Bicausalism

Armor, a commenter in another thread, said:

“The way you use the word monocausalist reminds me of how Hunter Wallace liked to divide the white nationalist scene between the vanguardists and the mainstreamers.”

It’s because, perhaps, I have not been clear enough:

1.- Monocausalists – Most of the commenters at Age of Treason, and people like Dave Duke whom I deeply respect. These people believe that there’s but one cause of our woes: the subversive Jews. For instance, Tanstaafl here, in late Summer 2007, quotes himself:

Isn’t it absurd that anyone would even think to blame Christianity or WASPs for the rise of PC and its catastrophic consequences? Isn’t this in fact a reversal of the truth? Hasn’t the rise and spread of PC eroded the power of Christianity, WASPs, and whites in general? Blaming them is in effect blaming the victim.

Yes, there are Christians, WASPs, and whites who have fallen for the PC brainwashing. Yes, there are some who have taken it so deeply to heart that they work to expand and protect it. That’s the nature of PC. That is its purpose. To control the minds of the people it seeks to destroy. The left, at its root, is all about destruction.

You don’t have to be an anti-Semite to notice where these ideas originate from and who benefits. But you do have to violate PC to say: Jews.

For strict monocausalists, “there is nothing wrong with whites.”

2.- Bicausalists Type A – Those who, like Greg Johnson, Alex Linder and some commenters at Linder’s VNN Forum, believe that Jews are the main cause of our woes, though there are other important factors as well. Unlike Tanstaafl, these bicausalists also blame our parents’ religion. For instance, Johnson recently commented against Christianity at Counter Currents and last Saturday Linder briefly discussed with Carolyn Yeager the role of Christianity in debilitating the Aryan mind when dealing with the subversive tribe.

3.- Bicausalists Type B – Those who, like Tom Sunic, Manu Rodríguez and I believe that there’s something seriously wrong with us, extremely wrong actually. Whites’ mental issues (which include a Calvinist type of Old Testament Christianity that conquered North America) are the main infection, and the Judaization of the West, a secondary infection (like AIDS / pneumonia, etc).

A popular image to visualize this later type of bicausalism would be through the archetype of Isildur, a character of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings.

Armor said:

“Now of course, if White people were naturally as aggressive and prone to violence as the Arabs, their society would be harder to penetrate for the Jews…”

But ethnically we were even more aggressive and prone to violence than the Arabs (who became sand-niggers with time). I trust you have read my controversial entry on Portugal, where several of my sources agreed on the fact that in the first centuries of our era the Iberian Goths burned at the stake their fellow Aryans that dared to mix their precious blood.

Pace Duke, James Edwards, Yeager and so many white nationalist Christians who have been saying “Happy Easter” in the white blogosphere these days, Christianity changed all that, and not only in Iberia: something that they’ll never acknowledge.

We need a new generation of nationalists who, unlike the conservative Spaniards of today (whom I find intolerable by the way) or of yesterday (silly burners of heretics instead of dispatching the miscegenators) leave universal Christianity behind.

(This entry was expanded on April 27)

Botvinnik’s advice

After finishing the first volume, I have started to read Volume II of Garry Kasparov’s My Great Predecessors, especially the long chapter devoted to Mikhail Botvinnik, the world champion of chess from 1948 to 1963 (second from left to right on the book cover).

While reading Kasparov’s lead paragraphs to that chapter some of his sentences struck me. Botvinnik had called chess “an inexact problem,” just as the problems of the living. “To solve inexact problems,” maintained Botvinnik, “it is very important to limit the scale of the problem to avoid getting bogged down. Only then could one hope to solve it satisfactorily.” For this champion chess reflected objective reality and what a person thought, and every problem should be reduced to manageable analysis and thought.

Since in the past I was an amateur chess player, these passages immediately brought my mind to my recent discussions in this blog with those who want to reduce the incredibly complex problem of the West’s darkest hour to the Jewish Question.

This is what I thought while reading that page of Kasparov’s magnum opus: “It is true that, in practical terms, people like Alex Linder are right in that the masses would not grasp something too complex and that, in order to explain the problem to them once pro-white politics becomes possible, we should focus on the subversive tribe.”

I have no problem with that pragmatic approach. Politically, I am on the same page of Hitler, Goebbles, and Linder on this issue. The problem starts when we abandon pragmatic politics and enter into the more subtle terrains of academic discussions.

If whites survive the current crisis, even after a final solution to all non-white problems is achieved future intellectuals will surely try to ponder what exactly happened in the 20th and 21st centuries. In that futuristic scenario it is unlikely that they will navigate forever inside the strait waters of Judeo reductionism. Sooner or later they will probably expand their point of view into a bigger picture, an all-encompassing meta-perspective, perhaps like the one barely sketched in my “Witches’ brew.”

Presently even those who are not Judeo reductionists, like Brad Griffin at Occidental Dissent, acknowledge that—rephrasing Botvinnik’s language—solving the Jewish problem would reduce the West’s darkest hour to manageable proportions. But even so the question will remain open: Why the West, unlike the Muslim world, became so Judaized after Napoleon emancipated the tribe? Why every Western nation started to imitate Napoleon’s lead in the 19th century? What was the primary cause of the empowerment of Jewry in the first place, always keeping in mind that they never wielded such power in the Muslim world?

These honest, commonsensical questions won’t go away even if a final solution to the problem is historically achieved.

Dies Irae

“The Hellenes of Sparta and Athens both strove to keep their blood pure, but both ultimately perished. The only way they could have survived would have been to eliminate the entire indigenous population, either through expulsion or extermination, from the areas of the Mediterranean world in which they settled.”

—William Pierce

For three years I have been reading white nationalist literature and have come to the conclusion that William Luther Pierce ought to be considered the central intellectual figure of the movement (George Lincoln Rockwell on the other hand was perhaps the noblest individual on this side of the Atlantic). Besides his superb essays Pierce inaugurated the novelesque genre of a revolutionary takeover of white societies, and his axiological ruminations about the history of the white race that he was concluding when he died, like the above epigraph, are still unsurpassed. Present-day pro-whites on the other hand are still comfortably living under the sky of Christian and/or liberal axiology, as I will try to demonstrate in this article. For example, Greg Johnson, the editor-in-chief of Counter-Currents Publishing, has been ambivalent on Pierce. He wrote:

Some time later, on April 22, 2000, I purchased [the novels] The Turner Diaries and Hunter from Dent Myers at his Wildman’s Shop in Kennesaw, Georgia. Frankly, I found them repulsive, The Turner Diaries in particular. Pierce may have been inspired by National Socialism, but his model of revolution was pure Lenin and his model of government pure Stalin. If he had the power, he would have killed more people than Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot combined. He epitomizes everything about the Old Right model that I reject: one party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide. At the time, I remarked that as a novelist and political theorist Pierce was a first rate physicist.

I regarded him as a monster…

Take note that Johnson’s webzine is considered by some the crème de la crème of white nationalist blogsites, something like the haute culture magazines for the sophisticate, and that he presents himself as a fan of Friedrich Nietzsche to the webzine’s readership.

The trouble with Johnson is not only that he’s living a double life, but that politically he wants to have it both ways: sometimes he seems to be in favor of revolutionary fighting but other times he condemns violence. In Johnson’s own words in his manifesto, “New Right vs. Old Right”, “The only gun I want to own is made of porcelain.”

Doesn’t this amounts to say that his “New Right” rejects winning, since throughout history there has been no nation-building without violence? This is Alex Linder’s most recent pronouncement on Johnson: “His attempt to claim heir to the legacy of Hitler and Mussolini while renouncing actual fighting, and going beyond that to denounce those men’s movements in pretty much the same terms jews do [“I regarded him as a monster…”] is simply bizarre. And that, in particular, he should not be allowed to get away with. Of course, he won’t allow criticism at his site, where I have tried to make it a couple times, so about all I can do is post here.” (For a more complete retort to Johnson’s “porcelain” manifesto see here.)

In my previous post I quoted Nietzsche’s Zarathustra having in mind Johnson’s feminized Nietzscheanism. But what would a genuine Zarathustran voice sound like? Simply put it, someone who advocates the transvaluation of some values back to the pre-Christian mores in the West. I say some and not all as Nietzsche said because, unlike the anti-Christians at VNN Forum I see some important positives in Christian axiology, like trying to abolish the infanticidal exposure of healthy babies in the ancient world.

This said, what stands between Moses’ Old Tables and Zarathustra’s new, half-written Tables—the new ethical code that, ideally, will rule white behavior in a coming thousand-year Reich? At Radio Free Mississippi, Linder recently blamed Christian scruples by means of an example. My paraphrases: What would be our first felling when watching an adult, African-American male in a park replete with blond, unprotected toddlers? Pulling the trigger on the intruding nigger of course! Linder then asked rhetorically what on Earth is functioning as a virus for the white mind that impedes all of us from following our primitive, natural instincts? His answer: “It’s Christianity,” in the sense of our basic moral grammar or “axiology”—not in the sense of doctrine or creed—: a sort of hypertrophy of our sense of decency from a strictly survivalist point of view.

I think that Linder is basically right as to where the virus of the mind comes from, especially now that even Brad Griffin, a self-proclaimed Christian known with his penname “Hunter Wallace” has been unearthing citations of the Yankee mentality in antebellum America. Griffin’s conclusion is that abolitionism was caused by “a moral, religious, and ideological revolution in worldview,” and that “the twin doctrines that are to blame for our decline, which brought about this critical shift in moral outlook, are the Enlightenment’s ideology of liberal republicanism and the spread of evangelical Christianity,” i.e., Neochristianity and Christianity. In my own words, the ingrained meta-ethics within our psyches that place limits to the fourteen words comes from our parents’ religion. Of course, presently this unconscious axiology, that strongly reminds me Asimov’s First Law in I Robot, comes from Christianity’s secular offshoot, liberalism or as I like to say, “Neochristianity.”

Billions will die, We will win

Are you a Nietzschean or a Christian / secular Neochristian? The following is my litmus test to gauge who, despite claims to the contrary, is still internalizing the meta-ethics of our parents’ religion instead of doing a quantum leap into full-blown Nietzscheanism.

In the coming racial wars of the twenty-first century that will come under the apocalyptic sign of Mars and Hephaestus, how many racial enemies do you think will have to be slain to fulfill the fourteen words?

This is my direct answer: If I have to kill five people to fulfill our most cherished words I kill five people. If I have to kill five billion I kill five billion.

Unlike the reactionary writers and pseudo-apostates of Christianity in the movement I consider myself a genuine son of Zarathustra who finds himself sitting and waiting—old Mosaic, broken tables around me and also new, half-written tables—, wondering when cometh mine hour. Present-day Christians and liberals on the other hand are still infected with a virus of the mind that compels them to place limits after the first few thousand killings.

The current paradigm that enslaves almost all whites is like a Red Giant star that has already exhausted its hydrogen core (Christianity). To boot, after the French Revolution the enormous inertia of Christian ethics engendered a meta-ethical monster, now producing carbon from helium. This giant, secular, red shell of liberalism is but the sign of an approaching death in all stars of that size. Though inflated and tenuous, the red shell is still very hot and makes the star’s radius immense. Presently liberalism is covering, and slowly engulfing and burning, the entire West.

As explained in the previous link, if the Red Giant is the present, secularized form of a Christianity that has exhausted its creed, in this moribund stage Christian axiology is paradoxically reinforced in liberal society at the expense of traditional religious doctrine.

Conversely, Nietzscheanism, or genuine white nationalism (all nations are born out of war, iron and blood), is not even one of our firmament’s stars. Like a tiny gaseous sphere already leaving the cradle of the nebulae, white nationalism is accumulating more and more mass that is forming a center of higher density to form a protostar. When enough pressure in the interior rises—when a considerable mass of Nordish Aryans wake up and fight in the real world (like the Golden Dawn)—, it will increase the density and temperature until the gas turns to plasma. Only then a nuclear fusion will be initiated at the core and a new, baby star will be visible in the canopy of heaven.

What prevents nationalists from attracting, by the sheer force of their gravitas, increasingly more spiraling mass to make nuclear reaction possible? Simple. Most whites, including nationalists, still gravitate around the dying Red Giant that, by the next century, will become a mere white dwarf. They’re not really gravitating around the nebulae that’s forming the new star even when Christianity is dying and will certainly be death in the next century. My goal at The West’s Darkest Hour is to point out at the firmament the new constellation of ethics (axiology) that is being formed before any serious discussion can even take place on how to fulfill the fourteen words, our half-written Tables.


The Star Child

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

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

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

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

In the climatic scenes of the film Kubrick’s use of Also Sprach Zarathustra, Richard Strauss’ tone-poem after Nietzsche includes the returning, placental child.

♣

If something has any resemblance to science-fiction’s cathedral it is what in my daemonic soliloquies I call “Neanderthal extermination,” exemplified by Pierce in both the novel The Turner Diaries and in all seriousness in a few passages of Who We Are. Der Juden saw it all right with their Book of Joshua: only ethnic cleansing protects the race from the interbreeding that invariably occurs with time, and the moral I gather from Kevin MacDonald’s second trilogy book is that whites should imitate the tribe by adopting an endogamous form of collectivism in our naïve, individualist societies.

In a recent radio debate on exterminationist anti-Semitism Griffin told Linder that we must describe the Jewish problem like MacDonald does: never hinting to final solutions for fear of being called evil Nazis. But even MacDonald hints to a solution not only to the Jewish problem, but to the many other racial problems that are afflicting the race—though he shall never formulate it openly for fear of losing his tenure:

The Greek and Roman pattern of conquest and empire-building, unlike that of the Israelites described in the Tanakh [Pentateuch], did not involve genocide followed by the creation of an ethnically exclusivist state… [A People that Shall Dwell Alone, page 368]

In his trilogy MacDonald also says that National Socialism mirrored Judaism insofar as providing a symmetrical, albeit antithetical, evolutionary strategy for Aryans and that National Socialism has been “the most dangerous enemy that Judaism has confronted in its entire existence.” What MacDonald refrains from telling Pierce already said in Who We Are (see my ongoing, step-by-step abridgement of Pierce’s last book here).

But let’s elaborate my litmus test even further where I left it (“wondering when cometh mine hour…”).

A thought-experiment

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

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

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

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

Thursday. Alas for the earthlings!: You’re still confronted by the voice of your consciousness! This day you have to be bold enough and get rid of 50,000 of the media staff that have been demonizing whites and your culture through the world’s mainstream media and Hollywood.

Done… In the end, they had been probably whites’ most serious enemy.

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

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

Sunday, The Day of The Lord. Not enough! (sob…). Your dwindling powers are not enough to see the future and be certain that the conservative whites whose lives you just spared will have the nerve to deport those millions of non-whites who have been breeding like rats throughout your lands. So you take a fateful, ultimate decision. You will make of this final day a scorched-Earth moment, a wrathful and vindictive day since only full revenge has the power to heal a wounded soul… Only thus you will make it sure that the racial aliens won’t be invited again by the potential altruists who, unbeknownst to you, escaped from your wrath yesterday and may fall into their old habits in the far future. After all, doesn’t the mental disease of whites, universal moralism, predates Christianity? And after Christianity started to expand a thousandfold into Neochristianity, didn’t your people’s sense of fairness and pity towards non-whites became infinitely more threatening for your goal than the depredations of the (now defunct) tribe? Presently you remember the last chapter of the Zarathustra, “The Sign,” when Zarathustra rises in the morning and finds a lion outside his cave, which he takes to be a sign that the Overman is finally coming. This new Zarathustra—you—rises triumphantly, realizing you have overcome your final sin: pity. And so you don’t want to take any chances with the surviving Neanderthals—not in this big day of yours! You go for the only figure that really solves the problem in a single stroke. You play God. You take the lives of 5 billion or a little more of non-whites experiencing the same remorse that you experienced when you took the first 5 lives almost a week ago…

A favor

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

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

César Tort

Mexico City

On exterminationist anti-Semitism

Or:

The art of having my cake and eating it too

Last year, at Counter-Currents Greg Johnson wrote:

To win this battle, it might be necessary for some of us to become monsters who cannot return to normal society to enjoy the fruits of victory. We need leaders who are willing to sacrifice their immortal souls to this cause. I don’t believe there is an immortal soul, but psychologically speaking what passes for it are immortal scruples or absolute principles other than victory. All these need to be slain and sacrificed on the altar of victory.

Sounds pretty Linderite to me! Himmler and his SS henchmen would be proud of Greg’s words at the esoteric meetings celebrating the summer and winter solstice in Nuremberg.

But at Alex Linder’s own forum a few days ago Greg rebuked me for taking seriously William Pierce’s ethnic cleansing fantasies once the white revolutionaries take over (“…and Pierce’s absurd Nordicism and repugnant exterminationism have only reinforced my sense that something about your critical faculties is not quite right”).

I am tempted to argue in coming entries, perhaps at the Addenda, that the late Pierce, not the more conservative figures in today’s pro-white movement, held the upper moral ground. But first I’d like to say something more about

Greg Johnson

Unlike the later Nietzsche, it seems that Greg still subscribes Christian doctrine and, inadvertently, Christian axiology too, i.e., the inversion of values. This is the diametric opposite of the indented quotation above. Consciously or unconsciously, I believe that Greg lies to himself and his readership by claiming that he already left Christianity behind.

See for example what he said in a December, 2010 lecture at the Swedenborgian Church of San Francisco. Alas for Greg, the lecture was recently “outed” in the pro-white community, much to his embarrassment. At the Swedenborgian meeting Greg Johnson said:

“What most inspired me was his [Swedenborg’s] discussion of the life of Christ and the meaning and the mystery of that… Swedenborg gave us the means to understand that mystery.”

After quoting Scripture Greg asked, “What does it mean to say that ‘God is with us’?” and went into a theological peroration where he added:

“…a child was born. A child that somehow was the God of eternity. This unique incarnation is the great mystery. It is the conundrum of theologians and metaphysicians. Why was Jesus born? Why did God become man? Swedenborg claims that this was not part of Plan A… Jesus was Plan B… because of certain contingencies that [should not have] happened.”

Greg then used autobiographical vignettes mentioning his childhood and his father to illustrate “Plan B,” presumably what God felt obliged to do when mankind fell into the original sin. He even mentioned the word “salvation.” At some point Greg seemed to endorse the infinitely monstrous—the real monstrosity, not my endorsement of Pierce’s views—belief that it’s within God’s freedom to send us to Hell. (As an aside, see my theological piece on eternal damnation here.) After speculating on the Second Coming, Greg finished his lecture with an “Amen” and the Swedenborgians started to pray.

Listen to the audio linked above to hear, in Greg’s own voice, the above thoughts. Greg’s lecture sounds like the Catholic doctrine I was taught as a kid before my First Communion.

Apparently, Greg has two personas. He is a Nietzschean at Counter-Currents and a pious Christian at his church in San Francisco. He literally had it both ways before his activities with the Swedenborgians were outed. As to his other persona, take note of what Greg Johnson commented this year at The Occidental Observer:

[Christianity] did undermine racial exclusivity for nearly 2,000 years. Racial and subracial differences were no bar to marriage, as long as both parties were Christian.

And at another blog:

Christianity will not be dead until its secular offspring, liberal universalism, is dead as well. But you know that, don’t you? Christian fanatics are precisely the ones who believe that blood differences don’t matter.

I wonder what would his Swedenborgians friends say if they hit in the internet these impious comments (see my brief collection of anti-Christian comments authored by Greg here).

My purpose here is not to psychoanalyze Greg but to show that, with his kind of closet Christianity, he is not the genuine Nietzschean that I previously thought. Given his doublethink I even doubt that Greg can be a consistent leader in advancing the nationalist agenda. Just compare his Himmler-like advice that could have been taught at Wewelsburg Castle (“To win this battle it might be necessary for some of us to become monsters…”) with his more recent pronouncements (“…and Pierce’s absurd Nordicism and repugnant exterminationism”).

OK, were it not absolutely necessary to transvaluate the inverted values back to “master” (not “slave”) morality in order to save whites from extinction, I wouldn’t have extended on Greg’s duplicity above. But see the opening words of chapter 56, “Old and New Tables” of Thus Spake Zarathustra, the new Moses:

Here do I sit and wait, old broken tables around me and also new half-written tables. When cometh mine hour?

Not yet at Counter-Currents… I’m afraid to say that its editor-in-chief seems to specialize in the mischievous art of having my cake and eating it too.

Brad Griffin

Brad Griffin (“Hunter Wallace”) is the administrator of the popular blogsite Occidental Dissent that focuses on the conflict between his beloved Dixie and the treasonous Yankees. In his recent discussion with Alex Linder, Brad challenged his opponent’s exterminationism with a very tough question:

Let’s suppose you were handed a Glock. There is a 6 year old female Jewish child in the room across the hallway. Could you walk into the room next door, point the gun at the child’s face, and pull the trigger? If so, how many times could you do it?

How many people here [VNN Forum] could do it? Anyone?

In the last few years Brad has also called Alex a “sociopath” precisely because of Alex’s “exterminationism” on a purely intellectual plane. And it’s worth noting that a couple of years ago, in an interview that Jim Giles apparently deleted, Brad issued the same challenge to Jim but this time imagining a hypothetical seven year-old Jewess (I remember so well the edge in Brad’s voice). Independently of what Alex and his henchmen at VNN Forum have said about Brad’s tough question, I’d like to respond to Brad directly:

I would not shoot the girl.

This said, final solutions on the millions of adults who pose serious threats to the fourteen words must be considered. My own preferred solution to the Jewish problem is stopping all Jewish immigration; designating Judaism as a political, endogamous, racial evolutionary strategy hostile to the West—instead of a just another “religious faith”—and placing legal restrictions on it throughout the White world; initiating Jew out-migration, and the quarantine of the Jewish people within Israel.

However, what bothers me, as I confessed in “Vanguardist poll,” is that apparently Jews have the right to openly and unabashedly fantasize about exterminating us (“The best of the Goyim must be destroyed”—The Talmud), while, at the same time, whites feel extremely dismayed when one of us dares to return the favor.

Kevin MacDonald

Yesterday Jim Giles interviewed Kevin and directly asked the professor what does he think about Alex’s exterminationist anti-Semitism. The show reminded me Jim’s now deleted interview of Brad two years ago, when Brad pleaded to save the little, thoroughly hypothetical Jewess with anguished edges in his voice. Since then, Jim has revisited his previous tolerance of Alex’s exterminationism and is now dismayed that Alex and a few of his VNN commenters openly advocate permanently getting rid of the subversive tribe.

In yesterday’s interview, Kevin told Jim that Alex’s exterminationist position is “pretty crazy and counterproductive.” The good professor also said: “That’s the kind of thing that I think is absolutely detrimental,” and used the term “black eye” as to how would nationalists be seen in public relations after such pronouncements.

VNN Forum of course takes the opposite stance. In one of the threads commenting these inter-blogs exchanges a Serbian wrote, “White nationalism shouldn’t be about ‘appealing’ to the impotent, superstitious, feminine and mentally sterile. Whites need leaders who think like jews, not christ morons.”

Well, while I see the point in the recent Jim Giles show, it still bothers me that the West tolerates exterminationist anti-Whitism pronouncements by the Jews while, at the same time, it freaks out when hearing that someone of us advocates exterminationist anti-Semitism.

A chutzpahthic double-standard!

Christianity under fire

Christianity turns the good soft things—love, mercy, forgivenness—into weapons of terror.

—Alex Linder

There is more residual White racial consciousness in Dixie today than the Federal Republic of Germany.

—Hunter Wallace

Fascinating quotations from an exchange between Alex Linder and Hunter Wallace, and from a chapter in Arthur Kemp’s history of the white race, in my two appendices to WDH—both about Christianity.

The Führer’s way is the only way

Or:

Niflson responds to Linder

Last month during the second hour of Carolyn Yeager’s radio show, Severus Niflson convincingly rebutted Alex Linder’s libertarian stance against fascism and, although Niflson didn’t mention it, I believe his critique also applies to Greg Johnson’s “New Right” philosophy.

I cannot write shorthand, so forgive me the errors in the following transcriptions of the interview. Specifically addressing what Linder wrote, Niflson said that he, Niflson, is a militarist; and that we cannot have a State without centralization “because it won’t function.”

After a peroration on political sciences, Niflson rephrased Max Weber’s definition of the State: “The State is simply a territory with the monopoly of power,” that is to say, the monopoly of the use of force. Yes, the government runs the State but is not the State.

After Niflson mentioned Bakunin’s critique of Marx he responded to Yeager’s question about clarifying his previous statement that he was a militarist:

“I believe in the esthetics, and I believe in the morality, and I believe in the functionality of military power and of a militarized State. And of course: our ancestors did it historically. Even the modest tribes had basically a war chief, the monopoly of force. The culture of the tribe would be militarized [emphasis in Niflson’s voice]. Everything was focused on making spears, making knives, making swords.”

Using the words “structure” and “hierarchy,” he added that “a glorious thing to do is a militarized society,” and that every State worth of something was militarized; even Bismarck who was not a military guy dressed like one. We never made statues to laypeople but of knights on horses because that’s the only way a nation can defend itself. And there’s the rub:

“Militarism requires strong centralization in the sense that you require the government to focus militaristically on values of marshal heroism.”

That’s why, Niflson added, we are attracted to the military esthetics of National Socialism. After an input by Carolyn, Niflson claimed that libertarians wanted:

“A civilian society of consumers and basic chronic relaxation—in other words: America.”

This, even though the US used to be far more stoic in the past. It is making now a transition toward a bourgeoisie civil society where:

“Civilians make every decision; civilians think everything; civilians decide everything and militarism is related to fighting wars that civilians decide should be fought.”

And it’s far worse today since not even civilian Anglo-Saxons but Jews are ultimately deciding which war must be fought. Nevertheless, Niflson added:

“You cannot have a society without the mechanism of war. Libertarians tend to forget that without militarist ideology you cannot survive—especially us [nationalists after the ethno-state is formed] who will be attacked by everyone.”

And he added that in an ethno-state even the engineers and the architects would wear militarized uniforms because “everything they do they do for military objectives” —i.e., we will have to fight to survive for a long time.

“Every male would have to be ready to pick up a rifle and fight. Because I am a militarist I cannot agree with this naïve libertarianism, which is somehow Utopian—this idea that without a centralized State we can survive.

I have always said that the dynamics of power require structures of power, and the structures of power are militarism. Successful nations are militarized; that’s the truth.”

Keep in mind Egypt, Mesopotamia, Athens, Sparta and Rome. An hypothetical nation of anarchists would easily lose before an organized nation of fascists in a war between the two nations. After Carolyn wrought the subject of Linder’s views again, Niflson added:

“It’s because he is thinking in a non-military context. He is thinking like a civilian. Most of these libertarians believe in pluralism, because we live in a pluralistic society. But at least in the first hundred years we won’t have the luxury of being pluralistic at all.”

Which reminds me of course what the Führer said so clearly during his intimate table talks. Niflson continues:

“We will have to be single-minded, highly structured, hierarchical—and militarized—to be able to survive. We can’t be pluralistic. We can’t have multiple groups bargaining for power in your own nation state…”

This evokes Johnson’s plain antipathy toward NS-like totalitarianism as a template for the coming ethno-state.

“…because the State is the monopoly of the use of force. And that means that others will have to submit.”

After another comment of Carolyn, Niflson added:

“This country [the US] is a civilian democracy of lazy welfare queens. It is a nation of consumers—fat consumers that all they want is to be entertained and satisfied…”

That’s why they don’t want to live in a dictatorship, but be free:

“…inject themselves with garbage; get drunk, etc. These are the types of liberties that are desired.”

After some minutes Carolyn brought back the subject of Linder again. Niflson answered:

“The only effective way is to grow and centralize Federal power; grow and centralize, grow and centralize.”

I guess he said this to confront Linder’s idea of mere “White mania” after whites win their right to an ethno-state, insofar the State would go:

“…after your children, put in them a rifle and say you’ll fight today.”

Linder’s idea—and I’d add Johnson’s stance against genocide as well—is a fantasy because in a new civilization everything is about war; in a federal world these libertarians (or New Righters) won’t have any say on it, no participation in the power of the State. Niflson then satirizes these ideologies:

“I won the war [the creation of an ethno-state] but I’ll make myself weaker. I’ll go for communes and people will run these communes; they will have chickens there.”

Carolyn then made the insightful remark that in the US everyone is afraid of collectivism, that they are even afraid of the word “collective.” But in the past of the US the people had a collectivist vision. Not today adds Niflson, because:

“…people are retreating into their homes, retreating into their fantasies and they don’t want to come out.”

If we are in a middle of a war and a successful nation has been built, the whole point is not “to be a Man” (to use Linder’s term) but simply to win, and that just cannot happen in a pluralistic society insofar as every child will have to be indoctrinated.

Niflson echoing Michael O’Meara:

“Every nation has a myth. The population will grow with this myth and this myth will become reality.”

Though we can speculate about the coming myth, no one knows it because it is a myth that will develop in a given moment. In one of his last thoughts about libertarianism, Niflson added that the majority of us are libertarians, but that it is a delusion because we are all living:

“…under an invisible tyranny: the tyranny of entertainment and consumption, because we are basically forced into our homes; we didn’t want to get out.”

And that fantasy-world is precisely the tyranny, the Matrix that controls us: a fear of the real world.

Are we doing it to ourselves?

The following are excerpted comments from:

Alex Linder said…

The problem is no one has ever demonstrated Whites feel guilt for no reason.

Lew said…

True enough. When the injustice aligns with Jewish interests, it gets different treatment in the media, and those are the injustices Whites do not seem to feel guilty about.

I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve clashed with White anti-Whites who cited Indians, slavery, Jim Crow, colonialism or the holocaust as reasons White should feel guilty. I’ve never had anyone bring up the Iraqi or Afghan civilian dead. I’ve never had anyone cite as reasons for guilt the cruel mistreatment of White indentured servants, or child laborers, or any other subset of the White population that has unfairly suffered.

If you go back a bit further, it also seems to be true that prior to the Jewish media takeover, Whites felt no unearned guilt at all about any event. Like every race/ethnic group, Whites have committed their fair share of actions that one could argue were injustices. But, prior to WW2, I know of no evidence Whites were collectively languishing with unearned guilt over Indians, slavery, and colonialism in the 1910s-1920s.

If you go back even further, I know of no major historical commentators who ever suggested Euro peoples like to claim unearned guilt. Who talked about this? Herodotus? Aristotle? Luther? Hume? Machiavelli? I don’t know that any of them ever did. If Whites have a guilt flaw, unless they discussed it and I missed it (possible), it seems that some of the most powerful minds to ever walk the Earth didn’t notice it.

So what we’re left with is this:

• Before the Jewish media takeover, unearned guilt seems to be non-existent among Whites.

• After the Jewish media takeover, unearned guilt has become pervasive among Whites. The exception is when events that you would expect to trigger guilt are aligned with Jewish interests.

So yeah, on reflection, I think you’re right: this inherent race-guilt argument quickly crumbles upon scrutiny. Not only is there no evidence Whites feel guilty for no reason, there is evidence the guilt perfectly aligns with Jewish media presentation, and Jewish presentation is the only explanation that makes sense.

Greg Johnson said…

Lew, Alex’s argument is specious. Of course Jews are manipulating white guilt to serve their interests. But that does not imply that white guilt is an entirely Jewish invention, that whites are merely passive and innocent victims of Jewish mental aggression. All the Jewish propaganda in the world couldn’t sell white guilt if white people were not willing to buy it. And as far as I know, whites are the only race weak and foolish enough to buy it.

Have you ever heard of Jesus? The core of Christianity is the doctrine that Jesus, who was without sin, took the sins of man upon himself and suffered our punishment for us, to square things with God. The whole doctrine is premised on the most primitive and absurd notion of justice, namely that justice can be done by punishing an innocent party in the place of the guilty party (which in turn is premised on the idea that punishment is first and foremost just a matter of animal sadism: the wounded animal lashes out in anger, and whether he lashes out at the innocent or the guilty does not really matter, because it feels the same to him). It is moral savagery wrapped up in religious sanctimony.

Modern white guilt is just a secularized version of Christian vicarious atonement: whites derive psychological gratification and social status from Jews, Christians, and liberals by assuming the unearned guilt of other whites and suffering for it. Or, better yet, making other whites who are not so enlightened suffer for it, by giving our countries away to non-whites and Jews.

Alex Linder said…

Encouraging whites to blame themselves isn’t fighting the enemy: it’s helping the enemy.

Greg Johnson said…

Revisionists don’t reject it head-on. They simply try to dispute the facts, as if our race really would have no right to exist if our people had committed various historical atrocities. Try that kind of reasoning on any other race. Do the Asians feel guilty about Genghis Khan? How about the Muslims about their conquests? Whites have become a morally sick, rotten race because of our acceptance of Christian morality and its secular offshoots, although it is an open question if whites have some deeper, biological propensity to accept such ideas. It would also be interesting to see biological studies that address the issue of whether other races have equal propensities. Based on anecdotal evidence and history, I think not.

Alex Linder said…

Do the Asians feel guilty about Genghis Khan? How about the Muslims about their conquests?

They would if they were being told to by authority 24 hours a day. Why do you think jews buy up media? And bribe polls? And train teachers? Does all that suddenly have no effect?…

I notice also this topic came up at OD [Occidental Dissent], and most agree with me that the “white guilt” thesis is a crock, although Brad Griffin does not.

At Occidental Dissent Brad Griffin (“Hunter Wallace”) said:

Alex Linder writes:

The problem is no one has ever demonstrated Whites feel guilt for no reason. Johnson and Taylor and others pushing this line ignore the media factor. White guilt, as with other attitudes, is simply a function of jews controlling the media and telling them how to feel. It’s no more complex than that.

No, it is a lot more complex than that.

Europeans have a long history of self-hatred and debasing themselves over their sinfulness to appease the Almighty. [White guilt] is a byproduct of certain formulations of Christianity and liberal republican ideology.

Everyone here knows that Yankee White guilt was a huge problem long before the Jews became powerful in America. [Cf.] Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, John Brown, William Lloyd Garrison, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Read Lincoln’s speeches about drenching battlefields in Southern blood to atone for the sins of slavery. Yankees were worshipping free negroes like Frederick Douglass before the WBTS [War Between the States]. Henry David Thoreau protested Indian Removal and the Mexican War. Lincoln also opposed the Mexican War.

Britain and France abolished slavery over White guilt. In France, the Jacobins in the French Revolution even went so far as to make blacks into citizens with equal rights, and dispatched troops to the Caribbean with guillotines to kill the White planters. Blacks were lionized as the saviors of the colonies and the only true republicans in the West Indies. King Leopold II was portrayed as a monster in Britain and was forced to turn over the Congo Free State to Belgium.

Jews are aggravating a preexisting problem for their own selfish purposes. If every Jew in America vanished tomorrow, there would be a lot less White guilt and our situation would markedly improve, but we would still be left with the self righteous hypocritical Yankee holier-than-thous in Congress. [The fact that] Jews control the media isn’t a sufficient explanation: the South opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only the North and West were for it.

While I agree that Jews promote White guilt through the mass media and universities, I disagree that White guilt would disappear if every Jew in America disappeared tomorrow. White guilt has deep roots in Christianity and liberal republican ideology. It goes back to the myth of the noble savage. Again, look up Uncle Tom’s Cabin. See also The Society of the Friends of the Blacks during the French Revolution.


[Back to:]

Alex Linder said…

I think Kevin MacDonald knows [that Holocaust] revisionism is basically right, and he respects the horrors the fact-finders have endured for their pains, but he doesn’t want any more notoriety for himself, so he’s avoiding the matter. And Jeeves Johnson is just following along behind him.

My interpolated comment for this blog:

I think Linder and other commenters at VNN are deceiving themselves on this issue. They simply cannot conceive that a new generation of nationalists might have good reasons for not taking revisionism seriously.

Lew said…

Quite frankly, I am troubled by the extent to which these “white guilt,” “we’re doing it to ourselves,” “Whites are the problem” memes have wormed their way into our conversations.

It’s not as if spreading this poisonous, noxious, ludicrously false idea is without consequences. New people are coming and going to our sites all the time. New people are hitting our sites all the time. The worse things get, the more people will look for answers. A percentage of them will find our communities.

It’s painful to think that new people are coming to our sites, breaking from the mainstream, only to “learn” we’re doing it to ourselves rather than the truth, that none of our problems can be solved because we’re under constant attack by the organized Jewish community.

I discovered Kevin MacDonald’s work because I ran across white nationalists discussing it in the comments on now some defunct forum 11-12 years ago. Today, people are likely to find comments about how we did it to ourselves due to guilt, Christianity, the Enlightenment, altruistic self-punishment, economic greed, comfort, consumerism, apathy or whatever. These people are taking a common sense idea—there are many reasons we are in this situation—and bending, warping and twisting it into an excuse to exonerate Jews, downplay the role of Jews, and put the primary blame on ourselves.

My comment:

Like Linder, Lew is misreading our minds. I for one have absolutely zero wish to “excuse” or “exonerate” the fucking tribe. My motivation is sheer curiosity of the rather complex etiology—a witches’ brew!—of the West’s darkest hour.

Recently I tried to engage Lew outside VNN, at Counter-Currents. Slightly edited, this is what I told him there:

Lew,

Are you aware that the Middle East, Egypt (with blond Pharaohs) and India once harbored considerable Indo-European (“Aryan”) populations; that Greece, Macedonia and Rome were infinitely more Nordish than today (especially Sparta); that the One Ring of greed and power (economics over race) made these Nordics and Mediterraneans misecgenate and eventually mongrelize their progeny with Semitic people, Numbians and other non-whites?

Are you aware that even Portugal was far more homogeneous (“Gothic” i.e. Scandinavian) than the racial mess we see today, with laws that forbade mixing marriages of the “blue blooded” blonds and that, after the Christian ethos took over, they finally mixed their blood with black slaves? Or that we cannot blame jews in a New Spain exclusively ruled by pure whites for the simplest reason that through three centuries jews were ruthlessly persecuted, and even burned at the stake, and that by their own volition the Spaniards—sans jews—ruined their genetic pool with the Indians in this part of America?

You say that “the primary blame” of our current predicament should be “uncontroversial” (the Jewish tribe). Really? It looks like most nationalists have not read Arthur Kemp’s 686-page history of the white race.

When [in a previous comment] I said that deracinated whites have been our worst enemy, I also had in mind the history of how they empowered the Jews in the first place, when dominion of the press by Jews was not complete. It is a textbook case of what William Pierce says:

The “White guilt” syndrome exploited so assiduously by America’s non-White minorities is a product of Christian teachings, as is the perverse reverence for “God’s chosen people” which has paralyzed so many Christians’ wills to resist Jewish depredations.

What bothered me the most while studying 19th century European history of Jewery is the timidity of white Europeans to see the threat that the Jews represented. Nineteenth century whites seemed psychically paralyzed by the new ideas of emancipation and the equality of men that resulted from the Revolution in the previous century.

So these deracinated whites have been Whites’ worst enemy in modern times (not to mention what happened since the Ancient World as I said above). You only have to look at the Constitution of the United States, directly inspired from French “Enlightenment” ideas, to see the damned thing in full light: “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 for this egalitarian goals “Governments are instituted” in the pursue of “happiness”: exactly why the tribe has been empowered in modern times by deracinated whites, especially in the United States.

By the way, did you miss our little discussion on this topic at The Occidental Observer a couple of months ago (cf. these chosen comments)? If you click on that link you will see that Franklin Ryckaert summarized my current views better than what I could do at the time.

Linder on The Turner Diaries

I don’t think anyone could like Turner Diaries. It is a disturbing book, frightening even—even if you agree with him, as I obviously do. But it is undeniably heavy. In a way that Covington’s novels, so beloved of Johnson, are not. They are almost fruity in how bubbly the characters are, given the situation, although they are certainly enjoyable escapism.

Pierce’s work has a gravitas befitting a genocidal struggle, and no other WN novel has come even close to it except Raspaille’s Camp of the Saints. Raspaille is a better artist than Pierce, by a long stretch, but both books are about equally heavy, in that they impress and linger.

Alex Linder today

Listen to today’s interview: here

Alex Linder said…

“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…

“We gotta be gross large powerful and scary as all fuck, like a great white shark maw coming up out of the water at the slick black jewmud-seal. We need fiery leaders who can orate and organize. And we need ass-kickers who can stomp all who get between our speakers and the ears and eyes of our people.

We get that, we will win.”