paleocon beliefs. Divided, his critique of secession reflected an old-fashioned patriotism unwilling to break with the US—though, perhaps, if he had lived, he might feel differently, now that the dusky helmsman has begun steering the ship of state perilously close to the shoals of what promises to be an even more horrendous fate.

As an anti-secessionist, Sam considered separation from the United States tantamount to surrender—surrender of the country his ancestors created, surrender of its history, traditions, interests.

But Sam was wrong.

Secessionists surrender nothing but the slow death of their people. For among other things, secession is about survival—and the prospect of being able to fight another day.

To do that, one must live. But where, how?

For all practical purposes whites have lost the United States. Though still a near majority, they are surrounded by armed forces seeking their destruction, they are running out of ammunition, and the ground troops are being sent in to clean up the remaining pockets of resistance. It looks as if they’re doomed.

Secession is a way of avoiding the deadly pincers closing in on white life. It is perhaps the only way.

In the last 60 years, it bears emphasizing, absolutely NOTHING—not one little thing—has been accomplished to interrupt the programmed destruction of European America.

Nevertheless, the critics of secession drone on: “Why give up the country when you can take it back?”

These two-fisted patriots, who think this is the most powerful argument against secession, are likely to be singing the same song in the not too distanced future, when colored novelists start writing about “The Last of the Europeans.”

But even if feasible, what self-respecting white man would want to take back the United States, this monstrous, bureaucratic Leviathan whose Jewish, race-mixing, homophile, feminist, fraudulent, anti-Christian, and degenerate practices stand as an affront to everything his ancestors stood for?

The hard truth is that it’s gotten to the point where the US can no longer be defended as “my mother, drunk or sober,” only repulsed as an alien body-snatcher. [Chechar’s note: for an explanation of this metaphor, see this article.]

To this end, secessionists emulate the proud Danes, who said after the loss of Schleswig-Holstein in 1865: “What has been lost externally will be gained internally.”

But more than refusing to abide the state responsible for their dispossession, secessionists see this “abomination of desolation” as their principal enemy. Only by freeing themselves from it and acquiring their own land under their own sovereignty do they see a future for their kind.

One might call this “surrendering large parts of the country to non-whites”—though these aliens already occupy large parts of it and will continue to do so until whites are completely replaced.

The secessionists’ ultimate consideration, then, is not what will be lost, but what gives whites the best chance to survive.

“Any proposal for separation,” Sam argued, “would simply alienate the most patriotic and nationalist loyalties of American whites and lead them to see separatists as un-American.” Most whites would also “refuse to abandon their allegiance to the US or forsake its territory.”

Here Sam confused loyalty to the state with loyalty to the nation, paying tribute, in effect, to Caesar in his own coin. One cannot wonder, moreover, how patriotic most Americans are going to be once they discover that their grandchildren will be paying off the debts of the present US government—at a time when American citizenship is likely to be little more than a form of Chinese peonage.

Secessionists care not in the least if most whites would refuse to abandon “their” country. Most whites, de-Ayranized as they are, allowed a Negro to become president.

Only those who care for their kind and are willing to fight for them can possibly found a new nation.

The flag-waving, Constitution-worshipping types—who know nothing outside the ideology of liberal democracy, old (“conservative”) or new (“progressive”), and who believe that there is something sacred about the unholy United States—will never be mobilized for the sake of “racial preservation”; that ship has sailed.

In secessionist eyes, it’s better to lose a bit of territory and shed the race’s detritus than to lose whatever remains of the white nation—especially in view of the coming age, which is certain to be filled with cascading catastrophes, set off by the imploding contradictions of liberalism’s dystopian regime.

As for being militarily crushed by the US, another frequent objection, anti-secessionists seem not to have heard of fourth-generation war, just as they conveniently forget that the only country the United States has truly defeated in the many wars of choice it’s waged in the last 60 years is the tiny Caribbean nation of Grenada. As one Russian observer notes, the US “military does not know how to win… [only] how to blow things up” (a Second Generation Warfare practice which the US Army learned from the French in WW I and continues to teach in its academies, as it justifies the Pentagon’s vast budgetary appropriations). It’s consequentially incapable of “prevailing over any enemy, no matter how badly armed, demoralized, or minuscule”—because it only knows how to fight standing armies in “conventional” wars, where firepower is paramount.

Both militarily and politically, it would seem a hundred times easier to secede from, than to retake, the United States. Concentrating their forces at the enemy’s weakest link—a concentration of what would be a growing base of support, once the United States starts its slow slide into the abyss of insolvency and tyranny—secessionists would need only to penetrate the enemy’s porous lines, disorganize his rear through an “open-source insurgency,” and then sue for formal sovereignty over a collapsed or ungovernable part of the United States.

In the context of such a possible development, Sam wondered how the races could possibly be separated and what would prevent them from “unseparating.” Here again he didn’t see what was coming. Since the end of the Second World War there have been numerous population transfers by partitioned states (the most important of which were sanctioned by the US). These transfers occurred in the recent past, will undoubtedly occur again, and already occur in little ways every day in the US, as non-whites force whites out of their former neighborhoods.

Secession implies both population transfers and territorial partition—historically justifiable measures, sanctioned by US precedent, and executable with a minimum of force, unlike the pipe dreams of anti-secessionists, whose imagined “reconquest” would be of a state with a hundred million non-white citizens, all with their hands out.

In its desire for cheap labor, Sam thought a separate white nation, would simply repeat the process that got whites into the present mess—as if the struggle for secession (and all it entails) wouldn’t lead to an explicitly racial definition of nationality, to an inversion of the market’s primacy, and to a spiritual triumph over the materialism that has corrupted so many whites.

As a conservative, he couldn’t see that white secession (unlike the secession of the Confederacy) is a revolutionary project premised on a rejection not just of the illegal alienations of the federal government, but of the entire social, economic, and moral order sustaining its ethnocidal rule.

A white breakaway state, Sam also claimed, would be surrounded by hostile powers, vulnerable to invasion, and unable to defend itself against the rising demographic tide outside its borders. Again, these are non-criticisms. Any region seceded from the United States would have its own arms stockpile, including nukes, and would likely be supported by Russia and other powers having scores to settle with Washington’s New World Order.

More crucially, the racially homogenous populace of a seceded white republic would be imbued with the nationalist fervor that is the inevitable offshoot of newly forged nations and armed not simply with the technologies of mass destruction, which are now accessible to small states, but also with a society-wide system of local militias, like the Swiss.

To think that a mutilated United States, with its warring racial factions, welfare politics, and rubber-spine army would be able to crush an armed, autonomous white republic is to abandon the realm of logic. Even at the height of its expansionist powers, National Socialist Germany never thought of invading tiny, mountainous Switzerland, where every citizen was armed and ready to defend his nation. The US Army, need it be said, is no Wehrmacht.

Eight.

European Americans will not survive another generation under the present Judeo-Negro regime.

Racially-conscious conservatives are counting on a future white backlash to mobilize in defense of white interests. Through such a mobilization, and a much discussed though little practiced, “march through the institutions,” they hope to raise white racial consciousness, counter the demographic threat posed by non-whites, and introduce reforms that will curtail non-white power—all of which, of course, are totally desirable.

But they expect to arrive at this Utopia without explaining how they would counter a population half of which will be non-white in 33 years (2042); without explaining how they would challenge a government that criminalizes white dissent; without explaining how a system can be fundamentally changed without fundamentally changing the institutions and powers that govern it and make it what it is; without any of these things, racial conservatives mock the notion of secession, as if their own not particularly successful project is the sole conceivable alternative.

Nine.

Unlike their conservative critics, secessionists have a plan, a simple, straightforward one, that offers whites an alternative to an unreformable system and an inescapable death.

This plan has the advantage of being (a) eminently political, (b) based on proven historical precedents, and (c) imbued with the power to generate a will to nationhood.

Given the increasingly totalitarian nature of the existing system, where the mere mention of “race” can be taken as an incitement to crimes against humanity, this aspect of secession, ought, perhaps, to be discussed in historical rather than explicitly programmatic terms.

Much of the history of European nationalism speaks to the American situation today, especially (in my admittedly partisan view) Irish nationalism.

In the 1870s and ’80s, a generation after the An Gorta Mor (the Great Hunger), revolutionary and conservative nationalists agreed to be allies in the common struggle for Irish nationhood. The revolutionary Fenians, preeminently in the form of Michael Davitt’s Land League, which led the rebellion in the countryside, gave the constitutionalists in Charles Stewart Parnell’s Irish Parliamentary Party the social leverage to force concessions from the English at Westminster—concessions that eventually won back many Irish lands. Then, once the constitutionalists had gone as far as they could, by about 1911 or so, the revolutionary, physical-force wing of Irish nationalism took over to complete the nationalist project.

We American secessionists want whatever works best for the future of our people. If our “constitutionalists,” perhaps in the form of a third party, are able to create dissension and vulnerability among the “English” in a way that promotes white interests, they are to be supported. But once they fail, we will need to turn, as did the Irish, to the methods of Connelly and Pearse.

Those who know Hibernian—or any other European—nationalist history also know the immeasurable power of the nation, especially the nation rising to nationhood.

This is the spirit we secessionists hope to stir in white Americans.

The situation today may, therefore, be totally grim, but politically there is no more feasible or marketable strategy to awaken our people, especially as they become aware of their approaching minority status and all it implies.

Imagine, then, for a moment, a white homeland in North America, free of the Jew-ridden US government, with its colored multitudes and parasitic institutions: In my mind, this one image says everything, explains everything, promises everything.

The powerful imagery of an autonomous white nation possesses, as well, the mythic potential that the General Strike has in the thought of Georges Sorel.

All great movements, Sorel saw, are driven not by rational arguments or party programs, but by their myths (which “are not descriptions of things, but expressions of a determination to act”).

For it is myth—and the memories and hopes animating it—that shape a nation, that turn a “motley horde” into a people with a shared sense of purpose and identity, that mobilize them against the state of things, and prepare them for self-sacrifice and self-rule.

A Sovereign Independent State, as the Irish called it in 1916—the White Republic, as I call it—is a possible secessionist myth to symbolize the determination of white men to assert themselves as a free people somewhere in an all-white America.

_____________________

See endnotes here.

Tags United States

Alice Miller Child abuse

Fallen Leaves’ latest post

Post author By C .T.
Post date November 16, 2011

For my former friends who stayed behind when I came into the camp of the nationalists who fight for elemental survival, nothing has been more incomprehensible than my infatuation for Hitler and National Socialism after my awakening. Two weeks after my big mentor, the Swiss psychologist Alice Miller died last year, in my diary I wrote:

“I don’t believe anymore that Miller was the most important person of the last century, when her most important books were published. Now I believe that the example to imitate is none other than Hitler… In one of my classic long walks in the night I realized that my mind had changed.”

On the other hand, in the very preface of my magnum opus Whispering Leaves I confess—again, my translation—: “It’s true that, of those unheard of stages, Alice Miller was the most significant influence for this work.”

The above apparently contradictory statements moved me to settle accounts with the first of Miller’s books that I read, Por Tu Propio Bien, literally For Your Own Good though the original German title, Am Anfang war Erziehung (1980) means “In the beginning was the education,” which in my Spanish translation contains a 53-page chapter about Hitler.

I simply had to settle accounts with this chapter. It’s something that I owe to those nationalists who, in the future, will need to become familiar with child abuse studies so that the mistakes that moved adult children (formerly abused by their parents) to hate their parents’ culture not be repeated, especially in the coming ethnostate.

In Fallen Leaves, my new blog, I’ve just added the first post criticizing Alice Miller’s nonsense about Hitler. It contains 9,000-word excerpts from the book Esau’s Tears explaining the historical milieu that culminated in what I’d call a healthy dose of anti-Semitism among the German people.

Tags Adolf Hitler

Aryan beauty Child abuse Kali Yuga Maxfield Parrish

My minority report

Part of Maxfield Parrish’s 1913 Florentine Fete murals exhibited at the National Museum of American Illustration. If an ethno-state is ever created in the Northwest, my ultimate dream is that in the distant future its people will resemble the paradisiacal world of Parrish (click here for individual detail of this mural.)

In my last posts we discussed the majority report in “orthodox” white nationalism: Capitalism and the Jewish Problem as the twofold etiology of Western malaise. But I also mentioned my minority report: that the most extreme cases of self-hatred among whites—those who celebrate that their kind will become a minority in a dehumanized society inundated by non-white swarms—cannot be explained satisfactorily by any of these two factors.

In a recent post I briefly talked about how child abuse among whites drives them to hate the culture of their parents, and also presented my book Hojas Susurrantes (“Whispering Leaves”), most of which has not been translated to English.

Since this is a novel, if not a far-fetched subject for most nationalists, I cannot deal with it in this blog. However, you can visit a blog I started this week, Fallen Leaves, where I am gathering texts on the toll of child abuse in adult life I’ve been writing or collecting since 2005.

If in the near future I don’t add new posts to The West’s Darkest Hour as often as I used to do, it’s because I am busy with my minority report in another blog; for example, translating to English articles I originally wrote in Spanish: Fallen Leaves

Final solution Quotable quotes

Quotable quotes

“The Third Reich made a terrible mistake in not targeting more races for destruction.”

NY Untermensch^*

_______________

^*A most original blogger devoted to exploration of Jewish issues from a perspective that is helpful to patriotic whites around the world. Although he’s racially Jewish and is a third-generation native New Yorker, unlike most Jews he agrees in principle with the notion of a “final solution” to the Jewish problem.

Ancient Rome Miscegenation

It is the Ring, stupid!

“The struggle against international finance and loan capital has become the most important point in the National Socialist programme.” —Hitler

Since I became racially conscious, finding out the basic etiology of Western malaise has been a torture to my mind. “Paleologic” nationalists, those who believe what they want to believe independently of evidence, attribute every catastrophe to the Jews: even the French Revolution, the American Civil War and 9/11. Paleologicism is a regressive mode of mentation analogous to the cognitive processes of present-day schizoids, whose thinking is often identical to the magical thinking of primitive men (cf. my psychohistorical explanation of paleologic thought vs. Aristotelian thought here).

I believe that the Jewish Problem should be addressed and solved first, especially by reclaiming the American media and Hollywood that have been hijacked by the Jews. However, in my previous entry and elsewhere I have also said that the story of New Spain demonstrates that, while the Catholics were extremely tough on Jews and Judaizers, they were tolerant of the natives with Pope Paul III recognizing in 1537 that Amerindians had souls and declared them fit to receive the sacraments, including marriage to the Spaniards.

Behold eight minutes of a 1973 film about how, before my great-great grandfather moved to Mexico City from Catalonia, Jews were handled in the town where I was born. Keep in mind that the viceroyalty of New Spain lasted three whole centuries. Incidentally, the actor that plays the role of the Grand Inquisitor, now deceased, lived a few blocks from my home (in the clip some Amerindian faces appear: blasphemers to be punished for sure, but not killed). It is a pity that the Inquisitor’s discourse has no English subtitles because it gives the picture of the zeitgeist in New Spain: keeping this land free from “heretics” and those who follow “the dead law of Moses.” After the Inquisitor’s impassioned speech the other Dominican said:

“We welcome this Auto de fe for punishment of some and an example to all. It punishes offenses against religion and morality. These Judaizers [crypto-Jews] will be delivered to the justice of the secular arm, to which we ask forgiveness and compassion.”

Then the man richly dressed in a yellow suit, the representative of the secular arm noted the prisoners’ various offenses against morality and public order. In New Spain the Jews always got special treatment. The non-Jews would be punished with:

“flogging, banishment, galleys, imprisonment or confiscation of property. And the relapsed Judaizers present and absent are condemned to be burned in flames of fire, until they become ashes and nothing remains of them in the memory of this land.”

Alas, following their Pope’s bull, unlike the Anglo-Saxons the Spanish conquerors married the local Indians, with time producing the Untermensch stock that depresses me every day I have to leave my home. But the lesson for nationalists is that we cannot blame the Jews for the colossal miscegenation that occurred in this part of North America and even in Central and South America.

Amerindians washing gold for the Spanish conquerors

Whom or what should we blame instead? In the specific case of New Spain, I would blame both the lust for gold—or to put it poetically: the One Ring which in Richard Wagner’s Rheingold symbolizes capitalism—and universal Christian values: where the value of white ethnicity is considered irrelevant. The fact that the One Ring is presently wielded by the Jew doesn’t erase that in the recent past the white people wielded it. In Wagner’s opera there’s a curse: “Whosoever holds the Ring, by the Ring they shall be enslaved,” and even the hero of his monumental Tetralogy, Siegfried, dies as a result of holding it.

Did capitalism chew Norman Rockwell’s America and spit out Obama’s? Today Greg Johnson published “Brooks Adams on the Romans” of which I’ll quote only three excerpts:

In chapter 1, “The Romans,” Adams illustrates how capitalism ruined Rome.

Rome was never really a people, never a nation. It was merely a system, a machine. From the very beginning, Rome populated itself by opening its gates to refugees from other cities. The Roman machine liquidated this founding stock [the farmers] and replenished itself with foreign blood until it became too weak to assimilate new peoples.

In ancient Rome, as in modern America, the economic system and its imperatives are treated as absolute and fixed, whereas the people are treated as liquid and fungible.

As the case of the Spanish Empire we can hardly blame the Jews for what happened to the Roman Empire. Johnson also published today “The Romans,” the mentioned chapter of Adams’ book originally published in 1895 on how the “One Ring” (capitalism) ruined Rome. I’ve read it and it reminded me Harold Covington’s eloquent speeches of “Iron Man” versus “Economic Man,” but Adam’s chapter is hard to understand for those unfamiliar with political economy. I’ll only quote a couple of sentences. At the beginning of his chapter Adams claims that, “on the disparity between these two types of men [farmers and usurers], the fate of all subsequent civilization has hinged.” And at the end of his chapter Adams concludes:

By the year 400 [A.D. Roman] disintegration was far advanced; the Empire was crumbling, not because it was corrupt or degenerate, but because the most martial and energetic race the world had ever seen had been so thoroughly exterminated by men of the economic type of mind…

Johnson also published “Brooks Adams’ The Law of Civilization & Decay” by Anthony Ludovici who says that Adam’s picture is one-sided. Ludovici calls our attention to Otto Sieck’s thesis that negative character changes are brought about by miscegenation. As to a connection between miscegenation and mercantilism Ludovici writes: “I confess I can see no such connexion. But it may exist.” He concludes:

It is here, it seems to me, that Brooks Adams’ work is defective. Nowhere does he give sufficient attention in the influence of stock changes and stock deterioration or modification, through random breeding with peoples who may or may not influence an original type adversely. He refers to the exhaustion of the energy of a race, which occurs under the pressure of economic competition; but is this the only way in which a race may be devitalized?

I’d like to respond to Ludovici. At least in the case of New Spain, always ruled by pure whites and which at its peak was more prosperous than her neighbor, the United States, the crossbreeding of the races allowed to the lower classes was an epiphenomenon of the lust for Aztec gold (and lust for silver at the southern side of the Spanish empire in the Americas). Thus I venture to say that, since whosoever holds the One Ring—whether Roman, Spaniard, American or Jew—shall be enslaved by capitalism, defeating the present wielders of it won’t be enough.

When we create the ethno-state we will have a unique opportunity to destroy the Ring itself.

Tags Jewish Question (JQ), Materialism / capitalism, New Spain

Autobiography Child abuse Christendom Evil Hate Inquisition Kali Yuga Miscegenation

My evil parents

It’s me at fourteen,
when my parents
started the abuse…

I’ve been reproducing pretty tough selections quoting Alex Linder’s invectives not only about Judaism but of the nefarious role played by Christianity in the West’s darkest hour. That’s why one of my blogs in Spanish doesn’t link anymore to blogsites by Iberian Christians that focus on Islam: the speck in their neighbor’s eye and not the beam in their own. Even so I maintain friendships with Catholics and Protestants always provided they are, before all, white nationalists. Discussing with Pat Hannagan, one of these comrades, I pointed out recently:

Do you see how deeply miscegenated is Mexico, with overwhelming Indian blood over the European? Guess what: the mess started long before the Jews or the atheists took over. The perp was… a Pope.

Right after the Conquest of Mexico-Tenochtitlan, Pope Paul III in his Bull of 1537 recognized the personality of the Indians, and declared them fit to receive the sacraments, including marriage to the Spaniards. The implications of this provision were enormous, as it left the cross-breading between Amerindian women and the Spaniard conquerors legitimated.

In the best book ever written about the history of Mexico, Catholic José Vasconcelos wrote: “In the Hispanic world this policy prevented a separation system of castes, like the one that has divided the Anglo-Saxons of the north” (Breve Historia de México, Ediciones Botas, 1944, p. 205).

Pat replied. He said that, though he knew little of the history of this part of North America, he doubted that the Church had ruthlessly enforced herself upon both Spaniard and Indian. I answered:

New Spain was a sort of religious paradise for the Catholic Church: the triumph of Counter-Reformation in most of America if you want to see it that way (remember that New Spain covered important southern states that presently belong to the US). In fact, thanks to our Inquisition, for three-hundred years (1521-1821), before the movement of Independence, New Spain was Judenfrei: which means that we cannot blame the tribe for the incredible mestization that took place over a continent during that period. It is precisely the tragic history of how New Spain regressed back to “Mexico” (the name of the old Aztec capital) what refutes the single-cause hypothesis: that the Jews are behind every single ill of modern history.

Maybe it’s worth saying that in the 1860s my great-great-grandfather, mentioned by José Zorrilla in his autobiography, moved to the heart of Mexico City for labor and studies issues. The family chose to rent a catty-cornered room from the building which a few decades before had been the Palace of The Inquisition of New Spain.

Pat replied again: “OK, so the Church accepted inter-racial marriage but is that a cause for the current drug cartel [and the] related complete collapse of that nation and spread into the USA?” I answered:

To a certain extent, yes: I have not seen a single pure white among the drug lords. Hadn’t the continent become a giant experiment in miscegenation we wouldn’t have the present mess of today.

The explanation of my latest response appears in IQ studies about the color of crime.

New Spain lasted tree hundred years: about a century more than the current histories of both the independent US and independent Mexico. Spain’s viceroyalty was strictly ruled by Iberian whites and, as I said above, free of Jews before so-called “Mexico” became independent in 1821.

A map of the territories
of the Viceroyalty of New Spain
at its zenith in 1795

The story of the rise and fall of New Spain ought to be more than enough to convince nationalists that the problems we face today cannot be attributed only to the Jews. For instance, above I used quotation marks around the word “Mexico” to convey the paradox that the independent movement was led by traitorous whites (when Jews still had zero power in the whole region). It’s all too obvious that with the gigantic miscegenation that the New Spaniards practiced throughout three centuries in the Judenfrei viceroyalty, universal Christian values screwed the American continent big time. When I leave my suburban home to go downtown and see the swarm of brown faces, I cannot imagine that a couple of centuries ago in those same streets white people wearing white wigs crossed the avenues with elegant horse-drawn carriages, like in the movies about eighteenth and early nineteenth-century Europe. The curious country where I was born beautifully demonstrates that besides a Jewish Problem we have indeed a Christian Problem: and that the single-cause hypothesis of Western malaise is inaccurate.

But that was not the purpose of this entry.

What if, besides (1) group-surviving strategies in Judaism—cf. this preface by MacDonald—, (2) the deranged altruism in present-day Christianity—cf. these comments by a retired blogger—, and (3) corporate capitalism—cf. this thread on Michael O’Meara—there is, still, a 4th (!) factor that we must take into consideration to explain Western deranged condition? While so many factors look like a nightmare and the primary temptation is to pick one of them and bias our search through reductionism, if we are to understand the basic etiology of our condition we cannot leave out any of the other factors from our worldview.

In the remainder of this post I’ll try to focus on the fourth factor since it has never been addressed seriously in the movement.

Two years ago I wrote an article, “Why do so many westerners hate the West?” that purported to explain the extreme hatred for traditional Spain of a Spanish woman, a practicing doctor. After ten months of interacting with her (she lived in Madrid but frequently visited the Canary island where I lived) I concluded that this woman, once committed to a mental institution for suicidal ideation, suffered from classic transference. Since she could not endure the pain of how she was treated as a child by her parents, she “transferred” all negative emotions onto her parents’ culture, specifically onto the most traditional aspects of Iberian culture.

Below I quote the introduction to my article:

Today’s suicidal ethos throughout the West is unimaginably deeper than anything that the common Western patriot, or even the most sophisticated intellectual, has ever glimpsed in his wildest dreams. While intellectuals in the white nationalist movement are good in describing the predicament that the West faces today, at the same time they are clueless about the basic etiology of the whys of the cultural self-hatred behind some of our people. Why is this so?

I have written a book from the viewpoint of deep psychology and cannot summarize my findings in this entry. Suffice it to say that the most extreme cases of cultural and ethnic self-hatred go back to the way we were raised by our parents, and the defense mechanisms that we unconsciously built in response to the family dynamics. Although I believe this is the universal cause of extreme self-hatred, in the sense of hatred toward our parents’ culture, in this article I will use a single case-study to illustrate why a westerner that I know hates her culture to the point of desiring its destruction. I analyze her not as a personal vendetta, but in the hope that those who defend our culture and ethnicity will become aware of what Alice Miller calls the forbidden knowledge.

This was my final thought after the main discussion of the article:

I wouldn’t have written this comparatively long analysis were it not for Teresa’s hatred of the West and her craving for its destruction. We already saw that she told me she really loved the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Moorish immigration that is taking away what force remains of Christendom in Spain, that she thinks that every single Western family is noxious, and that she wishes that “everything collapses.”

The sad thing about cases like Teresa’s is that there are many of them. What moves me to write this article is that in the nationalist movement there is no psychological analysis whatsoever, not even in the slightest form, of why leftist people hate their civilization. I believe that this case illustrates it. The volcano of rage that Teresa carries inside never explodes in the form of speaking out about her real aggressors. Never. (The cause for this is the problem of attachment to the perpetrator.) She re-directs it to the culture that, in her mind, symbolizes her family: the Francoist Spain and everything related to conservatism. Teresa gives a damn about the fact that in other cultures the treatment of women is far worse that what she got as a child. That’s irrelevant. What only matters is the destruction of the culture that crucified her. Period.

Teresa and I have the same age and we both suffered in Catholic families at the same time. Comparing the two biographies, it’s evident that I was a victim of more serious parental abuse than what she suffered.

But I don’t desire the destruction of my civilization. Before trauma, even big trauma, there still exists individual responsibility. That someone devotes himself to speaking out about child abuse (like me), or contributing to destroy the West through voting for Zapatero and by hating those concerned with Western preservation (like Teresa), only shows that there’s indeed something like surrendering our will to evil.

If leftist feminists were good persons, the first thing they would do is to feel compassion for the girls in Europe whose genitals have been chopped off at their parents’ request. But these women do exactly the opposite: they hate the System dissidents who pity the pubescent Muslims, as Teresa hated me in her quoted e-mails.

“A little woman chasing after her revenge would over-run fate itself” wrote Nietzsche. Teresa and the rest of the far-leftist women that feel extreme hate toward our civilization chase after an unconscious revenge. With so many voters like her in Spain and in the Western world, the fate of the West looks grim indeed. Teresa’s suicidal ideation, aborted by the psychiatric institution that she loathes so much, transmutes itself into the suicide of our civilization since, alas, instead of killing themselves many other empowered women have become West haters too.

A scientific description of evil: self-deceit

Evil is the exercise of power, the imposing of one’s will upon others by overt or covert coercion. The core of evil is ego-centricity, whereby others are sacrificed rather than the ego of the individual.

—Scott Peck

At Counter-Currents, last Thursday Greg Johnson quoted some of the words of Dr. M. Scott Peck from a Wikipedia article. According to Peck, a psychologist, ego-centric persons are utterly dedicated to preserving their self-serving image. They cultivate an image of being good persons but specialize in self-deceit and thus are “people of the lie.”

Adapted from Wikipedia:

Peck discusses evil in his book People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil and also in a chapter of The Road Less Traveled. Peck characterizes evil as a malignant type of self-righteousness in which there is an active rather than passive refusal to tolerate imperfection (sin) in one’s mind and its consequent guilt. This syndrome results in a projection of evil onto selected specific innocent victims (often children), which is the paradoxical mechanism by which the People of the Lie commit their evil.

Peck describes Roger, a depressed teenage son of respected well off parents. In a series of parental decisions justified by often subtle distortions of the truth they exhibit a consistent disregard for their son’s feelings and a consistent willingness to destroy his growth. With false rationality and normality they aggressively refuse to consider that they are in any way responsible for his resultant depression, eventually suggesting his condition must be incurable and genetic (the main lie of biological psychiatry I may add).

Evil is described by Peck as “militant ignorance.” The original Christian concept of “sin” is as a process that leads us to “miss the mark” and fall short of perfection. Peck argues that while most people are conscious of this at least on some level, those that are evil actively and militantly refuse this consciousness. Peck considers those he calls evil to be attempting to escape and hide from their own conscience, through self-deception.

According to Peck, evil people (in the bulleted phrases I will now paraphrase Peck to refer to my evil parents)—:

• Are consistently self-deceiving, with the intent of avoiding guilt and maintaining a self-image of perfection

• Both of my parents (as well as other evil parents) deceive others as a consequence of their own self-deception

• My parents have been projecting their evils and sins onto their offspring (scapegoats) while being apparently normal with everyone else (their insensitivity toward us has been selective)

• My mother commonly has hated us with the pretense of love, for the purposes of self-deception as much as deception of relatives and acquaintances

• My mother has abused political and emotional power to impose her will upon her oldest children by overt or covert coercion

• My mother has maintained a high level of social respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so

• My parents have been consistent in their sins. Evil parents are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency of destructiveness

• Both of my parents have been unable to think from the viewpoint of their victims (scapegoats)

• Both of my parents have had a covert intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury

Evil parents realize the evil deep within themselves but are unable to tolerate the pain of introspection or admit to themselves that they are evil. Thus, they constantly run away from their evil by putting themselves in a position of moral superiority and putting the focus of evil on their children. Evil is an extreme form of what Peck, in The Road Less Traveled, calls a character disorder.

Ultimately Peck says that evil arises out of free choice.

* * *

The very last phrase of my 700-page book, Hojas Susurrantes (Whispering Leaves), now available through a print-on-delivery house says, “Pero mi padre escogió el mal” (But my father chose evil). The following is a translation of what I wrote for the back cover of my book:

The author was born in 1958 in Mexico City. The eldest of artist parents, his original vocation was to become a movie director. His plans were shattered due to devastating abuse in his adolescence coming from the same parents who had instilled his artistic sensitivities.

With Whispering Leaves, a work of a quarter of a century, Tort presents a multifaceted work. It recounts not only a heartbreaking tale at the beginning and the end of the volume: the runaway abuse that nearly destroyed his young mind. Whispering Leaves also contains a searing exposé of so-called mental health professions which tend to side with the abusive parents, thus re-victimizing the child who already was a victim of such parents.

The book also contains a lengthy introduction to the thinking of the most relevant theorists on child abuse: Alice Miller and Lloyd deMause, and includes a psychohistorical section that aims to explain the unconscious motives of child sacrifice in Mesoamerica. All this thematic, including the criticism of psychiatry and the criticism of the anti-Western anthropology of our times, is always interwoven with a new literary genre, the total autobiography: a narrative of the murder of a soul.

“I finished reading your book. It’s so shocking and disturbing at times that I had to leave the reading because of the sadness and pain that I felt. It made me think and once I got to stop and cried because I was about to wet the leaves…”
……………………………—Paulina C. Moctezuma

Although I have criticized the 9/11 conspiracies theories believed by many nationalists, we need to expand criticism to more substantial topics. For example, in an article that was published a couple of days ago at Counter-Currents, “What is the best Hitler biography?” Andrew Hamilton stated that David Irving “is not a ‘Holocaust denier’ as Jews claim, though he does not believe in every jot and tittle of their religious narrative as everyone else does.”

Breaking away from “orthodoxy” in white nationalism not only means seeing beyond the single-hypothesis (Jews) prevalent in some quarters. It also means starting to harbor second thoughts about the history of the 20th century. For example, as soon as Irving’s book on Himmler is released I will surely order it with interest and can only hope that other nationalists will read it too.

The same with other “impolite” topics in white nationalism. Last month at Radio Free Northwest, Axis Sally spoke about spanking and other (abusive in my opinion) childrearing methods as the business of the parents alone. Sally and the commenters of the Northwest blog who harbor similar views will think it twice if they knew it was precisely the beatings that Teresa endured as a child what—she told me—caused her trauma. (An unprocessed trauma that she eventually transferred onto her parents’ culture because our Hispanic milieu didn’t allow her to overtly hate her parents.) It’s not my intention to belittle Radio Free Northwest. On the contrary: in the previous podcast Harold Covington had said: “At seventeen, when my deranged father threw me out of home…” I believe that precisely because, unlike Teresa, Covington allows himself that safety valve, he is far more integrated psychologically that his (childless) brother who has fallen so low as to resort to the SPLC to defame Harold.

As to date there’s only one chapter of Whispering Leaves that has been translated (by me) with the syntax corrected by a native English speaker. If white nationalism has for the first time in its history the beginnings of a meaningful intellectual scene, as Trainspotter believes, then it is high time to consider childrearing subjects as relevant for white interests: the fourth factor I listed above among the culprits of our spiritual and cultural degradation. I simply cannot conceive a breed of white haters of the culture of their parents if, as children, they had been treated with a little respect by the same parents.

I welcome comments on the translated chapter of Whispering Leaves (here). In fact, given the importance of benign childrearing to raise the level of political intelligence among us, I am tempted to freeze this blog for a while with this post and take a break. If I decide to do that, I could use that time to add hundreds more blog entries to my site in Spanish to annotate the insights already presented in my book.

Whatever I chose I will continue to discuss in the blogosphere, including here. Those willing to contact me directly can do it through the email that appears at my profile.

Tags Jewish Question (JQ), New Spain

Whites & Jews

The Jews see themselves as a people, and a people at war with every other. Jews are hyper-organized, and they create plans and blueprints in order to control their future.

Whites by contrast, due to whatever cause, see themselves as individuals. They do not feel persecuted. So they join no White groups, and they make no White blueprints. The very notions strike them as bizarre.

The Jews are able to pick us off one by one because there is never intense or obvious enough pressure on any given point to elicit a mass White response.

—Alex Linder

Tags Jewish Question (JQ)

Der Ring des Nibelungen Literature Lord of the Rings Richard Wagner

Wagner’s wisdom

One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them
One Ring to bring them all and
in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

This piece, that originally appeared on The Occidental Observer (here), is reproduced below minus a couple of sentences mentioning the 9/11 attacks:

Lords of the Ring

by Michael Colhaze

Many moons ago and for a few years only, I wore my locks long and sported colourful garb and roamed the psychedelic haunts of Paris, London or Amsterdam, usually holding a joint in one hand while employing the other to underline with languid gestures my latest concept of how to bring instant peace and love to the world. As for my fellow freaks and hippies, most subsisted on very little, at least money-wise, but nearly all had pets, the latter named frequently after a brand of heroes much en vogue during those innocent times. For cats, Galadriel stood high on the agenda, also Arwen and Legolas. In Amsterdam my next-door neighbour, a middle-aged lady with henna-dyed hair, flowing dresses and tinkling bells around one fat ankle, owned a huge tomcat called Gollum. When he was one day run over by a lorry, she came and cried bitterly into my lap. I did my best to comfort her, though secretly rejoiced because the cunning bastard, nomen est omen, used to be a veritable bane for the local sparrows and blackbirds, and long since had I weighed means of abandoning him in a far-away place without coming under suspicion. As for dogs, I remember a Frodo, Bilbo and Pippin, also one Boromir, him a mighty Leonberger and the gentlest fellow I’ve ever met.

J.R.R. Tolkien

Which gives you an idea of how much Tolkien’s arrant epos was on our mind during those happy years. Wherever you came, you found in the bookshelves from cardboard boxes or orange crates at least one copy, usually a weighty paperback falling apart from much use. Walls were hung with coloured maps of Middle Earth, and Gandalf was a household name for anything from an Underground publication to a short-lived artistic society. Depending on fantasy and imagination, and perhaps also on the daily cannabis consume, an inordinate number of people identified with a member of the Fellowship, or wished fervently for the return of the King, or would have retired into the Shire without looking back even once.

On the other hand there were some, myself included, who had enjoyed the book but found it somewhat lacking in psychological depth. It was, after all, a monumental canvas painted largely in black and white, with protagonists either amazingly valiant, handsome and noble or the absolute opposite, namely unspeakably ugly and wicked. Which made the tale rather predictable and deprived it of the complex emotional touch that otherwise would have found a way into the heart. Still, Tolkien’s power of imagination cannot and will not be denied, and for his excuse it must be said that he relied much on the High Germanic saga like Edda or the Nibelungen, and that those were on the whole magnificent exemplifications of the eternal battle between Good and Evil. A battle where tads of intellectual embroidery might have seemed misplaced.

Yet under the heroic plainness hid an aspect that intrigued me and many of my friends considerably, namely the deeper meaning behind the fantasy. Because, as we all agreed, there had to be one since the tale was simply too carefully thought out to be without one. Never mind that the ghastly Sauron, title figure and main protagonist aiming to enslave the world and mankind particularly, didn’t turn up personally during the proceedings. But his presence is overwhelmingly felt, and he had to have an equivalent within the recent history of man, and as such a name that made sense.

First in line was of course Adolf Hitler, temporal saviour of a betrayed, ruined and starving Germany robbed naked by the Versailles victors, but for the rest and according to the New York Times the biggest blackguard ever to set foot on our sacred earth. Next came good old Joe Stalin, mass murderer par excellence supported by a closely knit clan of henchmen as described and defined by the great Solzhenitsyn in his Gulag and Two Hundred Years Together. Then the fabulous Chairman Mao, who most likely holds the Guinness record for accumulated corpses worldwide. And finally the inventors of the nuke, embodied by one Robert Oppenheimer who paid, just like that abominable fraud Freud, with lung cancer and a slow and painful death for his sins.

But try as you might, none of the above really made sense. One reason was of course that Tolkien had begun The Lord of the Rings already in the mid-thirties, long before those villains blossomed medially into full bloom.

As to the ring itself, what kind of power did it exactly wield? It was, this we know, potent enough to enslave the lesser ones, but not all-powerful. Because long ago Isildur King of Gondor, in a desperate attempt to stem the advance of the Orcs, had offered battle to Sauron their chieftain. And in a one-to-one succeeded with God’s help to cut off the latter’s hand which bore the ring. A feat that routed the Dark One and his hosts, at least for a while and until he tried another grab at the hideous thing.

My understanding of Tolkien’s political leanings is scant. He himself has, as far as I know, refused to give any clues. But there are hints. It is rumoured that he considered General Franco rather emphatically as the saviour of Catholic Spain, a view much at odds with contemporaries like that heartless hunter, boozer and scribbler Hemingway and his liberal chums. One of Tolkien’s close friends, the writer and poet Roy Campbell, had witnessed the atrocities committed by Marxist death squads against priests and nuns in Córdoba and described them in vivid detail. What makes him interesting in this context is that he also contributed articles to The European, a fascist gazette run by Lady Diana Mosley, wife of Sir Oswald and, as James Lees-Milne described her, “the nearest thing to Botticelli’s Venus as I have ever seen.” Ezra Pound, among others, was a fellow contributor to The European.

The latter should have rung a bell, but didn’t. Nearly twenty years had to pass before bits and pieces fell into place, at least within my much limited perception. One was an exhibition, the other a production of Wagner’s Ring.

The exhibition was staged in Frankfurt by one of the more affluent art establishments, meaning that decent Fizz, snacks with French pâté and a few interesting people could be expected on the eve of its grand opening. Which was the reason, some curiosity apart, why an old friend took me there. Both of us have no truck with Modern art and knew the artist only vaguely by name. Lucien Freud it was, grandson of you-know-who, and his hams about as uplifting as a dead rat under the sink. As we stood in front of one [painting], an uncouth male nude reclining on a smutty bedstead with legs spread wide open while scratching reddish genitals dangling above a cavernous anus, my friend cast a look around and said: “Grand Orc of the Crap Arts! Never had any sense of beauty, and never will!”

A remark that transported me immediately into a more sunny and innocent past, but also made me decline any comment. Because this was after all Germany, a country ruled by politically correct criminals that long since have booted the freedom of expression as laid down in the constitution, and who slap you for years on end into the cooler if you dare to insist on it.

Damned be the Ring I forged with a Curse!
Though the Gold gave me unlimited Might
Now its Sorcery has brought me Ruin!

The Rhinegold, 3rd Scene

About a week later I saw, and heard, Richard Wagner’s Ring of the Nibelung. I have no intention, and lack the intellectual acumen, to give this masterwork its proper due. George Bernhard Shaw, in his essay The Perfect Wagnerite, has summed it up like this: “Only those of a wider consciousness can follow it breathlessly, seeing in it the tragedy of human history and the whole horror of the dilemma from which the world is shrinking today.”

Dilemma? Horror? Shaw did not enter into detail as to the above, but the composer himself was more forthcoming.

You ask me about Jewry. I felt a long-repressed hatred for them, and this hatred is as necessary to my nature as gall is to blood. An opportunity arose when their damnable scribbling annoyed me most, and so I broke forth at last. It seems to have made a tremendous impression, and that pleases me for I really wanted only to frighten them in this manner. Because it is certain that not our princes, but the bankers and Philistines are nowadays our masters… [Correspondence between Wagner and Liszt, Vol. I, p.145, 18/4/1851]

He did however not intend, as stated very clearly elsewhere, to blame the whole tribe, just as you and I wouldn’t consider every Italian automatically a member of the Cosa Nostra.

Richard Wagner

As to the tremendous impression, this is how it commences. Namely at the very bottom of Germany’s mighty river Rhine. There a trove of gold lays embedded in a reef, glinting and gleaming mysteriously in the sunlight that filters through the timeless waves. Beautiful mermaids guard it on orders of their father, enjoying its dazzling radiance, cajoling and wriggling their lovely bodies in the bright reflection. Until one Alberich crawls out of the deep, a stunted Nibelung and Son of the Night who beholds the maids with greedy eyes. When he tries to seduce them, they only laugh, pull his beard and taunt him. Enraged, he asks about the significance of the gold. Carelessly they tell him that unlimited Power to rule the World is in store for the one who will forge a Ring out of the precious metal. But, they also warn him, this feat is only possible if he renounces forever the Power of Love. It takes Alberich only a moment to make up his mind.

The World as heirloom would I gain!
And if I cannot have Love
Might I not cunningly extort Lust?
The Light will I extinguish for you
The Gold will I tear from the reef
And forge the avenging Ring!
Let the Waves be my witness:
Forever have I cursed love!

He rips the gold from the rocks and forges the Ring to rule the World with cunning and brute force—and of course without Love.

“My Ring and Wagner’s were round, but there the resemblance ceases!” scoffed Tolkien rather maliciously after his book had been published in the mid-fifties. Which is so transparent a denial that it seems almost laughable. Shaw’s aforementioned essay The Perfect Wagnerite, nearly of book-length, much acclaimed and widely read, must have been known in detail to Tolkien as well. Because his Ring and Wagner’s are identical in theme and essence, twins in fact if only in a different quality of clothing. Meaning that the former, compared to Wagner’s peerless magnum opus, is over-large and very entertaining, but not really a masterpiece of literature in the classical sense. Interesting might be that Tolkien uses words like Mordor or Sauron, clearly derived from the German Mord, or murder, and Sau, or sow. Though his claim that his own name derived from the German tollkuehn, meaning extremely foolhardy, seems unlikely since it doesn’t exist as a family name.

As to the deeper meaning in both cases, it is important to know that the one Ring of Power has no magical potentials as we understand them. It cannot destroy enemy armies simply by an order of its bearer. It cannot make you fly. It cannot stop the flow of time. It can’t even prevent you from getting wet if it rains. It can make you invisible, true, but that is just an illusion. And you’d still get wet in any case. So what is it really?

It really is only GOLD! And isn’t that enough to rule the world?

For many of those who had witnessed the last decades of the great European Empires, a reign of peace and general improvement that ended abruptly and horribly with World War One, the era afterwards must have seemed like the proverbial devaluation of all values. Because the bankers and Philistines, already so powerful in Wagner’s times, had by now metastasized out of all proportion. Germany, down on its knees, was hardest hit. During the ill-fated and debt-ridden Weimar Republic the country’s capital, Berlin, boasted 115 banking institutions of which 112 were Jewish-owned. The same ratio was true for innumerable cabarets and brothels where girls and boys as young as ten years old sold their famished bodies to the new caste of money acrobats. As to the banks, they used the country’s catastrophic finances to their advantage and tricked and forced the starving population out of their assets, be it shares, shops, houses, farmland, factories or newspapers, until half of Germany was in the hands of a very few. The same happened, though much less drastically, in much of the Western World and resulted finally in the cataclysmic Black Friday. An exercise, as the Orc-faced Robert Fuld of formerly Lehman Bros. has informed us so brazenly, where we ruin a national economy and pick up the bits and pieces for a song.

Now it must be remembered that in those years public opinion was on the whole far less brainwashed than today. No Holocaust had yet been invented to slap down undesirable critics, no worldwide Media Mafia could tell you convincingly that a crock of shit is a pot of gold. Thus in many of the national and international gazettes, accounts of thefts, crimes and injustices abounded, backed up with caricatures of the cruel and greedy Jew.

Accounts that surely have been observed and considered by Tolkien as well. Therefore it seems highly plausible that the Ring he began to forge in his mind during the early Thirties wasn’t so very different from the one Wagner had invented a hundred years earlier. Particularly if we remember a rather interesting detail, namely that indeed one Aragorn strode out of the wild and re-forged the sword that was broken. A man not of royal descent, it is true, but some kind of Mahdi or Sent-One, as Carl Gustav Jung has called him. Very powerful, a great orator, fearless too, and immediately setting to work and succeeding, almost overnight, to break the Ring’s terrible stranglehold. A feat he brought about by throwing worthless paper money out of the window and replacing it with barter based on real goods and honest work.

Well, we know what became of him and his folks, and how dearly they paid for an attempt that endangered the supremacy of Sauron’s banking institutions worldwide. The latter regrouped, giving his Ring full play, and Germany’s ancient cities and their innocent inhabitants, millions of them, perished in a Firestorm of unimaginable magnitude and barbarity. A sad moment in our great Christian European history, you will agree, and its final curtain fittingly drawn by one of its greatest conductors, Herbert von Karajan, who performed on the eve of Berlin’s destruction the Ring’s last episode, Twilight of the Gods.

As for the Sent-One, there comes a day when he will be assessed more objectively and not just demonised out of all proportion. Some of the most hideous accusations levelled against him might crumble like a house of cards in a cloud of dust about as big as the [WTC collapse]. Which could result in two schools of thought, namely one where he remains indeed a villain, and another that pronounces him the most tragic character that ever walked the earth. Him and his people. As for myself, I still have to make up my mind.

As for Tolkien, nearly twenty years went by between the Ring’s first written page and its publication. A time span that radically changed the face of the world, including the book market. Which ended up, to a large part and small wonder, in Sauron’s hands as well. Thus it doesn’t come as a surprise if Sauron’s chronicler got somewhat mum and choose to refute any familiarity, let alone indebtedness, with and to his German forbear. And so removed any ideological obstacles and cleared the way for a tremendous literary success.

A success most certainly deserved, with the one little setback that we will never know what kind of Secret Fire the old wizard Gandalf the Grey has been serving, and which he so mightily evoked when he smote the Bridge of Khazad-Dùm from under the Balrog’s fiery feet. The latter an intriguing name, particularly if you keep in mind that Baal is the Canaanite god of fertility who demanded human sacrifices, and Rog the Hindi word for malady.

As for the rest of the world, the question is of course of how far the Lords of the Ring have succeeded to enslave us. Logically speaking, and seeing their immeasurable wealth and nearly unlimited influence, they should have long since consolidated the realm. Which seems indeed the case in most Western countries where presidents, prime ministers and chancellors are their obedient marionettes. Ring Wraiths, Tolkien has called them fittingly. Men and women like you and me, but empty-eyed. Outer shells of their former selves who command us to abandon our morals and artistic heritance, fight proxy wars for their masters, pay any amount of money into their purse, and generally order us to be at their service whenever it pleases them.

Yet something went badly wrong.

To begin with, the Shadows have been torn from the Land of Mordor, a mysterious region shrouded in deep secrecy for hundreds of years, but now glaringly illuminated. So much so that its schemes and crimes are every day more clearly observed and understood, be it the corruption of politicians, the doling out of jobs to foreign countries, the true intent behind globalism, the giant thefts, the resulting economical upheavals, the unspeakable atrocities in the occupied territories, the bungled assassinations, to name but a few.

Next come the Ring Wraiths, perhaps Tolkien’s finest invention. Enablers, Paul Gottfried has called them, and deems them worse than their criminal masters. Men and women who once possessed Christian souls and knew about the Power of Love, but sold both for thirty pieces of gold to forge their own insignificant rings. Trinkets that serve for a few brief years to ride the crest of power until a new contender wins the upper hand and sends them packing. Which is usually sweetened with honours and compliments to ease the approaching twilight years, a time when the ghosts and corpses of the past begin to whisper in the dark and the hour of reckoning draws close, slowly but inevitably.

Today this kind of sugar-coating can have a sour aftertaste, due to an unforeseen invention called the Internet which markedly diminished the control of the Media Mafia and its sniffing, lying, cajoling, mudslinging lackeys. That is why the Bushes and Blairs of this world have become lepers instead of paragons, with motions underway to hold them responsible for their crimes, including the death of countless women and children and that of many fine soldiers whose intentionally poor equipment has prolonged the conflict to this day.

Finally the Dark Lords themselves.

Those who have already entered the twilight years, like the one on top of this little essay [George Soros – I have omitted the images of the original article], watch with silent horror how the mountains of gold are seeping like water through their fingers, leaving them empty-handed and with nothing to bargain on Judgement Day. As for the others, still springy and enterprising, it is said they are preparing for the ultimate Armageddon with their nukes, viruses, bacteria, cheque books, connections and what not. And perhaps they do, because they see that the world has tired of them, of their lies and extortions. But if they do, they’ll have to fight themselves for a change and not let others do the dirty work. Which will result, as a kind of divine retaliation and since they are so few, in the final destruction of the Ring and the utter defeat of its forgers.

Because once, long ago, when tempted by a hoard of gold deep in the River Rhine, they made the wrong choice and… forever cursed the Power of Love.

Tags Adolf Hitler, Jewish Question (JQ), Materialism / capitalism

Conservatism Egalitarianism Joseph Goebbels

Linder’s worldview (part 2)

Post author By C .T.
Post date October 1, 2011
9 Comments on Linder’s worldview (part 2)

For the first part click here. Indented paragraphs are quotations of those commenters to whom Linder responds.

The Weimar Germans just came out of a nationalistic world, were proud to be German and had a 1000-year-old history. Americans have to deal with 60 years of mass egalitarian / multicult indoctrination. The first task is to build up race consciousness among Whites.

Without tv it’s a losing battle, given demographics. We’re doing what we can on the ’net, but it’s not enough and can never be. The need is to get power, then you can take care of the rest in short order. It’s like if someone is pouring water on you, you’re advising people to dry off instead of taking the hose away from the guy.

The contexts of America today and the Weimar Germany couldn’t be more different; it’s moronic to treat Mein Kampf like some sort of roadmap to American problems.

Nope, sorry Fred. It’s a power struggle, plain and simple. There’s got to be a team. It’s got to be White. It’s got to focus on the jew. Otherwise, nothing.

Posted by Lew:

Alex Linder: [Southerners] simply aren’t smart or quick enough to do battle with jews. Indeed, it is the hardest thing in the world to teach a Southerner basic facts about anything.

Hey, Deep Southerner here. I resemble that remark about dull Southerners. Keep in mind David Duke is a Southerner.

I happened to see the Duke campaign up close and worked for Duke as a low-level volunteer. White people in Louisiana turned out in droves for Duke.

In the early 1990s Jews did indeed unleash all of their power on Duke short of assassination, which might have been their next move had he won.

But it was local business interests backed by the organized Louisiana Bar and the Chamber of Commerce that were decisive in defeating Duke, not Jews and their media. A lot of Whites who didn’t give a shit about the media were told by their White bosses that if they voted for Duke, they would lose their jobs. In the end, it scared off enough people to make the difference. Duke later called that tactic economic blackmail.

Posted by Linder:

Hey, Deep Southerner here. I resemble that remark about dull Southerners. Keep in mind David Duke is a Southerner.

I generalize and overstate. Verbal caricature is a very good way to see what’s right or wrong about a proposition. I’m no footnoter. I’ll never go back and issue disclaimers—you know how to read it, you’re smart. You can read the motive. I don’t care about anybody’s feelings, including my own. We’re too womanly on that stuff. Politics aint beanbag.

Notice I don’t unload on Duke, and that is because he meets my litmus test: openly pro-White, openly anti-jew. He has truly shown the limits of the controlled electoral process, so he deserves respect.

But it was local business interests backed by the organized Louisiana Bar and the Chamber of Commerce that were decisive in defeating Duke, not Jews and their media.

You, we, must have principles to get anywhere. And the very first principle, in any pro-White organization, must be VNN’s slogan: No Jews. Just Right. They must be completely excluded. That I have to state this boggles the mind. That I have to tell MacDonald this blows the mind.

The CMS, NPI, AP3, alt-right continuum are pitch perfect for attracting disaffected people (in my opinion) away from the American mainstream and toward racial nationalism.

Not so. As I’ve pointed out, conservatism, functionally, has nothing to do with politics; that’s just the field in which it is deployed to raise money.

However, these entities appear to be tangled up with Jews at the highest levels.

Correct. They’re unprincipled, or they have the wrong principles. They will reap the predictable result.

Interesting how these liars come out of the woodwork to exculpate jews. MacDonald says that jews alone were responsible for the 1965 immigration act. Before that change, America was 90% white.

Corporations had nothing to do with opening the borders, and these woodwork liars know it. But their mission is to confuse. To make complex what real political thinkers like Hitler knew must be made simple enough that the lowest person in the crowd could understand. Politics is not about intellectuals, it’s about basic propaganda as a means to a group-desirable end.

It is all-important that average white men be taught that jews are responsible for every major social problem in the west. Of course that is a simplification. But it is essentially true and politically the sine qua non of any kind of substantial racial regenerative effort. The truth remains that jews are behind all upheaval movements in the West dating back at least to the French Revolution.

Chechar’s interpolated note: I’d need a source for the French Revolution claim.

Just as Churchill wrote as a journalist about communists back in 1919, jews were the driving power. Investigate whichever radical movement you like and you’ll find the same thing.

Only one policy cures jews and the trouble they cause: No jews. Just right.

* * *

And the maestro [Goebbels] expounds:

“The battle against indifference is the hardest battle. There may be two million people in this city who hate my guts, who persecute and slander me, but I know that I can win over some of them. We know that from experience. Some of those who persecuted us and fought most bitterly against us are today our most determined supporters. You see that the important thing for propaganda is that it reach its goal, and that it is a mistake to apply critical standards that are irrelevant.”

Does the average man know the white racial cause exists? He does not. He knows white racialism is something to beat up Republicans about.

We must make a party. And we must make a name for that party. The way to do that is clear, and I’ve laid it out in my strategy piece.

* * *

My country is called America. My ancestors came over on the Mayflower. My ancestors fought with Ethan Allen in Vermont, and George Washington to establish it. Their offspring did all they could to keep the filthy niggers you 90-IQ crackers imported to do the work you were too lazy to do yourselves, and so you could have someone around dumb enough you could plausibly look down on them.

Who are the #1 political winners of this day and age? The jews. Who are the most paranoid, obnoxious and disagreeable people on earth, hands down? The jews. But I’m sure we’ll lay them low with our big grins, friendly handshakes and genial online logrolling.

In light of jews’ success, we can conclude that paranoia, obnoxiousness and disagreeability in no way impede political success and may well be essential to it. My view is that all serious politicians must either be paranoid or synthesize the ability to think like one. Paranoia is nothing more than highly tuned, or overtuned, enemy recognition. The problem whites have as a race is they aren’t naturally paranoid. They are not naturally xenophobic by comparison with all other racial groups. They can’t even get a feel for their enemies after it is pointed out exactly what their enemies are doing. Whereas jews seem to have feelers, so in-the-blood is their hateful suspicion of all others.

In real politics, paranoia, real or acquired, is essential to success. Stalin was paranoid. Jews are a paranoid race. As I’ve said many times, shrewd people see 90% of what’s there. Paranoids see 110%. The non-paranoids in a movement can use the paranoids to pick up that last little bit they don’t catch themselves.

I can’t avoid the conclusion that most WNs [white nationalists] simply don’t believe their own bullshit, when it comes to jews.

* * *

You don’t like me or what I say when I attack Jared Taylor. Because you like him personally.

But objectively, allowing jews and apologists into our movement will render it stillborn.

How do I know it’s objective? Because the exact same thing just happened to professional conservatism in the 1960-1990 frame. Today professional conservatism celebrates commie rapist MLK [Martin Luther King] as a hero. In 1960, professional conservatism wrote about him publicly in nationally distributed publications pretty much the way we racialists do today.

You let someone like Jared Taylor into the White movement, you are guaranteeing that in twenty years, so-called White Nationalists will be saying the same things about MLK that Newt Gingrich and Glenn Beck say today.

The odd irony is that you who respect Taylor actually have less respect for him than I do. The reason for that is that you don’t understand him or the danger he presents and represents.

Ferris Bueller (something like that): “So—how do you put this into practice, apart from talking to yourself and a handful of misfits on the internet? That’s the question, and I bet you have no answer.”

Are you people on drugs? Have I not on this very thread given the basic strategy, or at least link to it? It’s not hard to do theoretically, it’s easy. It’s hard to do practically because the men to do it aren’t there. How to get them? That’s the question. It has to start with military vets at this point. And a nucleus that can data-protect itself to a level equal to the FBI-ADL. On the soft side, white curriculum, white “hilfe” stuff like Parrott talks about. I could repeat what I’ve said hundreds of times, but you’re not really listening anyway, or you’d know my basic strategy.

Haller: Why not use your talents in a more persuasive way than spending a decade of hurling abuse around the internet? I don’t know how you support yourself, but you obviously have free time. Why not use that free time to gain some real, objective academic expertise in the field of Jewish Studies? Even if you didn’t wish to return to grad school, as I’ve now done with Catholic Theology (and that PC world probably would not accept you), why not subject yourself to a disciplined course of study in Jewish political involvements (as Kmac did), and then write a book on your political strategy re dealing with Jewry and allied issues?

An academic understanding of jews and a political movement to oppose them have nothing to do with each other. Anyone new to the idea that jews are a collective bad rather than good can verify the claim in no more than a night or two of reading. Knowing more than that about jews is nice but not necessary—from the strategic political standpoint. It is the work of the enemy to make it seem as though our cause is more complex than White-good / jew-bad. It’s not.

And advanced academic degrees are no proof against political unwisdom. Look how unthinkingly MacDonald participates in and validates by his presence the Charles Martel Society, which admits… jew-apologists. MacDonald by his actions confuses followers about whether jews are the problem or part of the solution. He confuses us with them in the eyes of onlookers, thereby vitiating a racial cause. “Each man kills the thing he loves,” wrote Wilde.

This world is set up so that it is as easy to produce the opposite of our intention as what we intended. Extremely careful attention must be paid.

Leon, I don’t think you’re capable of grasping certain things. It’s imagination and emotion that move the world, not footnotes and studies. You think that an academic has more credibility than an effective wit. It is not so. It is the opposite. Sometimes the two are united in one man, as in Goebbels; more frequently they are separated. Hitler achieved his deeper-than-MacDonald understanding of judaism not in college libraries but on the streets of Vienna.

The way to a man’s heart is through his marrow, not his mind.

If the book were sober, factual and free of invective,

it would be boring as all fuck and mere repetition of what 100 more academically inclined writers have said before.

Don’t you see, Haller? You’d have me throw away my real skills to become a third-rate repeater—repeater of a message better men have already laid before us a dozen times. “Sober, factual and free of invective” are the opposite of what produces political change.

You really are almost a caricature of the bourgeois mind. I almost would suspect you of satire but not quite.

Leon—have you never read George Lincoln Rockwell? He has your type nailed. Go read on him on his political progress through conservatism. Absolutely nails what’s going on. He skewers your POV [point of view] and the type that holds it. Again, it’s the MacDonald mindset too. That we are going to outrespectable the yid-led left to victory. Outmanners them. Outnice them. This view is not merely crazy, it is probably unique in world history: that an oppressed minority that accurately perceived its opponent as mendacious-aggressive nevertheless believed it could triumph over that vile criminal set with nothing more than facts and reason.

As Rockwell said, the delusion that the masses can be moved by facts and reason is the eternal stumbling block of the right. You, in telling me to become a shitty academic, would have me throw away precisely what it is that I have that potentially could cause the jews serious problems—invective, verhetzing as they call it in deutsch. I know how to get in people’s marrow, and that’s knowledge you can’t learn in any school. Go back to school? Other than weedeat mosquito-filled swales, there is nothing I would less rather do than go back to where the snakey-snidelys snit and snoot at the non-semitophilic.

Doing what you’ve been doing seems like a waste, merely talking to other talkers.

It does not seem so to me.

I think progress has been made in the last decade. More men understand the jewish root of our problem; more sites expound on it. I’m happy to continue widening the circle.

Alex, Jared Taylor has been doing his thing for over 20 years—and nobody’s burning incense for MLK. It didn’t happen.

Of course it hasn’t happened—yet. It’s a long play by the jews. They have pre-infiltrated WN so that if WN takes off (and jews know it well could, because they know what they are doing to our race, and how a section of that race must inevitably respond), then they have long in place extremely skillful, appealing men to mislead the angry mobs, and channel their anger in a non-jew-hostile direction. This is the purpose Jared Taylor exists to serve. William F. Buckley served it before him, and Taylor has said he wants to be the WFB of white nationalism.

It’s not what WN is today that worries the jew—all the reports put out seemingly monthly are pure bullshit—it’s what it could be if it ever takes off.

Alex, none of these people would find you tolerable in the least. You think P.J. O’Rourke, who was married to Lena Horne’s granddaughter, would want to have lunch with you?

Funny for a number of reasons.

1) such a womanly way of thinking: ooh, mrs dallypimple wont have snickers with me at forenoon.

Honest to god, get off the net and go buy maxipads, girlie. I care about effects and how they’re produced, not whether these people would go to McDonald’s with me.

2) How the hell do you possibly know how dead people in different nations would react? What’d you convene a quickie séance and poll them? I love how people just grant themselves all-knowledge of things no one could know.

Why do so few of you study the Civil Rights Movement’s history, and learn from its methods?

Because they only work if you control the mass media.

The suggestion of this false model usually signals the voicer is an anti.

The whole notion of duplicating the black-privilege movement is so ridiculous on the face of it that I assume the person advocating such is either a blockhead or an anti.

Claims that we can and should copy the ’60s jew-organized niggers, regardless of the intent of the advocate, play into the jewish lie that it was the “morality” of the anti-White movement that won whites over rather than raw jewish legal and media power.

Good example is Knoxville. The media treated us Whites sticking up for Christian and Newsom as hostile outsiders bent on stirring up trouble. Trolls on here repeat that lie. But when the jew-fired radicals went down to the southern region in the sixties, they were treated as jesus figures come to the benighted land to spread love and justice. The locals were the haters.

What’s the common denominator? Anyone sticking up for whites is the bad guy, and anyone pushing the jew agenda is the good guy.

The “civil-rights” strategy can’t work unless your side has the courts protecting it and the mass media marketing for it. Only simpletons and antis masquerading as WN can’t understand this. The more I read Haller, the more his denseness seems deliberate.

Haller: Heretical as this will sound to Linder, I’m not convinced that Jews can’t be brought to a new, more constructive relationship with Aryans.

How do you propose to bring them, lacking any power? They’ll laugh at you. They don’t care about reason or morals, only power. And you don’t have any. That’s why all this talk of secession or separatism or forming Republics is ridiculous. Rather than empty, foolish talk about secession, Republics, separatism and the like, we must worry about much more basic things: a) defining who we mean by “we”; b) defining who we mean by the enemy, them; c) forming a national political vehicle; d) choosing a strategy to acquire power; e) employing the strategy and actually acquiring that power. Then and only then can we force the jews to deal with us, or die resisting.

The people are already with us. What does that mean? It means if “we” that great undefined are anywhere near equal in power in relation to ZOG’s official parties, or even merely appear to be heading toward it, the people will side with us because we represent what their actual behavior shows they already appear: closed borders, free association, execution of nigger criminals, gun right, end to foreign wars/aid.

Our strategy cannot be based on appealing to people or teaching them because we don’t control the high points. It’s like a guy with a single used car trying to outsell some massive car lot. We have to assume the people are with us based on their deepest behavior—where they move, who they marry. And assume they are not heroes, and will not take serious risks short of emergency conditions (massive social breakdown), but will follow the forces of white normalcy we represent if the social costs of that following are anywhere near equal.

Linder’s model—an anti-localist national approach…

My approach is not anti-local at all; local is quite important. My strategy correctly recognizes that the power suppressing our racial interests emanates from D.C., not from some hamlet in rural Wyoming, Arkansas or South Carolina. It’s like some of you aren’t capable of reading the papers. We must persuade people! We must do things in Our Town and never lift our heads! And what happens? You do anything serious, the feds coming marching in with the civil rights tyrants and jail you, sue you, or abuse you in the press. You can’t even run classified ads discussion who you want to rent a room to, because that’s a federal civil rights violation. There’s no way to change that locally, it’s a national issue. There has to be a competing, oppositional national body facing up to the jews in order to take that power back from them. Local stuff is important for other reasons, only secondarily for political reasons. Most white-majority areas don’t have any serious political problem, and if they do, say black crime or illegal-alien-caused problems, it’s precisely because the feds won’t let them deal with them. Who sues the small town in Pennsylvania that passes some tiny measure to discourage illegal aliens? The Justice Department. Not out of Feral Hogg, Ala., but out of Washington, D.C. Again, I can’t help but see deliberate denseness here on the part of these anonymous mouthers.

We need power. Power means national power. There’s no such thing as state and local power in the USA in 2011. Not when a federal judge can simply toss out the legitimate vote of a large democratic majority. And the media always side with the judge.

The only portion of KMD’s A3P discussion that was a big disappointment to me was this: he mentioned an internal debate about whether the A3P should be an explicitly or implicitly White vehicle.

Imagine Hitler and the National Socialists internally debating whether they should be explicitly pro-Germany or implicitly? A kosher-salted garden slug would be a good symbol for A3P.

If this is true and there is actually disagreement within the A3P on this basic question, it does not seem likely the national A3P plans to do what I have been hoping for — making confrontation Jews in a rational, founded and reasonable way using KMD’s own research and findings part of their activism.

There’s nothing wrong with rational criticism of jews, but it belongs underneath the gaudy flowers of vicious emotional attacks for the harm they’ve done our race. That KMD et al. don’t get this is why they aren’t worth following. Emotion is where the winning lies, not in reason. In the heart, not the head.

It is an infallible mark of the fool or the liar that the jewish “thing” can’t be understood by normal people without years of training, prayers and handholding. Garbage. Any person of normal intelligence and most people of subnormal intelligence can be taught the jew thing in a couple of minutes.

The correct strategy is to attack the conservatives as cowards and weaklings, which they are. Take on their standard-bearer directly, the worst of them all: Pat Buchanan.

Chechar’s interpolated note: A recent TOO article deals with Buchanan’s most “valiant” book (here), which will be published next month. According to the reviewer, Buchanan doesn’t mention the Jewish Question.

* * *

Somehow the jews took power without ever troubling themselves in the slightest with Flyover. Hmm… now how did they do that? Oh. They bought up the mass media, they paid off the politicians, and they took over the law schools. But we’ll get ‘em back by…running candidates in local dogcatcher elections. Yeah, thatz the ticket!

Wandrin: “Jewish media and legal power specifically played on White concepts of universal morality. It didn’t work on everybody, especially not those with a lot of personal experience of living among blacks, but it worked on enough White people to tip the balance. Films like To Kill A Mockingbird and all the others like it were enough on their own to start the multicult in places like Sweden.”

Yeah, but that’s a deeper problem—christ-insanity. And still you’re evading and failing to counter my point. Morality is not some independent abstract thing that is undeniable, in many instances, if not all, it’s a matter of interpretation.

Are they civil rights workers? Or jew-led, jew-instigated anti-White troublemakers pursuing a genocidal agenda?

You see how easy that is? It is purely a function of who controls the media, who gets to define who is who. They simply map on their political concerns to existing mores and, yes, as you say, they fit them to christian morality. Child’s play to cunning kikes.

We can’t simply copy what the jew-led nigs did because our cause will not be played the same way in the media. We will be played as the bad guys. The evil outside shit-stirrers. I’m not theorizing, the framers interviewing people in Knoxville were taking great pains to ask about where everybody was from so they could make precisely that point: “outsiders bringing trouble.”

Media control is damn near everything. What part of that is too hard to figure out?

You can’t reverse engineer it without controlling the institutions. To succeed at cultural marxism requires a verbal ability our side doesn’t possess. Look at how many of us use the enemies’ terms unthinkingly. MacDonald uses “racism” and “Holocaust” and “anti-semitism” like they’re meaningful words representing perfectly valid concepts, rather than attacks on the cause he thinks he is defending. If our smartest guys are clueless, are the dumber ones any better?

Look… a hostile minority took over this country. It did not do it by voting. It did it by legally and sometimes illegally acquiring the mass media, and simultaneously taking over the money. It uses its immense and growing power to create a false reality, a false consensus reality, as has been well said. No “hey kids, let’s put on a show” counter effort is going to defeat that. A lot of you don’t seem to grasp that. The only possible thing that can defeat that is extremely organized, life-and-death loyal opposition. And 90% of you don’t even agree on the necessity of keeping to a political. Some of you, pretending to be us, actually brag about being stupid, indoctrinaire, contradictory. Let me tell, my pudgy little friends. The jewish cunt will not fucked with that tiny pecker.

* * *

By all means, people are free to waste another 100 years speaking in their indoor voice, raising their niggling finger, and prefacing everything they say with disclaimers. But if you want change, you have to create a national angry groundswell willing to slur and kill and sup on the blood of its enemies, and you don’t get there by appealing to selfish bourgeois cowards.

Anger is good for our cause. Reason is merely necessary.

Teaching people about jews in the bloodless, carefully emotionally controlled academic prose is fine for a book, but not for practical politics. To make CofC’s lessons real, vibrant, meaningful and effective requires someone doing more or less exactly what I said. Only emotion will get us where we need to go. Reason shows the way and the how, but emotion is the means.

Wandrin: “The essence of cultural marxism is simply relentless attack on every critical aspect of the dominant culture until it collapses from exhaustion at which point you can replace it with something else.”

Yeah, but you can’t do that without controlling the high points: the pulpit, the press, the law schools, the academies. Especially not if what you’re preaching is hugely and ridiculously anti-majority.

They required great verbal ability because they were selling poison. We don’t need as much because the multicult is one big genocidal double standard and we’re selling the cure.

Yes, that’s true, to an extent. But still the basic problem remains: unless you own the mass media, you’re shouting in the wind. And the jews operating our power institutions are not going to allow themselves to be displaced or infiltrated. Their control mechanism is extremely strong, and their threat-paranoia is impeccable. I really believe that it’s late enough in the day that only a counterforce that begins with soldiers has any serious chance. Or we can’t wait until ZOG collapses of its own internal contradictions, as a marxist would say. But I actually believe if we had even a few hundred, say, veterans, and they stuck to a defined political line and pursued a solid strategy they could become a national force in short order.

Remember the mantra: smart people always undersimplify. Let’s not make that mistake.

Our people need know only that jews are bad and Whites are good. Everything the majority of our people hates we peg to the jews, and quite justifiably so. Everything they love we tie to the existence of a racial-oriented state.

Simple, simple, simple. Emotional, emotional, emotional. Repetitive, repetitive, repetitive.

We don’t control the mass media. That is the most important political fact we face. Like birds in a north wind or salmon headed to spawn, we must face that north wind, that cascading water, directly. Directly is the only way to cut or knife through it and get where we need to go. Three quarters wont do it: 3/4 gets blown over bowled over, sucked under.

Just say no to cleverness!

Attacking the double standards and moral inconsistencies of the multicult will reduce its power over the audience you’re addressing.

No. It will not. The leftists already know about the double standards and don’t care. They like seeing white males punished, and love o hear them whining about it.

If complaining about double standards and unfairness did something we wouldn’t be in this mess because that’s all conservatives have ever done. It never has worked and never will work. We’re not in a debate. We’re in a monopoly harangue where we have no loudspeaker and our opponent has 1000. The question is how do you do something about it. For that the conservative has no answer. He just keeps appealing to the very power that created the unfairness in the first place. How crazy is that? Like the judeo-left doesn’t know what it’s doing, intend it, and enjoy it? You have to be insane to be a conservative. It’s simply a way to avoid fighting. It’s a euphemism of a political position: we just mass-aggree to operate on the delusion that our enemies are rational and fair-minded folk, even tho a child of 2 could see they’re wicked liars. We don’t need more conservatism, we need a party for serious adults.

Posted by Trainspotter:

Linder: “They don’t care about reason or morals, only power. And you don’t have any. That’s why all this talk of secession or separatism or forming Republics is ridiculous.”

Any more ridiculous than speaking of world conquest during an era in which we are not allowed so much as a racially exclusive donut shop?

We’ve now got well over 100 million non-whites in this country. We have an enemy entrenched in all the high points of cultural and political power. The Jews were able to simply buy up these levers of power, or pursue the long march through the institutions. We are allowed neither of these options; the doors are closed. There will be no long march for us.

So we can’t replicate what the Jews did. We also can’t replicate what the NS did in the twenties and thirties. For all the talk of Weimar decadence and Cabaret style indulgence, Germany was still a fundamentally sound society, at least in the sense that it was 98 to 99 percent white and the broader culture leagues above what we currently endure. They faced a small and rotten alien elite combined with a relative handful of German lickspittles. Smash that small and alien elite (we’re talking a total population of just a few hundred thousand), and you pretty much had a healthy nation again.

That’s a long way from where we find ourselves today.

While we can take lessons from successful movements of the past (both pro and anti-white), we in many respects are in uncharted waters. We’ve got to figure it out ourselves, because no one has or will do it for us.

At the end of the day, I think most serious thinkers agree that there is no peaceful way out of this situation, at least on this continent. That is mere foretelling, not advocacy.

Given that situation, the question then becomes how exactly do you motivate enough people to take enough action to gain…enough? Who the hell is signing up for world conquest when we can’t even control a truck stop? At this point, who is signing up even for removing 100 million non-whites from the North American continent? Who is signing up for the polarization strategy, when the end game is… what exactly?

We’ve got to come up with something that is at least remotely viable. The idea of the White Republic is an attempt in that direction. If we can turn this into an idea that has legs, that gets some traction, you’ll soon enough get all the polarization that you like.

We can critique, deconstruct, and mock our opponents (however they are defined), but unless there is an end result that a lot of people can sign off on and get passionate about, it’s just not going anywhere.

And while it falls somewhat short of “world conquest,” a decisive result on the North American continent would be of immense benefit to our kindred peoples in Europe and across the globe. Some form of secession may well be the answer, and at least has the potential to serve as a galvanizing point. Most people won’t fight, or even take risks, over mere vagaries or seemingly impossible scenarios (religious nuts being an arguable exception here). But if you’ve got something that they can wrap their minds around, then you’re either fer it or agin’ it. That’s your polarization right there, all the polarization that you’ll ever need. It will be obvious, and it will matter.

In other words, and for all its faults, our movement has done a pretty damn good job in terms of critique, but it has done very little to offer a tangible way out of our predicament that seems even remotely viable. When people see no way out, can they be blamed for simply keeping their heads low and muddling along as best they can? Going along to get along? Can they be blamed for enjoying Buchanan who, giving credit where it is due, is both a good and informative writer? What’s the harm when there is no solution anyway? “Hey, I don’t know where this is going. Maybe Buchanan does!”

You speak of polarization, but my argument is that will take care of itself when we solve a more fundamental problem: how to galvanize. There is plenty of physical courage left in our people. Huge numbers are willing to risk life and limb for their country. Hell, the empire can still get an awful lot of people to go off and die in third world shitholes. Our challenge is to develop and spread a vision that people will actually be willing to fight for. We haven’t done that, and until we do, polarization isn’t going but so far.

When nothing is worth fighting for, we can either be sewing circle faggots and engage in silly internet drama on the one hand, or we can be gentlemen and agree to disagree on the other hand… but so what? To what end? Until we have a meaningful focal point that really has some traction, it doesn’t matter much one way or the other, at least in the minds of most.

Posted by Linder:

Trainspotter: “You speak of polarization, but my argument is that will take care of itself when we solve a more fundamental problem: how to galvanize.”

Polarization is a political strategy… for a group with a purpose. We have to start by organizing in our own name—on a racial basis. That’s what we don’t have now. For crissake, even MacDonald’s vehicle can’t decide whether it’s openly white or not. The political point any sane White party would recognize is whites have no interest in political association with jews or the muds… Therefore they organize on the basis of race. Not region. Not religion.

Greg Johnson: “My main problem with you is that you make shit up. You pass off hypotheses and likely stories as truth, e.g., your claims about the motives of people you do not like, i.e., that certain people are sellouts for money and social status, that Jared Taylor is running a false opposition for the Jews.”

Whether AmRen was set up that way, became that way at a point, or has been entirely under Taylor’s control the whole time, it has in fact served in exactly the same capacity as John Birch Society, a front group known to false opposition formally controlled by the jews paying Welch’s salary (claimed by Revilo Oliver). AmRen encourages harsh criticism of muslims and blacks, but forbids any criticism of jews and Israel. That is, Taylor is deliberately encouraging whites to blame themselves.

And when I claim that no, that is not what Taylor is up to, you falsely claim that I am motivated by personal considerations rather than impersonal principles. For you, “impersonal principle” seems to mean, in part, making judgments about persons without any actual knowledge of them, which just boils down to you brazenly passing off speculation as facts up and waving away inconvenient criticism as sloppy and unprincipled.

Apparently my point is too subtle for your to grasp. I don’t need to know anything about Taylor other than the positions he takes. His positions are illogical and contradictory. For example, he says jews are whites. And whites should blame themselves. But you [can’t] blame jewish whites at AmRen. He further says he doesn’t take position on the jewish question, but much of his editorial space is taking up with muslim-bashing. Yet, as I said, he will not allow any criticism of jews. When it comes to race, he’s against open border, but he’s also against printing the fact that jews alone drove the 1965 immigration act that opened them. When it comes to solutions, he demands the restoring of free association, but never mentions it was organized jewry that destroyed that civil right in the name of civil rights.

Boy, he’s a bait can full of slippery contradictions to anyone with a working mind. Greg Johnson’s mind usually works pretty well. It goes on tilt when it comes to Taylor. What could account for that? It is reasonable to suspect that personal affection accounts for it. Particularly when in this very bit Johnson says I can’t judge Taylor because I don’t him personally. But you don’t need to know someone personally to judge them when you have their contradictory words in front of you, alongside their proven record over time.

At present, our movement is confined to the internet and our only real strength is our credibility, which we have to preserve carefully, especially since we are already so heavily handicapped by trolls, whether calculating or merely psychotic, and webmasters who give them free reign.

I agree. That’s why intelligent men should not let a fraud try to get away with claiming he separates the jewish question from the nigger question, which is as ridiculous as separating the dancing monkey with the cup from the organ grinder.

Okay, but more to Trainspotter’s central plaint, How to galvanize the White masses? Take over tv and broadcast non-stop “Knoxville Burnings.”

According to your tastes…

It isn’t my tastes but my perception of fact. I could be wrong, but it’s certainly not my tastes. If my tastes had anything to do with it, the masses would be attracted by witty vicious essays, and stimulated by them to go out and make the world anew. Turns out it doesn’t work like that—with the masses. You need tv. I didn’t say video, either. A video on youtube with a million views is still not tv. You need tv.

the clear answer would seem to be an ideology to galvanize the White few who would do the work of galvanizing the White many with muckraking.

If you don’t have tv, and we don’t, nor have we any prospects in near-medium future, then best you can do is come up with strategy and sell it to winter patriots. Make the difficulty of the cause the appeal, if appeal you must have. That’s how you attract the few and the strong. Once you have those, and I think a few hundreds would be enough to get it started, as long as you had a good number of vets in there, I think it would snowball, even without tv. I think if this group were following the strategy I indicate—a very simple and clear one—you could quickly attain national prominence as the one group that actually means it, apart from the jews.

How long do you think it would take to become a thing? Men who actually organize around (white) race—the thing that scares the establishment the most—and who wont back down when called racialists? I suggest to you that the minute words gets round that one of those is back in town, then it just might take off. And if that happens, you begin to get the point where that sitting judge is, let’s say, less likely to obstruct the will of the democratic majority for simple animal fear of his own ass.

Mob: “It stemmed from his deep-rooted Catholicism, which apparently teaches that Jews can and should be converted to Catholicism. In this, he resembles both Buchanan and Sobran.”

Yes. It’s the special horror of Catholicism. It simply defines the jew problem (the race problem) out of existence. But that doesn’t mean the problem goes away. It just means the catholic can’t acknowledge it. It also means that the catholic is the practical as well as theoretical enemy of the man who isn’t afraid to acknowledge it. The racist is “immoral” according to the Pape and his disskirted lessers.

As Philip Dick said, reality is that which doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it. By that standard race is real and jesus isn’t. Catholicism is fundamentally and unavoidably anti-White because it denies reality.

* * *

Of course, the posers at alt-right [Alternative Right] have no problem working with jew Gottfried. If you’re neither fish nor fowl you’re foe.

Yeah, another example of the one-way street that is the pale right’s dealings with jews. They subsidize, flatter and fawn over their controllers, namely jew Gottfried; in return they are enjoined to observe the same taboos the neo-jews insist on. The ICs [implicit conservatives] have much intellectual understanding, no political understanding, and a positively feminine concern with how they look to others.

[In the] NPI, which is a good proxy for CMS, you have it loaded with jew apologists like Taylor and outright jews—Stix and Rubenstein. So if there are technically no jews in CMS, which I do not assert, it remains true that there are certainly multiple people in CMS who are jew apologists and, in the case of The Turd, jew employers.

Posted by Mob

It’s distressing that the subject of Jared Taylor is still or again being discussed.

Back in January of 1999, when many of us were on both the original (not the present) AmRen elist and the CofCC elist, a huge problem arose when it was suggested by one of the contributors that David Duke, campaigning for Congress, should run for President in 2000 on a Buchanan/Duke ticket. I remember suggesting it be a Duke/Buchanan ticket instead.

Two sides rapidly developed, pro-Duke and anti-Duke. Some of the antis were Jewish, but some, like John Killian (dispensationalist Christian) were not. The thrust, though, was that there are “valuable Jewish members” of CofCC and AmRen—more valuable than Duke, who they would not want to associate with, and who would turn outsiders against the groups.

The outcome was that both of the heretofore very active and quite high quality lists were closed down, the same day, supposedly because of high traffic, but really because of the Duke affair. This was 1999, seven years before the Duke-Hart episode at the 2006 AmRen meeting, after which JT [Jared Taylor] sent out his formal letter, which I think I mentioned earlier in this thread or the Elitism thread.

Posted by Linder:

Jews are brought into the organization. This has only one meaning: American Renaissance is a jewish operation.

It should be treated that way. But it’s not. And those who say it should be are transformed into the bad guys by the WN who think principles don’t matter. It makes our cause a joke to say the things we do about jews—then turn around and give a loving embrace to someone like Jared Taylor who welcomes them into his fold.

Posted by Jimmy Marr:

Greg Johnson on Jared Taylor: “he also might believe that it is important to separate the race issue from the Jew issue”

I suppose it’s possible that Jared Taylor could actually believe such a thing, and I suppose Greg Johnson might actually believe that its harmless to believe such a thing.

But I believe no such thing, and I believe that believing such a thing is murderous (pre-meditated or involuntary).

My belief is supported by James Bowery’s theory of Jewish virulence.

A theory of Jewish virulence put forth by James Bowery is that it evolves from horizontal transmission of Jews between nations, in the form of repeated migration, since at least Babylonian times. Moreover, since diaspora Jews have become dependent on virulence for survival. They promote immigration and naturalization laws that are friendly to horizontal transmission more generally (here), resulting in virulence evolving in other populations.

This makes Jewish virulence more analogous to immuno-suppression virulence, such as HIV creates. This theory of Jewish virulence is complementary to both Kevin MacDonald’s thesis documented in The Culture of Critique and to Richard Faussette’s Niche Theory.

Under Bowery’s hypothesis, Jewish virulence evolved from the following horizontal transmission cycle (see Faussette’s Niche Theory for a possible starting point):

1. Hyper centralization of net assets (communist, capitalist, monarchy—doesn’t matter)

2. Social breakdown as middle class (Yeomen) are unable to afford subsistence

3. Grab and convert wealth in easily transported forms (gold historically, diamonds more recently, etc.)

4. “Virulent antisemitism” breaks out

5. Emigrate leaving behind less “savvy” Jews to take the heat

6. Cry out for help to elites at destination nation while offering concentrated wealth to enter new cycle (see step 1).

Posted by Lew:

It would be one thing for Jared Taylor to distance himself from the unhinged Jew obsessives, the simple-minded Single Jewish Causers and the irrational Jew haters on the White right.

Unfortunately, Taylor does not do this. He distances himself from those who fit that description and those on the White Right who are simply responding to ongoing Jewish aggression against White people.

Based on his public actions, Taylor recognizes no meaningful distinction between the former and the latter.

Taylor’s stance can be accurately summarized as follows:

“If you regard Jewish influence as one problem among the many problems that White people are facing in this world, fine; you are welcome to work with me as long as you check your concerns about Jewish subversion at the door.”

It’s not as if Taylor has an audience of millions like Pat Buchanan. It makes perfect sense for Pat Buchanan to cut things off at a certain point in order to keep his visibility in the mainstream and send books with vital information to the top of the best sellers list.

But Taylor has no visibility to preserve, his books will never appear on that list, yet he embraces Jews anyway and does so despite the fact that Jewish influence is the main reason he is a marginal figure.

Posted by Jimmy Marr:

Haller: “Alex Linder writes with a shotgun. Some of the pellets are made of steel; some lead; some cookie dough; and some shit.”

If the above is any indication, Alex’s writing is also having a salutary effect on your prose, Leon. Nice work.

Thanks for the kudos upthread. I deserve no share of credit for Bowery’s Razor. It reflects a level of creative insight of which I am wholly incapable if left to my own means.

Lew: “The people who bear the burden of explanation are the Jew-wise nationalists who work with philo-semites like Taylor and / or who also work with Jews.”

Yes. If we apply Occam’s Razor to this equation, the burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of those attempting to justify a more complicated explanation than Bowery produces in 50 words.

When the jews were coming here in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, why didn’t alarm bells ring?
Was the history of the expulsions suppressed? Would Americans have allowed entrance had they full knowledge of jew chicanery?

I don’t know, but if we assume I’m correct in my assertion that the Jewnome is host-specific to Europeans, it brings up another question: Why are they trying to blend us into other races?

The next question: how to break this cycle.

Alex’s proposal, unless fully executed, will ultimately serve to perpetuate the cycle. James Bowery mentions “blocking metabolic pathways” in the later part of his interview with Jim Giles.

It seems to me that whether we treat the Jewish problem with Zyclon B or through legislation designed to disable the inexorable logistics of their vampiric porosis, all will be equally and rightfully genocidal in their eyes, because they cannot survive without a racial host and they are host specific to Europeans.

So, regardless of proposed solution, Jews can be rightfully expected to sabotage the process at every opportunity, and must therefore be barred from any participation in the project.

NO JEWS. JUST RIGHT.

Posted by Hunter Wallace:

As I have described above to the best of my ability, the doctrine of the Single Jewish Cause is false, and so is the doctrine that “all White people are on the same side.” Both of these old WN chestnuts are easily refuted by history.

The truth about the Jews is that Jews are a contributing factor in our racial decline. It is one factor among many other factors—the salience of the Jewish Question also varies across countries—with Jews having the greatest impact in the United States, Britain, and France after the Second World War.

In the American North, there is a mythology that has grown up among WNs that “Jews made us liberal.” Every Southern historian howls with protest: what about John Brown, William Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Frederick Douglass, Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner and the rest of the Black Republicans and the Wide Awakes who were behind Reconstruction?

As a matter of fact, it was the North that invented Jim Crow in the Antebellum era. The North had black codes that fined or outlawed black settlement in states like Illinois, Oregon, and Ohio. They also [had] anti-miscegenation laws in most of the Northern states.

Well, in the aftermath of the War Between the States, the North repealed the black codes, repealed the anti-miscegenation laws, and banned segregation in hundreds of state statutes in the Northern states… by the year 1900.

That’s a historical fact. Look it up.

___________________

Chechar’s note:

I’m not sure if Linder believes in a single cause of Western malaise since he himself blames “Christ-insanity” as a contributing factor. What is clear to me is that without the French revolutionaries’ blunder of granting full rights to the Jews, Europe would have been eventually spared from Bolshevik genocides and the Gulag (see here). And America would have been spared from the pressure Jewish groups that opened the gates for massive, non-Aryan immigration into the US—among many other calamities wrought by the tribe.

For those unfamiliar with MacDonald’s trilogy I’d recommend this Preface. For those already familiar with the JQ, James Bowery’s theory of Jewish virulence—Jim Giles’ interview of Bowery already linked above—is worth listening (Bowery proposes a solution to the Jewish problem different from Linder’s exterminationist standpoint).

Tags Jewish Question (JQ)