https://youtu.be/9hOqjjaRW5o
Tag: United States
“Why were you so ungrateful to our gods
as to desert them for the Jews?”
—Julian, addressing the Christians
Whites have been nuts for a long, long, long time. In a film or documentary about the times after Julian I listened a pagan character saying “…the new god of the Romans” in the sense that this new cult (Christianity) was a curious fad of the eccentric invaders.
Just as the Roman Christians of the first centuries were clueless about the utter craziness of adapting a new god—stealing the god from the subversive tribe only meant schizophrenizing themselves—, today’s whites are just as crazy about the uttermost toxicity of their new religion, Liberalism. And I find it a little embarrassing that it had to be a Jew, Lawrence Auster, the one who nailed the underlying principle of Liberalism.
A new god, or rather a secular incarnation of the previous one, has infected the white psyche since the French Revolution, which equalized everyone in the name of the “rights of man” and made every Negro a citizen of the French Republic.
The same at the other side of the Atlantic. I have already quoted Mark Weber but since he explains my point so clearly, his words merit re-quoting:
Americans pride themselves of not having an ideology (“We are not fooled by fascism, communism or Nazism or any other ‘isms’”). Well, in fact, America does have an ideology. It has a kind of core idea and a core narrative of itself that is widely accepted by Americans, whether they call themselves conservatives or liberals. And it is so engrained in the American mentality that it is not often expressed very openly.
The core of the American ideology is in the birth certificate, as it were, of the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence. You all know that the Declaration of Independence lays out, I think, what Americans assume about what this country stands for, what it really means and in cases of doubt we turn back to it: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And to this end “Governments are instituted.”
Now that’s an essential kind of belief that Americans more or less accept. Liberals emphasize much more than conservatives the equality part of that. And conservatives tend to emphasize the point of individual life, liberty and the pursue of happiness. That is a very core kind of thing and with that there is a kind of narrative of American history.
The narrative of American history is that although it’s true that we didn’t have real equality when America was founded that is what we are aiming for: that’s our goal [emphasis in Weber’s voice]. And it is true that our founding fathers did not practice it well. But we are all trying to practice it. We are trying to reach that goal, that goal of real equality.
In his speech Weber also said that in keeping with that goal in the past, Americans, the archetypal liberals in every sense of the word, decided that distinctions between Christians and non-Christians were not very important and stopped discriminating against the latter. That was not necessarily a bad step but then, an artificial equality between women and men was enforced by law. And with time the same happened with Jews and finally with the Negroes and other non-Whites, who became empowered in America in ways that even the Founders would have found unconceivable.
Presently it is turn of the fags. Quite a few white nationalists are tolerant on this behavior because, like the Aryans who abandoned Apollo for a Semitic god, they also ignore that this fad is one of the last in a downward spiral. What’s next? Tolerating pedophiles? Those who commit bestiality? Keep Alexis de Tocqueville in mind: “The desire for equality becomes more and more insatiable as equality increases.”
Egalitarianism, the new god of the white peoples, is the quintessence of liberalism: which was concocted by well-intentioned whites but as crazy as the Christians who demolished the pagan temples, burnt the libraries and shattered the sculptures that represented our true soul.
Categories
Currency crash course, 4
“As I have said many times before, the economic crisis of 2008 was only a speed bump on the way to the main event. I believe that before the end of this decade there will be an economic crisis so historic that it will eclipse the crash of 29 and the subsequent great depression. I also believe it is both unavoidable and inevitable, because it is merely the free market releasing the stored up energy from decades of economic manipulation. Yes… bad things are going to happen, but it could be the best thing that ever happened to you.”
—Mike Maloney
Note: Economics is not my forte and therefore I cannot discuss the complex issues of these new series with skeptical commenters. I would recommend those who completely reject what Maloney says to go to his own site, subscribe if necessary (it’s free), and discuss it there.
Categories
On conspiracy buffs
by Gerald Posner
The response to the hardcover publication of this book [Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK] surprised both me and my publisher, Random House. We were initially worried that the book might be lost in the publicity surrounding the publication of other books espousing convoluted theories. But we had underestimated the extent to which, after thirty years of virtually unchallenged conspiracy conjecture, the conclusion that Oswald acted alone in assassinating JFK had evolved, ironically, into the most controversial position. While the media’s response was overwhelmingly positive, the reaction from the conspiracy community was the opposite—not simply negative, but often vitriolic. There was little effort to study my overall evidence and conclusions with anything that approached an open mind. Indeed, there was a concerted counterattack to discredit both the book and its author…
Harold Weisberg, one of the deans of the conspiracy press, found his first publisher to bring a book titled Case Open, a broadcast attack attempting to diminish the impact of my work.
Other conspiracy buffs launched personal attacks. It was, as one journalist commented, as if overnight I had become the Salmon Rushdie of the assassination world. I was accused of treason by a buff who ran a Dallas “research center,” and my wife and I were subjected to several months of harassing telephone calls and letters. At an author’s luncheon, pickets protested that I was a dupe of the CIA. Faxes and letters to the media also charged I was a CIA agent, or that the CIA had written my book…
Television and radio producers were harassed by callers attempting to have my appearances cancelled. Some reviewers who wrote favorably about the book received intimidating calls or letters. My publisher was subjected to the same treatment, and even my editor, Bob Loomis, was publicly accused of being a CIA agent.
Although I had expected that individuals who had invested their adult lives into investigating JFK conspiracies might react angrily to a book that exposed the fallacies in their arguments, the vehemence of these personal attacks surprised me. I had mistakenly expected a debate on the issues. It took little time to discover, however, the extent to which many people who believe in a JFK conspiracy do so with almost religious fervor and are not dissuaded by the facts. Case Closed was probably subjected to greater scrutiny by more “critics” than any other book published in recent years…
The updated and restored information in this edition has only strengthened the book’s original conclusion that Oswald and Ruby acted alone. Time and technology have caught up to the conspiracy critics. Some of the most important contentions have collapsed; for example: Photographic tests reveal that the backyard photos of Oswald holding his weapons, contested as fakes, are authentic; ballistics and computer studies confirm the so-called magic bullet theory…
There is more than enough evidence available on the record to draw conclusions about what happened in the JFK assassination. But apparently most Americans, despite the strength of the evidence, do not want to accept the notion that random acts of violence can change the course of history and that Lee Harvey Oswald could affect our lives in a way over which we have no control. It is unsettling to think that a sociopathic twenty-four-year-old loser in life, armed with a $12 rifle and consumed by his own warped motivation, ended Camelot. But for readers willing to approach this subject with an open mind, it is the only rational judgment.
Categories
Trainspotter on Buchanan
Last year on the Occidental Observer Trainspotter said:
I can’t help having a bit of a soft spot for Buchanan. In some ways, I cut my political teeth as a teen by watching Crossfire back in the 80’s, and more importantly reading his column in my local paper. He was certainly a skilled debater and gifted writer, and while my own path soon led to the diversion of libertarianism, there is no question that Buchanan influenced me, and all things considered, for the better.
I particularly appreciated that his columns were laced with historical and literary allusions. As a teen in the pre-internet age, these references were invaluable to me and an important part of my education. It really set him apart from other columnists, as he captured the majesty of civilization in a seamless flow. Whatever one may think of Buchanan, he saw the world through rich historical eyes. For me, that was probably his greatest contribution.
Whatever punches he may have pulled, he was one of the few in the 80’s mainstream press that offered any substance at all. As time marched on, he became not merely one of the few, but the only. Now there are none.
With our “precious” freedom of the press, there is today not a single commentator in the mainstream that will advocate for whites at all. Not one.
Mainstream conservatism is unabashedly hostile to us and our worldview.
Of course, it’s possible that Buchanan will get another gig, and presumably he’ll continue his column for a time. The internet ensures that if he wants a voice, he can have at least a bit of one. But he’s no longer the vigorous firebrand of years gone by. He’s an old man now, and any comeback would simply amount to a swan song. Even if that happens, it would not alter the symbolic importance of what has transpired.
The real story, as Buchanan himself has more or less said, is not that he changed, but that America changed. Just a few decades ago, he probably represented the Silent Majority. I remember, as a kid in the 70’s and 80’s, when all white adults were politically incorrect, to put it mildly. This in a fairly prosperous, well educated and all white suburb.
But now, that world is gone. The people have been trained well, and even if they disagree with the PC orthodoxy, they know to keep it to themselves. And the all white suburbs of yore are now multiracial. Miscegenation is common, and white children few.
It’s a world in which Buchanan is irrelevant.
Now, at best, he represents a Silent Minority that shrinks by the day. I remember watching some of the Reform Party convention on C-Span back in 2000. The average age of the conventioneers appeared to be past 75. They were in pitiful condition: lots of wheelchairs and canes. If I hadn’t known better, I might have thought that I was viewing an event not merely at a retirement community, but a nursing home. It was sad, these representatives of an America that no longer existed. I couldn’t watch more than a few minutes of it at one sitting; what I saw genuinely disturbed me. What I saw when I went outside disturbed me even more.
Meanwhile, the non-whites continued to flood in, and leftist/jewish cultural levers continued to spew their poison.
It was obvious to me then that, whatever sentimental attachment that I might have had to it, Buchanan’s America was over. It had, at the very least, one foot in the grave. There was no longer any energy to it, or any real gravitas. Just the weary regret of old men who simply can’t believe that what is so obvious to them is not also obvious to everyone else. Old men with decent instincts, but who had absolutely no idea as to the nature and power of the forces arrayed against them, much less how to beat those forces. Old men who, I suspect in more than a few cases, returned from the convention to a home darkened by their mulatto grandchildren. All very, very sad. I suspect that a huge percentage of that 2000 crowd is now dead, along with their world.
The race blind mainstream conservatism that has displaced Buchanan’s more authentic flavor will itself suffer the same fate. Demographics are destiny, and the Jewish stranglehold on our key societal institutions remains unchecked.
Not to put too fine a point on it: it’s over.
To be a bit more precise, it’s over for traditional America, for Buchanan’s America. But it’s not over for us, in fact it’s only beginning.
We can still move forward, if we are able to let go of what is truly and well lost. Sad though it may be, America is one of those things.
White nationalism is all that is left, the only worldview that is capable of accurately identifying the existential crisis that we face, and the only worldview that offers a way forward… however long the odds. For all our faults and foibles, we if anything skew young, but at the very least have strong representation in all age groups. We have truth on our side, but more importantly, energy and the potential for real fanaticism. At the very least we are obsessives, and I mean that as a compliment.
There has been an ongoing debate within white nationalism between the “vanguardists” and the “mainstreamers.” I’ve always thought it was largely a false debate, but false or not, it is becoming moot. We aren’t welcome in the mainstream, and we’re not going to be welcome. There will be no long march through the institutions, as those doors are shut to us.
We’ve got to face the fact that we will not be allowed to reach the majority of the white population with our message. This, while tragic, is not fatal. Revolutionary ideas and movements are made by minorities, and we certainly can reach the more motivated, obsessive and fanatical of our people. Those are the people who, if we are to have a land of our own, will be instrumental in bringing it about. Only they, the “vanguard,” can get the ball rolling, and once they do, then the millions of our people who retain healthy racial instincts (and large numbers do) can enter into the equation. But we have to work with the tools and capabilities available to us, which means vanguardism by default. It is not a bad thing for that to become crystal clear to us. It’s a good thing.
So, despite my soft spot for Buchanan, his firing is probably a net positive. There should be no illusion that the system is anything other than hostile to us, and his firing helps drive that point home.
The focus, energy, obsession and fanaticism need to be directed toward one and only one goal: the coming White Republic. All else is mere diversion or dead end.
As Buchanan himself has more or less said, it’s not that he changed, but rather that America changed. There was in fact a culture war… and his side lost. The culture moves inexorably to the left. Once mainstream conservatism abandoned the defense of whites as a people, this march to the left was inevitable. A new people require a new narrative, new heroes, and a new worldview.
Gregory Hood’s nice article on the American left’s chutzpa about John F. Kennedy’s assassination, and the fact that in the current System “you are allowed to say that everyone killed Kennedy except the person who actually killed him (a Communist),” moves me to say something.
Most white nationalists don’t have the IQ of Magnus Carlsen and in addition to the silly 9/11 conspiracy theories, along a nation of sheeple they also swallow other theories for the retarded.
All of these people remind me a passage from Orwell’s 1984 where the proles were under the impression that they were reading forbidden porn when actually that porn together with superficial literature, movies and music was prolefeed deliberately produced by Prolesec: a section of the Ministry of Truth to keep them content and make them feel different when in fact they were mere sheep.
Following is part of an article-interview authored by Robin Lindley, a Seattle attorney and writer:
Dallas, Texas. Fri., Nov. 22, 1963. President John F. Kennedy died after a sniper attack on his motorcade. For many, the assassination remains a mystery. A 2003 poll revealed that 75 percent of Americans believe there was a conspiracy behind the killing of President Kennedy.
Jackie Kennedy catches a photographer’s eye while riding in the presidential limousine on Nov. 22, 1963. This picture was taken 2.5 seconds before Lee Harvey Oswald fired the bullet that killed President John F. Kennedy and wounded Gov. John Connelly, seated in the front passenger seat.
In his massive 2007 book on the murder, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi concludes that an unstable Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing Kennedy, and incisively dissects every conspiracy theory: the CIA, the FBI, the KGB, Castro, the mob, LBJ, and others.
This weighty, 1600-plus page book—with a CD ROM of more than one thousand pages of endnotes—has been praised for its comprehensive narrative and its presentation of conspiracy theories, exposing selective use of evidence and flawed logic. The Los Angeles Times Book Review called Reclaiming History “a book for the ages.” Critics agree that it will be a starting point for future researchers.
Bugliosi worked from 80 too 100 hours a week for the past few years, drafting Reclaiming History by hand on legal pads. He concluded that Oswald acted alone, and said, “All of the conspiracy theories and beliefs turned out to be ‘moonshine.’ ” Bugliosi, 72, recently discussed the JFK case from his Pasadena home.
Did you agree with the Warren Commission report in 1964?
I was so immersed in trying one murder case after another that I had no opinion. I [assumed] they were decent, honorable men, and they certainly were.
You conclude that Oswald shot JFK and acted alone.
Everything pointed toward Oswald’s guilt. All the physical evidence, all the scientific evidence. Everything he said, everything he did. Fifty-three separate pieces of evidence point toward his guilt. It would not be humanly possibly for him to be innocent. Quickly, five pieces: Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was the murder weapon. Oswald was the only employee at the Book Depository Building who fled the building after the assassination. Forty-five minutes later, he shot and killed [Dallas Police] Officer J. D. Tippit—the signature of a man in desperate flight. Thirty minutes later at a Texas theatre he resisted arrest, [and] pulled a gun on the arresting officer. During his interrogation, he told one provable lie after another, [showing] a consciousness of guilt.
And you find that Oswald was not part of a conspiracy to kill JFK.
I am convinced beyond all doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy, [and] that there was no conspiracy. There’s no credible evidence that the mob or the CIA, the KGB, the military-industrial complex, [or others] were behind the assassination. All we have is naked speculation.
There’s no evidence that Oswald had any connection with any of these groups. Even [assassination researcher Harold] Weisberg conceded that the FBI checked out every breath [Oswald] breathed from the moment he arrived back to the States from the Soviet Union on June 13, 1962 to the day of the assassination. They found no evidence after 25,000 interviews [of a] connection with any of these groups.
Assuming one of these groups wanted to kill the President, Oswald would have been one of the last people they would have gone to. He was a good shot, but not an expert. He owned only a $12, mail-order rifle. And he was notoriously unreliable, extremely unstable. He defect[ed] to the Soviet Union, tried to become a Soviet citizen, [was] turned down, [then] tried to commit suicide. Just the type of guy—I’m being sarcastic now—the CIA or mob would rely on to commit the biggest murder in American history.
What motivated Oswald to kill President Kennedy?
No one will ever know for sure why Oswald killed Kennedy. But there are pieces of circumstantial evidence from which we can draw inferences.
Oswald had delusions of grandeur. A squad mate of his in the Marines said that Oswald wanted to be something that 10,000 years from now people would be talking about. His wife, Marina, said he compared himself to the great figures of history.
Getting more specific, Oswald revered Fidel Castro [and] was an ardent supporter of the Cuban Revolution. In late September of 1963, [he] tried to get to Havana to help Castro, and was rejected at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. He got very, very angry. I agree with the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations that Oswald’s love for Castro played a part in the motivation to kill Kennedy, thinking that by killing an enemy of Castro he somehow was furthering the Cuban cause.
Oswald wrote that he had lived under capitalism and communism, and that, “I despise representatives of both systems.” My background in the Manson case definitely played a part in the words meaning more to me than perhaps the average person. Manson did not know the people whom he had killed, but he knew they were members of the establishment, and he hated the establishment. These were representative murders. Oswald did not hate Kennedy. He hated the United States of America. Oswald may have used Kennedy as the quintessential representative of society. When shooting at Kennedy, he was shooting at the United States of America.
Oswald failed in many pursuits. Did he kill JFK to show some effectiveness?
He had been a failure everywhere. He was a failure in the Marines, [and] was court-martialed. He was a failure at work: he would get fired, or couldn’t get a good job. He was a failure with Marina, his wife. He had been a failure all of his life, and all of a sudden he had done something successfully.
You also conclude that Jack Ruby acted alone in killing Oswald.
Some argue that Ruby silenced Oswald for the mob, and that presupposes Oswald killed Kennedy for the mob. The Warren Commission and the FBI found no evidence that Ruby was ever a member of organized crime, or had any association with them.
He would have been, like Oswald, an extremely unlikely and bad hit man. Ruby was extremely close to Dallas law enforcement. He also was a blabbermouth, [and] a snitch to the Dallas Police Department. He was not the type of guy you would [use] to commit a crime and be silent. Also, Ruby was very mentally unbalanced. He had a violent temper, fighting all the time with customers. He had organic brain damage.
People say he silenced Oswald for the mob [but] who was supposed to silence Ruby? He lived a normal life. He died in custody, but died a normal death three years later.
Why did Ruby kill Oswald?
Ruby literally idolized John F. Kennedy. His psychiatrist said Ruby loved this man. He took Kennedy’s death very, very hard. And he hated Oswald. But another reason [was that] Ruby thought that he was going to become a hero, [and] there was going to be a big book and a movie about him. He thought he would just get a slap on the wrist, and in a short time he would be back at the Carousel Club greeting people wanting to shake the hand of the man who killed the man who killed the President.
How did the single “Magic Bullet” kill JFK and wound Gov. Connelly?
In their sketches, [conspiracy theorists] place Gov. John Connelly [directly] in front of President Kennedy in the presidential limousine, and then argue that a bullet coming from the right rear, passing through Kennedy, would have to make a right turn in midair and then a left turn to hit Connelly. That is wrong. Connelly was not seated directly in front of Kennedy, but the left front in a jump seat a half-foot in. So the orientation of Connelly’s body was such that a bullet passing in a straight line through Kennedy would have nowhere to go except to hit Connelly.
A story just appeared on bullet fragments from the Dallas scene.
That’s an old story. These former FBI agents came up with this statement and people are asking about this new story. Here’s how new it is—it’s already in my book.
To put it mildly, you were displeased with Oliver Stone’s movie JFK.
This silly Oliver Stone came up with 10 groups that had a motive, and he’s got all 10 groups involved in the assassination. I present 53 separate pieces of evidence pointing irresistibly to the guilt of Oswald and poor Oliver in his three-hour-and-eight-minute movie could not put in one of those 53 pieces.
Stone’s movie stresses how JFK’s head snapped to the rear, indicating a shot from the front.
People saw [the Zapruder film] for the first time in 1975 on national television. The [president’s] head snapped to the rear [indicating a] shot from the front, the grassy knoll, not from the rear where Oswald was.
But if you look at the individual Zapruder frames—you can’t see it by looking at the film—at frame 312 the president’s head is okay. Also, a high-contrast photo of frame 313 [shows] this terrible spray of blood and tissue all to the front, indicating a shot from the rear.
At [frames] 314 to 321, you have the head snap to the rear, caused by a neuro-muscular reaction. The bullet entering the president’s brain caused the back muscles to tighten, which in turn caused the head to snap to the rear.
At more than 1,600 pages, your book is the longest yet on the assassination.
It’s the only book that settles all questions about the assassination once and for all, and the only book to take on all of these conspiracy theories.
There are two realities in this case. One, this is a very simple case. Within hours of the shooting in Dealey Plaza, virtually all of Dallas law enforcement knew that Oswald had killed Kennedy, and that he had acted alone. But the second reality and the main reason for the length of this book is the unceasing and fanatical obsession of literally thousands upon thousands of Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists who have investigated every single conceivable aspect of this case for close to 44 years. This simple case has been transformed into the most complex murder case, by far, in world history.
What’s your next project?
A series of essays on all types of things. It’s not going to be a 1,600-page book. With the Kennedy case, I learned there is absolutely no bottom to the pile. It’s a bottomless pit.
_______________________________
A note for those who still swallow the prolefeed manufactured by the Prolesec: Unless you have read Bugliosi’s book, don’t bother to take issue with us in the comments section of this thread. You will be shunned. (Also, you can read the whole Robin Lindley article here.)
Below, the first paragraphs of “After the Fall,” a recent American Renaissance article:
The National Policy Institute (NPI) held its second national conference in Washington, DC, on October 26, with a very interesting lineup of speakers. The meeting was held in the Ronald Reagan Center, a federally operated facility, which resisted all “anti-racist” threats to the conference.
The speakers were introduced by Richard Spencer, director of NPI, and the conference began with Piero San Giorgio, a Swiss author and survivalist. Mr. San Giorgio argued strongly that current population and consumption trends can lead only to economic and social collapse. We may have already reached “peak oil,” and in 15 or 20 years, the energy it takes to extract oil could be greater than the energy we can get from burning it. We are also running out of copper, zinc, bauxite, and other metals while we pollute, deforest, and overfish the planet.
Mr. San Giorgio predicted that what he calls “the religion of perpetual growth” will come to a crashing end as governments default on debt and nations go to war over resources. The result will be widespread poverty of a kind now found only in the worst parts of Africa.
Only organized groups will be available to survive this collapse, and the best organized groups for that purpose are criminal gangs, which are well armed and used to getting what they want by force. Those of us who do not want to be slaughtered by gangs will need what Mr. San Girogio calls a “sustainable autonomous base” with its own food supply, energy source, and armed defense. Mr. San Giorgio believes we should build such bases for ourselves but that no one will survive in isolation. We are social animals who need a tribe and social links. In the mean time, Mr. San Giorgio recommends getting out of debt, converting financial assets to gold, and learning how to lead the simpler, pre-industrial way of life that is coming.
Mr. San Giorgio elaborates on these themes in his book Survive–The Economic Collapse.
Sam Dickson’s lecture, “America: the God that Failed,” seems to have been also very enlightening. He argued that “America’s great failing has been an excess of individualism that has destroyed the organic ties of community. The British were already the most individualistic people of the Old World, and those who settled North America were the most individualistic of the British.”
But what I liked the most are the above-quoted paragraphs on the doomsday. At last, for the first time—as far as I know—survivalism has found its way into a mainstream racialist conference.
Alex Kurtagic and Tom Sunic, who also delivered lectures, are still clueless about the coming convergence of catastrophes. Kurtagic, while speaking on “the end of the world as we know it,” pointed out that sometimes collapse “can be slow and that its beginnings may be recognizable only in retrospect.” As always, Kurtagic ignores that the collapse of the dollar will unfold very rapidly (for my latest entry on this subject see here).
Sunic “does not believe in the inevitability of collapse. Even if there is a large-scale collapse, we cannot be sure that it will give rise to a healthy consciousness of race.” Fair enough: we cannot be sure at all. But energy devolution, which will unfold very slowly after the financial crash, is inevitable (see e.g., my blog posts on Chris Martenson, here).
The NPI conference also passed the mic to out-of-the-closet homosexual Jack Donovan. Can you imagine this guy trying to deliver a speech in the 1930s Germany (cf. Himmler’s views on this, here)? As I said in “National Socialism replaces White Nationalism,” my ideological differences with the American White Nationalist movement are huge. I cannot even imagine myself attending any of such conferences without making a scene…
P.S. of November 1:
In this transcription of Tom Sunic’s speech I don’t find Sunic’s words that the AmRen author quoted above.
Categories
Doctor Doom
With the exception of the blogger Mindweapon, no one in the pro-white movement seems to be aware that we are heading straight toward an economic collapse and a foreign debt crisis of epic proportions. This will happen when the US’s creditors impose a lending ceiling to the traitorous US government.
Now that the US government-created phony crisis is over and that the debt ceiling will be raised for the Nth time, I would like to point out that I have embedded quite a few videos by Peter Schiff, called “Doctor Doom” by the media, explaining the subject (here: must-watch clips for those still clueless that we are living near the end of the long Diktat after 1945.
Of course, you may prefer to see directly Schiff’s latest videos in his own YouTube channel (here). Whatever you chose, this is the most important subject for all those who desperately crave for the long interregnum imposed by the Americans on Europe to end.
Excerpted from William Pierce’s response to one of the Letters to the Editor originally published in National Vanguard No. 103, Jan.-Feb. 1985:
The Second World War was the great watershed in the collapse of the West. Had any major Western nation—in particular, Britain, France, or America—had the integrity to resist the Jews and avoid being drawn into their worldwide conspiracy against Germany, there would have been no world war, but only a war between National Socialist Germany and the Marxist Soviet Union. Germany would have won, Marxism would have been eradicated, and it would have been the beginning of the end for the Jews everywhere.
Instead, Western men were persuaded by their bought politicians, their Judeo-Christian priests, and the Jewish manipulators of public opinion in their midst to take up arms against their German brothers in an unholy crusade to eradicate National Socialism, so that the Jews and the Marxist cancer they had unleashed on the world could survive. Before the Second World War the West was still viable; afterward it was not.
The catastrophe of 1945, with the triumph of the Jew and his allies, made inevitable the opening up of the immigration floodgates for non-Whites into Britain and the United States; the destruction of American White public schools; the enactment of laws curtailing White freedom of association and the rights of White employers and renters (and with them the rights of White employees and tenants); the rise of feminism, homosexuality, and drug use; the breakdown of the traditional family structure; a soaring miscegenation rate; and the displacement of healthy White art, music, literature and drama by a Judeo-democratic-Hollywood schlock culture. It also led to the metastasis of the Marxist cancer throughout huge areas of Europe and the rise of malignant Zionist power in Palestine—a power which surely would be the instigator of the Third World War.
It behooves those of us who still hope that enough healthy genes for a new beginning can be salvaged from the coming chaos, therefore, to understand everything we can about the Second World War; about its preeminent personality, Adolf Hitler; and about his ideology, National Socialism, from the eradication of which logically followed the evils briefly accounted above. That’s why National Vanguard often has articles on these subjects and will do so in the future.
In his 1978 Harvard Address Solzhenitsyn let academics know that the West and their America are, to put it succinctly, full of shit. More recently, the blogger Iranian for Aryans has gone further. He has pointed out that even pro-white advocates “are extreme individualists who don’t practice what they preach. Moreover, they are breathing the same cultural miasma as their ‘unenlightened’ coevals.”
Below, my abridgement of Solzhenitsyn’s address:
Harvard’s motto is “VERITAS.” Many of you have already found out and others will find out in the course of their lives that truth eludes us as soon as our concentration begins to flag, all the while leaving the illusion that we are continuing to pursue it. This is the source of much discord. Also, truth seldom is sweet; it is almost invariably bitter. A measure of truth is included in my speech today, but I offer it as a friend, not as an adversary.
How short a time ago, relatively, the small world of modern Europe was easily seizing colonies all over the globe, not only without anticipating any real resistance, but usually with contempt for any possible values in the conquered people’s approach to life. It all seemed an overwhelming success, with no geographic limits. Western society expanded in a triumph of human independence and power. And all of a sudden the twentieth century brought the clear realization of this society’s fragility.
We now see that the conquests proved to be short lived and precarious (and this, in turn, points to defects in the Western view of the world which led to these conquests). Relations with the former colonial world now have switched to the opposite extreme and the Western world often exhibits an excess of obsequiousness, but it is difficult yet to estimate the size of the bill which former colonial countries will present to the West and it is difficult to predict whether the surrender not only of its last colonies, but of everything it owns, will be sufficient for the West to clear this account.
A decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today. The Western world has lost its civic courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, in each government, in each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elites, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society. There are many courageous individuals, but they have no determining influence on public life.
Must one point out that from ancient times a decline in courage has been considered the first symptom of the end?
When the modern Western states were being formed, it was proclaimed as a principle that governments are meant to serve man and that man lives in order to be free and pursue happiness. (See, for example, the American Declaration of Independence.) Now at last during past decades technical and social progress has permitted the realization of such aspirations: the welfare state.
Every citizen has been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and in such quality as to guarantee in theory the achievement of happiness, in the debased sense of the word which has come into being during those same decades.
The individual’s independence from many types of state pressure has been guaranteed; the majority of the people have been granted well-being to an extent their fathers and grandfathers could not even dream about; it has become possible to raise young people according to these ideals, preparing them for and summoning them toward physical bloom, happiness, and leisure, the possession of material goods, money, and leisure, toward an almost unlimited freedom in the choice of pleasures. So who should now renounce all this, why and for the sake of what should one risk one’s precious life in defense of the common good and particularly in the nebulous case when the security of one’s nation must be defended in an as yet distant land?
Even biology tells us that a high degree of habitual well-being is not advantageous to a living organism. Today, well-being in the life of Western society has begun to take off its pernicious mask.
The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.
On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man—the master of the world—does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected. Yet strangely enough, though the best social conditions have been achieved in the West, there still remains a great deal of crime; there even is considerably more of it than in the destitute and lawless Soviet society. (There is a multitude of prisoners in our camps who are termed criminals, but most of them never committed any crime; they merely tried to defend themselves against a lawless state by resorting to means outside the legal framework.)
The press can act the role of public opinion or miseducate it. Thus we may see terrorists heroized, or secret matters pertaining to the nation’s defense publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion into the privacy of well-known people according to the slogan “Everyone is entitled to know everything.” But this is a false slogan of a false era; far greater in value is the forfeited right of people not to know, not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life has no need for this excessive and burdening flow of information.
Your scholars are free in the legal sense, but they are hemmed in by the idols of the prevailing fad. There is no open violence, as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to accommodate mass standards frequently prevents the most independent-minded persons from contributing to public life and gives rise to dangerous herd instincts that block dangerous herd development.
In America, I have received letters from highly intelligent persons—maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but the country cannot hear him because the media will not provide him with a forum. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, to a blindness which is perilous in our dynamic era. An example is the self-deluding interpretation of the state of affairs in the contemporary world that functions as a sort of petrified armor around people’s minds, to such a degree that human voices from seventeen countries of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia cannot pierce it. It will be broken only by the inexorable crowbar of events…
But should I be asked, instead, whether I would propose the West, such as it is today, as a model to my country, I would frankly have to answer negatively. No, I could not recommend your society as an ideal for the transformation of ours. Through deep suffering, people in our own country have now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive. Even those characteristics of your life which I have just enumerated are extremely saddening.
A fact which cannot be disputed is the weakening of human personality in the West while in the East it has become firmer and stronger. Six decades for our people and three decades for the people of Eastern Europe; during that time we have been through a spiritual training far in advance of Western experience. The complex and deadly crush of life has produced stronger, deeper, and more interesting personalities than those generated by standardized Western well-being.
After the suffering of decades of violence and oppression, the human soul longs for things higher, warmer, and purer than those offered by today’s mass living habits, introduced as by a calling card by the revolting invasion of commercial advertising, by TV stupor, and by intolerable music.
There are telltale symptoms by which history gives warning to a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, a decline of the arts or a lack of great statesmen. Indeed, sometimes the warnings are quite explicit and concrete. The center of your democracy and of your culture is left without electric power for a few hours only, and all of a sudden crowds of American citizens start looting and creating havoc. The smooth surface film must be very thin, then, the social system quite unstable and unhealthy.
But the fight for our planet, physical and spiritual, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it has already started. The forces of Evil have begun their decisive offensive. You can feel their pressure, yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?
How has this unfavorable relation of forces come about? How did the West decline from its triumphal march to its present debility?
This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very foundation of thought in modern times. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world in modern times. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was born in the Renaissance and has found political expression since the Age of Enlightenment. It became the basis for political and social doctrine and could be called rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the pro-claimed and practiced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of all.
The turn introduced by the Renaissance was probably inevitable historically: the Middle Ages had come to a natural end by exhaustion, having become an intolerable despotic repression of man’s physical nature in favor of the spiritual one. But then we recoiled from the spirit and embraced all that is material, excessively and incommensurately. The humanistic way of thinking, which had proclaimed itself our guide, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man, nor did it see any task higher than the attainment of happiness on earth. It started modern Western civilization on the dangerous trend of worshiping man and his material needs.
Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual be granted boundless freedom with no purpose, simply for the satisfaction of his whims.
Subsequently, however, all such limitations were eroded everywhere in the West; a total emancipation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were becoming ever more materialistic. The West has finally achieved the rights of man, and even excess, but man’s sense of responsibility to God and society has grown dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistic selfishness of the Western approach to the world has reached its peak and the world has found itself in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the celebrated technological achievements of progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the twentieth century’s moral poverty, which no one could have imagined even as late as the nineteenth century.
As humanism in its development was becoming more and more materialistic, it also increasingly allowed concepts to be used first by socialism and then by communism, so that Karl Marx was able to say, in 1844, that “communism is naturalized humanism.”
This statement has proved to be not entirely unreasonable. One does not see the same stones in the foundations of an eroded humanism and of any type of socialism: boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism’s rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today’s West and today’s East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.
I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.
It has made man the measure of all things on earth—imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects.
We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.
Is it right that man’s life and society’s activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?
If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.
The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but—upward.