Arthur de Gobineau’s

Essai Sur L’Inégalité des Races Humaines

“We (Wagner and Cosima) have done nothing but talk about you and your Essay since noon, when my husband came to tell me of the pleasure and interest he has found in reading chapter thirteen, which has absorbed him since he began it. Parsifal has been cornered into reading your books!! I am not able to express how much we love and admire this masterpiece…”

Letter of Cosima to Gobineau of March 27, 1881

Arthur_de_Gobineau

The Essai Sur L’Inégalité des Races Humaines (Essay on the Inequality of Human Races), of which only the first volume is available in English, is a book published in 1853 and 1855 by the French philosopher Joseph Arthur de Gobineau. It is considered the initial work of racialist philosophy. Below I reproduce an abridged translation of the introduction by Adriano Romualdi.

There are books that act on the reality of many of the political events and, out of the narrow circle of the discussion, become a powerful idea, myth and blood supplying historical processes. The most typical is undoubtedly Marx’s Capital, a historical-economic study that has become religious dogma, battle gun and gospel. To these books belongs the Essay on the Inequality of Human Races of Count Gobineau, ignored during the time the author lived but released in Germany after his death.

Arthur de Gobineau was born in Ville d’Avray in 1816 to a family of ancient Norman origin. Shortly before his death, in his Histoire d’Ottar Jara he would relive the events of the Viking conqueror that reached the coast of France, giving rise to his family. Gobineau’s father was a captain in the Royal Guard of Charles X. After the revolution of 1830 he departed to live in Britain while the son went to study in Switzerland. There Gobineau learned German and peered into the vast prospects opened by Germanic philology in those years. Since Friedrich Schlegel in his Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Inder taught affinity between European languages and Sanskrit he assumed an Aryan migration from Asia to Europe. In 1816, Bopp, with his Greek grammar, compared Sanskrit, Persian, Greek, Latin and founded Indo-European philology. Meanwhile, the Brothers Grimm rediscovered Edda and Germanic poetry, reviving the old heroism and primordial mythology while Kart O. Müller found in the Dorians (Die Dorier, 1824) the Nordic soul of ancient Greece. Thus Gobineau was familiar from his adolescence with a world that European culture was slowly assimilating.

In 1834 Gobineau went to Paris. He was not rich and tried to steer through as a writer and journalist. Of his literary works, many pages of Le Prisionnier Chancheux, Ternote, Mademoiselle Irnois, Les Aventures de Nicolas Belavoir and E’Abbaye of Thyphanes have withstood the erosion of time.

An article in the Revue de deux Mondes put him in touch with Alexis de Tocqueville, the famous author of Democracy in America, also of old Norman lineage. This friendship joined them through a lifetime despite their strong differences: Tocqueville, the aristocrat, resigned with melancholy by accepting democracy as a reality of the modern world while Gobineau, another aristocrat, rebelled and identified civilization with the work of a master race.

Tocqueville was appointed Foreign Minister and called his friend as his chief of staff. On the eve of the Napoleonic coup Tocqueville resigned but Gobineau put on a brave face to the Caesarism. He entered diplomacy and was the first secretary to take the delegation of Bern. It was in Berne where he wrote the Essai Sur L’Inégalité des Races Humaines. The first two volumes appeared in 1853, and more in 1855.

The book incorporates the movements of the great discovery of the Indo-European unity, i.e., a large extended Aryan family from Iceland to India. The Latin word pater, the Gothic fadar, the Greek patér and the Sanskrit derivations are revealed as originating from a single word. But if there has been a primary language of which several languages have branched, there must be a major lineage that existed, moving from its original home, and spread this language in the vast space between Scandinavia and the Ganges. It was the people that named themselves Aryans, a term with which the rulers are referred to themselves as opposed to the natives of the conquered lands (compare the Persian and the Sanskrit for arya = noble, pure; the Greek àristos = best , the Latin herus = owner, the soldierly Germanic Ehre = honor).

This is where Gobineau’s reasoning is channeled, mobilizing for his thesis ancient Indian texts revealing these prehistoric Aryans—tall, blond, with blue eyes—piercing into India, Persia, Greece, and Italy to make the great ancient civilizations flourish. Every civilization comes from an Aryan conquest, from the organization imposed by an elite of Nordic lords over a mass population.

Comparing each of the three great racial families the superiority of the Aryan appears to us evident. “If his [the black man’s] mental faculties are dull or even non-existent”—writes Gobineau—“he often has an intensity of desire, and so of will, which may be called terrible. Consequently, the black race is an intensely sensual, emotional radically race, but lacks of will and clarity of the organizer.” The yellow race stands before the black but it differs from the true creative will. Here we also have a race of second order, a kind infinitely less vulgar than the black but that lacks audacity, toughness and that sharp, heroic intelligence expressed in the gracile Aryan face. Civilization is thus a legacy of blood and is lost with the melting pot of blood. This is the explanation that Gobineau offers us about the tragedy of world history.

Gobineau’s key concept is degeneration, in the proper sense of the word, which is expressed in the growing apart from one’s own original type (the Germans would speak of ­­Entnordung or denordization). Ancient peoples have disappeared because they have lost their Nordic integrity, and this can occur to modern man as well. “If the empire of Darius had, at the battle of Arbela, been able to fill its ranks with Persians, that is to say with real Aryans; if the Romans of the later Empire had had a Senate and an army of the same stock as that which existed at the time of the Fabii, their dominion would never have come to an end.”

The fate that overwhelmed ancient cultures also threatens us. The democratization of Europe, which began with the French Revolution, represents the revolt of the servile masses with their hedonistic and pacifist values against the heroic ideals of Nordic aristocracies of Germanic origin. Equality, that for a time was just a myth, threatens to become reality in the infernal cauldron where the superior mixes with the inferior and what is noble is bogged down into the ignoble.

If today the Essai Sur L’Inégalité des Races Humaines appears aged in many features, it retains a substantial validity. Gobineau has the great merit of having first addressed the problem of the crisis of civilization in general and the West in particular. In a century stunned by the commoner myth of progress, he dared to proclaim the fatal decline of every culture and the senile and crepuscular nature of the citizens of a rationalist civilization. Without Gobineau’s work, without the serious, solemn chiming bumps in the prelude of his Essai, all of modern literature about crises by Spengler, Huizinga and Evola is unimaginable.

Gobineau’s great work on the inequality of the races was completed, but the French culture did not take notice. Tocqueville tried to comfort Gobineau prophesying that his book would be introduced into France from Germany.

Gobineau died suddenly in Turin in October 1882. Nobody seemed to notice his disappearance. It was the Germans who valorized him. Wagner opened its columns of the Bayreuther Blätter; Hans von Wolzogen, Ludwig Schemann and Houston Stewart Chamberlain announced his work. It was Ludwig Schemann who founded the cult of Gobineau by instituting an archive near the University of Strasbourg, then in Germany. In 1896 Schemann founded the Gobineau-Vereinigung, which would spread Gobineauism throughout Germany. In 1914 Schemann had an influential network of friends and protectors and the Kaiser himself subsidized it.

On the trail of the work of Gobineau, racialism was born: Vacher de Lapouge, Penka, Pösche, Wilser, Woltmann, H. S. Chamberlain and after the war Rosenberg, Hans Günther and Clauss retook Gobineaunian intuitions and amplified them with a vast doctrinal body. In 1933 National Socialism, assuming power in Germany, officially recognized the ideology of race. Thus what Wittgenstein had prophesied about Gobineau was fulfilled: “You say you are a man of the past, but in reality you are a man of the future.”

Führer anniversary

Or

Rockwell’s numinous call vs. white nationalism

Now that I gave up “white nationalism”—because it was an effete, neo-Christian, non-genocidal and anti-Nordicist pseudo-movement (Golden Dawn is a real movement)—what better homage to the martyr of the Second World War than remembering a call onto the real path revealed to George Lincoln Rockwell the year I would be born:

During this period, Rockwell had an experience about which he has never written and which he related to only a few people. Always a skeptic where the supernatural was concerned, he was certainly not a man to be easily influenced by omens. Yet there can be no doubt that he attached special significance to a series of dreams that he had then. The dreams—actually all variations of a single dream—occurred nearly every night for a period of several weeks and were of such intensity that he could recall them vividly upon waking. In each dream he saw himself in some everyday situation: sitting in a crowded theater, eating at a counter in a diner, walking through the busy lobby of an office building, or inspecting the airplanes of his squadron at an airfield hangar.

And in each dream a man would approach him—theater usher, diner cook, office clerk, or mechanic—and say something to the effect, “Mr. Rockwell, there is someone to see you.” And then he would be led off to some back room or side office in the building or hangar, as the case may have been. He would open the door and find waiting for him inside, always alone—Adolf Hitler. Then the dream would end.

hitlerOne can most easily interpret these dreams as a case of autosuggestion, but in the light of later developments Rockwell considered them as a symbolic summons, a beckoning onto the path for which he was then still groping, whether that beckoning was the consequence of an internal or an external stimulus.

Cited in “Rockwell: A National Socialist Life.”
 

* * *

 
“Because it was non-genocidal…” I said above. What better example to show what is wrong with American white nationalism that a recent interview of Kevin MacDonald by Luke Ford.

In the You Tube interview we can listen that Ford asks MacDonald if he sees similarities and differences between the white nationalist movement in America and National Socialism in Germany. MacDonald responded after 1:10:23, “The white advocacy movement, as I see it, is not exterminating anybody. It is simply going to assert our interests within the democratic form of government that we have… It doesn’t advocate conquering Mexico, you know—anything like that. There are lots of differences.”

Asserting white interests within US Democracy? Democracy—the worst form of government from the racial viewpoint that has ever been tried? Has MacDonald read what Hajo Liaucius said about the United States (cf. my forthcoming PDF)?

MacDonald’s stance is identical to what other notable white nationalists and southern nationalists believe. The latter fancy themselves as “sane, moral, wholesome, reasonable people” whose Christianity prevents them from becoming “silly vanguardists” of the revolutionary type. Their politics are actually church-picnic stuff with no future after the dollar collapses.

Conservative-religious types aside, in his summary of his latest book, New Right vs. Old Right, Greg Johnson rejects “the Old Right’s party politics, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide” in favor of “the metapolitical project of constructing a hegemonic White Nationalist consciousness within a pluralistic society.” Take note that Johnson’s “pluralism,” which reminds me Alex Linder’s non-fascist libertarianism, is incompatible with racial hegemony in Sparta, the Gothic and Visigothic societies, and the Third Reich.

Back to the Ford interview. MacDonald also said that repatriation of non-whites could be performed if a white nationalist reached the US presidency but nothing “short of gas chambers and genocide.”

A single example, related to “not conquering Mexico” will suffice to show how difficult such an apparently noble task would be.

“It is inexcusable that, having power,
you do not want to dominate.”

—Nietzsche

Here in Mexico a non-Jew, Emilio Fernando Azcárraga, the mogul who owns Televisa company, has married a Jewess. This means that in the future the largest multimedia mass media in Latin America will be run by a Jewish family. Do you imagine an ethnostate within the US that expels the brown Mexicans without being demonized 7/24 by the Latin American media? Since presumably Jews will be expelled too in MacDonald and Johnson’s non-genocidal scenario, you can imagine how the Jewish lobbies would press through their powerful media urging Latin American civil societies and governments to build nuclear weapons for their “defense” against the racists that took over the North.

In other words, even without genocide after a North American ethnostate starts expelling the mudbloods, the Rubicon would have been crossed with no way back. There is no credible way to triumph in that scenario except by conquering a potentially nuclear subcontinent that, if forever unconquered, would simply repeat the cycle of what the Jews did in America after a brainwashed West ganged up on Germany.

Starting with Mexico, “Latin” (or more accurately Mestizo) America must be conquered right after the Jew-controlled media starts rising hell in Mestizo America after the expulsion of non-whites. I am not alone in this view. Just compare today’s Christian and Neochristian white nationalism with what Francis Parker Yockey wrote in 1953 in his essay “The Enemy of Europe”:

For the purpose of demonstrating with the utmost clarity the elements of the two world-outlooks in this period of Western history between the Second and Third World Wars, a paradigm is appended.

In that paradigm Yockey dramatically contrasted the cultivation of soldierly virtues in healthy western societies with the cult of bourgeois virtues and the worship of Mammon. More specifically, he compared the virile attitudes of “war and conquest” with the ethno-suicidal “pacifism, non-imperialism and the preparation of the coloured populations for ‘self-government’.”

New_Right_vs._Old_RightIf Yockey were alive today what would he think about “white nationalism”? What would he say about Greg Johnson’s manifesto, recently published in a book with a foreword by MacDonald himself?: “I do not want anything to do with gun-toting armies of one. The only gun I want to own is made of porcelain” (emphasis Johnson).

George Lincoln Rockwell’s numinous series of dreams with Uncle Adolf, not this effete pseudo-movement, should be our call.

Liberalism, 2

by Francis Parker Yockey

Imperium Eagle

From its anthropology of the basic goodness of human nature in general, Rationalism produced 18th century Encyclopedism, Freemasonry, Democracy, and Anarchism, as well as Liberalism, each with its offshoots and variations. Each played its part history of the 19th century, and, owing to the critical distortion of the whole Western civilization entailed by the first World Wars, even in the 20th century, where Rationalism is grotesquely out of place, and slowly transformed itself into Irrationalism. The corpse of Liberalism was not even interred by the middle of the 20th century. Consequently it is necessary to diagnose even now the serious illness of the Western Civilization as Liberalism complicated with alien-poisoning.

Because Liberalism views most men as harmonious, or good, it follows that they should be allowed to do as they like. Since there is no higher unit to which all are tied, and whose super-personal life dominates the lives of the individuals, each field of human activity serves only itself—as long as it does not wish to become authoritative, and stays within the framework of “society.” Thus Art becomes “Art for Art’s sake,” l’art pour l’art. All areas of thought and action become equally autonomous. Religion becomes mere social discipline, since to be more is to assume authority. Science, philosophy, education, all are equally worlds unto themselves. None are subject to anything higher. Literature and technics are entitled to the same autonomy. The function of the State is merely to protect them by patents and copyrights. But above all—economics and law are independent of organic authority, i.e., of politics.

Twenty-first century readers will find it difficult to believe that once the idea prevailed that each person should be free to do as he pleased in economic matters, even if his personal activity involved the starvation of hundreds of thousands, the devastation of entire forest and mineral areas, and the stunting of the power of the organism; that it was quite permissible for such an individual to raise himself above the weakened public authority, and to dominate, by private means, the inmost thoughts of whole populations by his control of press, radio and mechanized drama.

They will find it more difficult yet to understand how such a person could go to the law to enforce his destructive will. Thus a usurer could, even in the middle of the 20th century, invoke successfully the assistance of the law in dispossessing any numbers of peasants and farmers. It is hard to imagine how any individual could injure the political organism more than by thus mobilizing the soil into dust, in the phrase of the great Freiherr von Stein.

But—this followed inevitably from the idea of the independence of economics and law from political authority. There is nothing higher, no State; it is only individuals against one another. It is but natural that the economically more astute individuals accumulate most of the mobile wealth into their hands. They do not however, if they are true Liberals, want authority with this wealth, for authority has two aspects: power, and responsibility. Individualism, psychologically speaking, is egoism. “Happiness” = selfishness. Rousseau, the grandfather of Liberalism, was a true individualist, and sent his five children to the foundling hospital [see Chechar's footnote below].*

Law, as a field of human thought and endeavor, has as much independence, and as much dependence as every other field. Within the organic framework, it is free to think and organize its material. But like other forms of thought, it can be enrolled in the service of outside ideas. Thus law, originally the means of codifying and maintaining the inner peace of the organism by keeping order and preventing private disputes from growing, was transmuted by Liberal thought into a means of keeping inner disorder, and allowing economically strong individuals to liquidate the weaker ones. This was called the “rule of law,” the “law-State,” “independence of the judiciary.” The idea of bringing in the law to make a given state of affairs sacrosanct was not original with Liberalism. Back in Hobbes’s day, other groups were trying it, but the incorruptible mind of Hobbes said with the most precise clarity that the rule of law rule means the rule of those who determine and administer the law, that the rule of a “higher order” is an empty phrase, and is only given content by the concrete rule of given men and groups over a lower order.

This was political thinking, which is directed to the distribution and movement of power. It is also politics to expose the hypocrisy, immorality and cynicism of the usurer who demands the rule of law, which means riches to him and poverty to millions of others, and all in the name of something higher, something with supra-human validity. When Authority resurges once more against the forces of Rationalism and Economics, it proceeds at once to show that the complex of transcendental ideals with which Liberalism equipped itself is as valid as the Legitimism of the era of Absolute Monarchy, and no more. The Monarchs were the strongest protagonists of Legitimism, the financiers of Liberalism.

But the monarch was tied to the organism with his whole existence, he was responsible organically even where he was not responsible in fact. Thus Louis XVI and Charles I. Countless other monarchs and absolute rulers have had to flee because of their symbolic responsibility. But the financier has only power, no responsibility, not even symbolic, for, as often as not, his name is not generally known. History, Destiny, organic continuity, Fame, all exert their powerful influence on an absolute political ruler, and in addition his position places him entirely outside the sphere of base corruptibility. The financier, however, is private, anonymous, purely economic, irresponsible. In nothing can he be altruistic; his very existence is the apotheosis of egoism. He does not think of History, of Fame, of the furtherance of the life of the organism, of Destiny, and furthermore he is eminently corruptible by base means, as his ruling desire is for money and ever more money.

In his contest against Authority the finance-Liberal evolved a theory that power corrupts men. It is, however, vast anonymous wealth which corrupts, since there are no superpersonal restraints on it, such as bring the true statesman completely into of the service of the political organism, and place him above corruption.

It was precisely in the fields of economics and law that the Liberal doctrine had the most destructive effects on the health of the Western Civilization. It did not matter much that esthetics became independent, for the only art-form in the West which still had a future, Western Music, paid no attention to theories and continued on its grand creative course to its end in Wagner and his epigones. Baudelaire is the great symbol l’art pour l’art: sickness as beauty. Baudelaire is thus Liberalism in literature, disease as a principle of Life, crisis as health, morbidity as soul-life, disintegration as purpose. Man as individualist, an atom without connections, the Liberal ideal of personality. It was in fields of action rather than of thought that the injury was the greatest.

Allowing the initiative in economic and technical matters to rest with individuals, subject to little political control, resulted in the creation of a group of individuals whose personal wills were more important than the collective destiny of the organism and the millions of the population. The law which served this state of affairs was completely divorced from morality and honor. To disintegrate the organism from the spiritual side, what morality was recognized was divorced from metaphysics and religion and related only to “society.” The criminal law reflected finance-Liberalism by punishing crimes of violence and passion, but not classifying such things as destroying national resources, throwing millions into want, or usury on a national scale.

The independence of the economic sphere was a tenet of faith with Liberalism. This was not subject to discussion. There was even evolved an abstraction named “economic man,” whose actions could be predicted as though economics were a vacuum. Economic gain was his sole motive, greed alone spurred him on. The technic of success was to concentrate on one’s own gain and ignore everything else. This “economic man” was however man in general to the Liberals. He was the unit of their world-picture. “Humanity” was the sum total of these economic grains of sand.

_____________

(*) In his searing exposé of Rousseau, Paul Johnson comments that the newborns of this extremely self-righteous scoundrel with all probability died in the foundling house. For installments 1 and 3 of this article, see here and here.

Liberalism, 1

by Francis Parker Yockey

Imperium Eagle

Liberalism is a most important by-product of Rationalism, and its origins and ideology must be clearly shown.

The “Enlightenment” period of Western history which… set in after the Counter-Reformation laid more and more stress on intellect, reason and logic as it developed. By the middle of the 18th century this tendency produced Rationalism. Rationalism regarded all spiritual values as its objects and proceeded to revalue them from the standpoint of “reason.” Inorganic logic is the faculty men have always used for solving problems of mathematics, engineering, transportation, physics and in other non-valuing situations. Its insistence on identity and rejection of contradiction are practicable in material activity. They afford intellectual satisfaction also in matters of purely abstract thought, like mathematics and logic, but if pursued far enough they turn into mere techniques, simple assumptions whose only justification is empirical. The end of Rationalism is Pragmatism, the suicide of Reason.

This adaptation of reason to material problems causes all problems whatever to become mechanical when surveyed in “the light of reason,” without any mystical admixture of thought or tendency whatever. Descartes reasoned the animals into automata, and a generation or so later, man himself was rationalized into an automaton—or equally, an animal. Organisms became problems in chemistry and physics, and superpersonal organism[s] simply no longer existed, for they are not amenable to reason, not being visible or measurable. Newton provided the universe of stars with a non-spiritual self-regulating force; the next century removed the spirit from man, his history and his affairs.

Reason detests the inexplicable, the mysterious, the half-light. In a practical problem in machinery or ship-building one must feel that all the factors are under his knowledge and control. There must be nothing unpredictable or out of control. Rationalism, which is the feeling that everything is subject to and completely explicable by Reason, consequently rejects everything not visible and calculable. If a thing actually cannot be calculated, Reason merely says that the factors are so numerous and complicated that in a purely practical way they render the calculation unfeasible, but do not make it theoretically impossible. Thus Reason also has its Will-to-Power: whatever does not submit is pronounced recalcitrant, or is simply denied existence.

When it turned its gaze to History, Rationalism saw the whole tendency as one toward Reason. Man was “emerging” during all those millennia, he was progressing from barbarism and fanaticism to enlightenment, from “superstition” to “science,” from violence to “reason,” from dogma to “criticism,” from darkness to light. No more invisible things, no more spirit, no more soul, no more God, no more Church and State. The two poles of thought are “the individual” and “humanity.” Anything separating them is “irrational.”

This branding of things as irrational is in fact correct. Rationalism must mechanize everything, and whatever cannot be mechanized is of necessity irrational. Thus the entirety of History becomes irrational: its chronicles, its processes, its secret force, Destiny. Rationalism itself, as a by-product of a certain stage in the development of a High Culture, is also irrational. Why Rationalism follows one spiritual phase, why it exercises its brief sway, why it vanishes once more into religion—these questions are historical, thus irrational.

Liberalism is Rationalism in politics. It rejects the State as an organism, and can only see it as the result of a contract between individuals. The purpose of Life has nothing to do with States, for they have no independent existence. Thus the “happiness” of “the individual” becomes the purpose of Life. Bentham made this as coarse as it could be made in collectivizing it into “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” If herding-animals could talk, they would use this slogan against the wolves. To most humans, who are the mere material of History, and not actors in it, “happiness” means economic well being. Reason is quantitative, not qualitative, and thus makes the average man into “Man.” “Man” is a thing of food, clothing, shelter, social and family life, and leisure. Politics sometimes demands sacrifice of life for invisible things. This is against “happiness,” and must not be. Economics, however, is not against “happiness,” but is almost co-extensive with it. Religion and Church wish to interpret the whole of Life on the basis of invisible things, and so militate against “happiness.” Social ethics, on the other hand, secure economic order, thus promote “happiness.”

Here Liberalism found its two poles of thought: economics and ethics. They correspond to individual and humanity. The ethics of course is purely social, materialistic; if older ethics is retained, its former metaphysical foundation is forgotten, and it is promulgated as a social, and not a religious, imperative. Ethics is necessary to maintain the order necessary as a framework for economic activity. Within that framework, however, “individual” must be “free.” This is the great cry of Liberalism, “freedom.” Man is only himself, and is not tied to anything except by choice. Thus “society” is the “free” association of men and groups. The State, however, is un-freedom, compulsion, violence. The Church is spiritual un-freedom.

All things in the political domain were transvalued by Liberalism. War was transformed into either competition, seen from the economic pole, or ideological difference, seen from ethical pole. Instead of the mystical rhythmical alternation of war and peace, it sees only the perpetual concurrence of competition or ideological contrast, which in no case becomes hostile or bloody. The State becomes society or humanity on the ethical side, a production and trade system on the economic side. The will to accomplish a political aim is transformed into the making of a program of “social ideals” on the ethical side, of calculation on the economic side. Power becomes propaganda, ethically speaking, and regulation, economically speaking.

The purest expression of the doctrine of Liberalism was probably that of Benjamin Constant. In 1814 he set forth his views “progress” of “man.” He looked upon the 18th century Enlightenment with its intellectualistic-humanitarian cast as merely preliminary to the true liberation, that of the 19th century. Economics, industrialism, and technics represented the means of “freedom.” Rationalism was the natural ally of this trend. Feudalism, Reaction, War, Violence, State, Politics, Authority—all were overcome by the new idea, supplanted by Reason, Economics, Freedom, Progress and Parliamentarism. War, being violent and brutal, was unreasonable, and is replaced by Trade, which is intelligent and civilized. War is condemned from every standpoint: economically it is a loss even to the victor. The new war technics—artillery—made personal heroism senseless, and thus the charm and glory of war departed with its economic usefulness. In earlier times, war-peoples had subjugated trading-peoples, but no longer. Now trading-peoples step out as the masters of the earth.

A moment’s reflection shows that Liberalism is entirely negative. It is not a formative force, but always and only a disintegrating force. It wishes to depose the twin authorities of Church and State, substituting for them economic freedom and social ethics. It happens that organic realities do not permit of more than the two alternatives: the organism can be true to itself, or it becomes sick and distorted, a prey for other organisms. Thus the natural polarity of leaders and led cannot be abolished without annihilating the organism. Liberalism was never entirely successful in its fight against the State, despite the fact that it engaged in political activity throughout the 19th century in alliance with every other type of Stated-disintegrating force. Thus there were National-Liberals, Social-Liberals, Free-Conservatives, Liberal-Catholics. They allied themselves with democracy, which is not Liberal, but irresistibly authoritarian in success. They sympathized with Anarchists when the forces of Authority sought to defend themselves against them. In the 20th century, Liberalism joined Bolshevism in Spain, and European and American Liberals sympathized with Russian Bolsheviks.

Liberalism can only be defined negatively. It is a mere critique, not a living idea. Its great word “freedom” is a negative—it means in fact, freedom from authority, i.e., disintegration of the organism. In its last stages it produces social atomism in which not only the authority of the State is combated, but even the authority of society and the family. Divorce takes equal rank with marriage, children with parents. This constant thinking in negatives caused political activists like Lorenz V. Stein and Ferdinand Lasalle to despair of it as a political vehicle. Its attitudes were always contradictory, it sought always a compromise. It sought always to “balance” democracy against monarchy, managers against hand-workers, State against Society, legislative against judicial. In a crisis, Liberalism as such was not to be found. Liberals found their way on to one or the other side of a revolutionary struggle, depending on the consistency of their Liberalism, and its degree of hostility to authority.

Thus Liberalism in action was just as political as any State ever was. It obeyed organic necessity by its political alliances with non-Liberal groups and ideas. Despite its theory of individualism, which of course would preclude the possibility that one man or group could call upon another man or group for the sacrifice or risk of life, it supported “unfree” ideas like Democracy, Socialism, Bolshevism, Anarchism, all of which demand life- sacrifice.

Alex Linder on GD crackdown

GD symbol


He’s [Greg Johnson] going where the money is, and that will always be in safe, comfortable, respectable conservatism, rather than in radical nationalism.

Just look at the Golden Dawn types—they are burly. Not effete men of letters. Military hard men and such. That shows you what type is necessary to get ahead under conditions as they actually are today. Yes, you need writers and speakers and lawyers, and Golden Dawn has those, but you mainly need ass-kickers. Why? Because our enemy cheats. It lies, beats down, and murders. After all, if it played fair, it would lose. Because its views and interests belong only to a minority. The majority view is nationalist. Always and everywhere. It’s not even a racial thing, it’s a species thing. Not even a human thing. People prefer their own kind. This idea that it’s going to be better after we wipe out the white race, replacing white countries with a grabbag of third-worlders, is not merely not what the actual people want—you know, the democratic view, the view of the people—it is flat wrong. Demonstrably, obviously, measurably wrong. But the super-elite have accepted it, and are doing what they can to enforce.

Basically, the superelite need to be killed, down to the last man. I don’t see any way around that. And the jews need to be counter-exterminated en masse, as they are very deliberately, calculatedly and brazenly trying to wipe other nations off the globe.

For once and for all, we need to smash marxism and multiculturalism, and that means nothing more or less or different from destroying jews, right down the to the very last one.

You’ll note I alone have posited this as the only solution that can work. Yet idiots only judge what I say from a moral or respectability standpoint; not one person has ever yet put forward any reasoning that shows what I have said is analytically wrong, and that’s the only argument I’m interested in.

The jews are not going to stop doing what they do. They have to be stopped. That’s on us.

It is highly evident that jews are our main enemy, and christianity is the main reason we fear even to consider doing what we rationally ought to do to defend our kind.

Greg Johnson can hardly be interested in Golden Dawn when its daily doings amount to a refutation of his thesis about meta-politics. He’s going to effect a sea change in the culture that will save white people, all without any actually gritty engagement with the real world. He’ll do it all with the smoke and mirrors of clever essays about Batman XIV and private conferences.

Same with MacDonald—do you think he grasps that Golden Dawn’s experience directly belies everything he advises through A3P?

Heck, no. Smart people are just like dumb people. They don’t ever want to admit they’re wrong, not even to themselves.

Another little feller completely shown up by Golden Dawn’s experience is Hadding [Scott]. He is #1 among those embracing the illusion that white nationalists are responsible for their own failures, mainly because they haven’t stayed within the law.

Golden Dawn offers a perfect example of what happens when you stay within the law and use the democratic system precisely the way it was intended. Golden Dawn is being punished, attacked, lied about, sued, prosecuted because it is successful, in the true democratic sense of the word. What does democracy mean if not the people engaging in politics directly? Isn’t that exactly what Golden Dawn does when it, in every part of Greece, prints up and passes out newspapers, directly talks to the folks, helps them with whatever they need, getting physical protection the police are too busy to provide, food they need simply to stay alive? It doesn’t get any more democratic than what Golden Dawn does daily. In public. In the streets. With the people. And what happens? Why, the machine fails to function! Its operators say that Golden Dawn is outside the law when it passes out food to people! When it gives its literal blood for the people?

So tell me again, Hadding you mentally constipated idiot: how is working within the system working for Golden Dawn?

gd-Greece

Gee, the System doesn’t seem to be very interesting in saying, gee, Golden Dawn really appeals to people. It’s getting an increasing share of the votes. Soon its man will be running Athens. We need to study what we’re doing so that we can capture some of that appeal. What are we doing wrong, that The People reject us and turn to GD? Is that how the System reacts? Hell, no. It moves, rather to outlaw this legal party. It moves to declare it a criminal organization. To arrest its leaders. Every article in the domestic and foreign media supports and backs up and reinforces this anti-democratic impulse. They all, as a one, System parties and System media, portray Golden Dawn and its leaders as evil incarnate.

Tell me again, little Hadding jackass, how staying legal is working for Golden Dawn? Tell me how it’s going to be any different anywhere else.

What do I have to say to get through to the high-IQ morons WN is beset with (apart from the dirt-eaters it is also beset with)?

Our enemy has a minority view. It cannot win by playing fair.

Please. Spend the ten or fifteen hours you need to ponder on that statement until you understand what I mean by it.

WN is just white normalcy. It is the default. Most people support it, without thinking. The alien elite hostile minority, led by jews, buys up the media because it has to. It buys politicians because it has to. It criminalizes ordinary human activity and speaking language because it has to.

It has to control every normal down to the last jot and tittle because the normal’s instincts are a hundred percent against the agenda the jews-led-abnormal coalition tries to impose. They are anti-democratic tyrants by necessity. They don’t have a choice. Calling what they do and their agenda democratic rather than tyrannical is of a piece with everything else they do: A sour lie. A cynically knowing deliberate reversal of reality. And a lie they mouth incessantly because they have to.

Do you really think you can get through an anti-white agenda without the help of a term like racism? Hell, no.

Do you really think you can get through a pro-homo agenda without the help of a term like homophobic? Of course not.

Everything they do is on this pattern.

They cannot do otherwise. Their views are too weird, twisted, abnormal and unthinkably undesirable to the normal majority.

Get it?

At long last, do you understand this, people?

We are not in a debate, a game, a contest that is overseen by any rule except one:

Whatever works, works. Whatever goes, goes.

This is the eternal stumbling block of the respectable right: they simply refuse to accept that their opponent cannot win an unfixed game, and, unlike them, he is not content to lose. He must and will win, and there is only one way he can do this: by lying, cheating, browbeating and murdering.

Now that you know that… what are you going to do about it?

If you’re a conservative, your answer is: nothing. You will listen to your favorites gasbags, pride yourself on how smart and moral you are, and how “stupid” the left is, and you will continue to lose.

If you want something better and different, then you need to swallow the reality pill and join the racialists. In Greece that party is Golden Dawn. They show what the normals do when they are truly seriously intent on not letting the jew-led abnormals control their country and decide their future.

Greece is the only place in the white west this is happening, and that is why it is worth microscopic attention I give it daily.

__________________

If we exterminate termites because they destroy the foundations of our houses, how much more lenient should we be in our treatment of jews, who destroy the foundations of our society? [Source: here]

Heimbach on GD crackdown

GD symbol


The modern understanding of democracy is even more tyrannical than what Plato referred to as the second worst form of civil government. Control over the mass media and the civil school system brainwashes the youth and electorate as a whole to support the agenda of the System. The billions of dollars pumped into buying off politicians and ostracizing “political dissidents” mean that to achieve even a basic level of political power is nearly impossible for any Traditionalist.

The true tyranny of modernity is in the fact that the rules can be easily modified to create a permanent elite, who will crush any challenges to their power structure and creature comfort.

The tyranny of the modern democratic system is not limited to only the United States; it is pervasive throughout the entire Western World. In the early 1930’s, the elites were horrified that nationalism and racial pride took the world by storm. The Jewish capitalist and banking elite financed the beginnings of the Soviet Union and backed countless Marxist movements around the globe. In response to this and the failures of secularism and modernity, revolutionary forces began to organize for the preservation of their culture and their people.

From the nationalists in China to the National Socialists in Germany, peoples around the globe strove to throw off the shackles of Bolshevism that like a cancer was festering throughout the nations of the Earth. Using democracy, nations chose leaders and movements that would lead them forward to freedom from the globalists and the ability to fulfill their own God-ordained destinies. With the blood of countless millions on their hands, the elites decided that through fire, bombs, and intimidation that this nationalist worldwide movement must be crushed. From the raising of the Red flag in Berlin to the surrender of America’s own sovereignty, the elites took a stranglehold over most of the globe. With a battle cry of “never again”, the System has declared that no matter what a people believe or how they wish to run their own affairs, they must be aligned with the New World Order.

The Greek nationalist party, Golden Dawn, is the latest proof of how the message of nationalism and ethnic solidarity is coming. The elites will do anything they can to destroy any credible nationalist threat. Golden Dawn has risen from being less than one percent of the electorate several years ago, to storming Parliament with over seven percent of the vote in recent elections. With programs to feed and clothe poor Greeks, a push for border security and getting rid of the hordes of illegal immigrants infesting Greece, an alliance with socially conservative Greek Orthodox Christians and hardline secular nationalists, and a passionate stand against international Jewry and the mainstream political elites who have time and time again sold out the Greek people, it is no question why Golden Dawn is succeeding at the polls. Through using the democratic process and truly acting in the best interests of the Greek people, Golden Dawn began polling poll results as high as fifteen percent in the past few weeks, demonstrating a doubling of supporters in just the several months since the next election. This is where the System had to step in.

It began with Jewish groups around the world pulling the worn out “anti-Semite” card on Golden Dawn. Nationalists simply no longer wish to be exploited by the international Jewish cabal. Golden Dawn MP’s spoke openly about the degree of Jewish control over the Greek economy, the European Union, and the globalist agenda. The belief in sovereignty of the Greek nation and Greek people from parasitic bankers and capitalists put Golden Dawn on the elites hit list. Nationalists have to made an example of.

The Greek government was harassed and pushed by outside forces and the global choir of “anti-racism” to shut down Golden Dawn. Recently when an alleged Golden Dawn member got into a bar fight with an infamous “anti-racist” rapper and stabbed him to death, the System had the “cause” to declare Golden Dawn a criminal organization and began rounding up its leadership. One wonders how quickly all mainstream parties would be banned if the actions of one or two members became cause for the government to arrest all of the leadership. My old neighborhood in Baltimore alone would have disqualified the Democratic Party on a nightly basis if a felony were grounds for dissolving a political party.

The desires of the people who had elected Golden Dawn to Parliament were irrelevant. Tradition and the law were moot. With thuggery rarely witnessed in the West since the Jewish commissars of the Soviet NKVD, the Greek government sent in shock troops to  raid “the homes of Golden Dawn politicians across Athens, Michaloliakos and five of his MPs were seized. Fifteen other senior party activists, including a female police officer, were taken into custody accused of fomenting violence as members of a criminal organisation.” In the hours following this original round of arrests, warrants were issued for additional Party members and the systematic crackdown intensified. Armed with automatic weapons and covered faces, police went to kick in door after door of those deemed “politically unreliable.” The center Right coalition and the Left and communists have united together to stop Golden Dawn. International praise from Jewish organizations and the European Union have flooded Greece for working to stamp out the spread of nationalism.

Public Order Minister, Nikos Dendias declared to the world that “Golden Dawn tried to test the endurance of democracy, today it got an answer from state justice.” The irony of arresting democratically elected lawmakers simply for their beliefs and then trumpeting values of democracy, were seemingly lost on the Mr. Dendias. Beliefs that aren’t deemed kosher are simply not allowed to exist in the tyranny of 21st century democracy. They will ban us, beat us, and even kill us, and that is why we cannot work to reform this System.

The attempt to revive the United States or the nations of Europe in their current state is a necrophiliac exercise in futility. In the founding home of Western democracy and civil government, and with a boot on the neck of nationalists democracy has officially died. Christ did not attempt to negotiate with the moneylenders or get put in a position of power in the temple, he flipped over the table and beat those who were poisoning the moral well of the people around him. Traditionalists in Greece must take to the streets and dismantle this corrupt and wicked system. The blood of patriots and martyrs will run in Athens, but that is the only way to secure the existence of the Greek people. Golden Dawn is facing a communist coup, it is time to organize and prepare to fight to destroy this System just as other allied Traditionalists must around the globe. Francisco Franco and the Spanish nationalists realized that only through fighting the System could the Traditions of the blessed Church and its nation survive.

We cannot negotiate with our foes, we cannot work within the System, and we must stand behind the brave men and women of Golden Dawn behind the wire.

__________________________

Excerpted from Matt Heimbach’s latest article (here)

Trainspotter on GD crackdown

Meandros_flag.svg

Chechar, glad you are following this. I believe we are witnessing an event of historical importance, with tremendous and far-reaching ramifications no matter how it plays out.

It’s early days yet, but it would seem that the system is dropping even the pretense that the ballot box can be used to mount a meaningful challenge to establishment anti-white policies. For all of our lives, the system argument against us has been, “You are unpopular losers.” But when we can prove popularity, in spite of the system throwing every obstacle in the book at us, the hammer falls. Of course.

Apparently, the only acceptable choices are Anti-White Fast and Anti-White Slow—in other words we can dispute the speed at which we move along the anti-white trajectory, but we are not allowed to dispute the trajectory itself.

The legitimacy of the modern democratic system is coming under enormous strain, something we’ve been discussing for years. It’s playing out more or less as we’ve expected, and at this point it looks like a win no matter what. If Golden Dawn is crushed, the legitimacy of the democratic system takes a tremendous beating, and the anti-whites will enjoy a Pyrrhic victory at best.

If, on the other hand, Golden Dawn survives and even prospers, then the legitimacy of the anti-white system still takes a beating, perhaps a far more severe beating. All of our lives it has been a case of “heads they win, tails we lose.” In an important sense, that may be reversed here.

I think that the system has blundered, though it might not have had a choice. Either way the system loses, whether in the short or longer run. And that may reveal the value of democratic politics… forcing a system reaction like this. I hope Golden Dawn has a Plan B, but we’ll see. At least they forced the reaction, revealing that the emperor has no clothes.

golden-dawn-flagsIn any event, I’ll check back in the days ahead, and look forward to any commentary that you might have. Long Live Golden Dawn!

____________________________

For the context of this entry, see here.

Published in: on September 29, 2013 at 9:49 am  Comments (5)  

Golden Dawn crackdown

Or

Greek government makes it impossible
for GD to win elections


This is such an important, unfolding event that I’ll violate my policy of not posting news in this blog. In fact, I’ll leave this post “sticky” as long as necessary. The below exchanges come from a current discussion at VNN (last page, here):

GD leader

(Michaloliakos shows his face with no shame; police escorts hide their faces like bank robbers.)


The Chief of the Golden Dawn Nikolaos G. Michaloliakos has been arrested, along with at least three or four MPs while about thirty executives led the General Police Directorate of Attica after warrants were issued for “criminal organization.”


Alex Linder said…

Government spokesman Simos Kedikoglou told The Associated Press, hinting that Saturday’s arrests were the culmination of a long strategy to deal with Golden Dawn as a criminal, not a political force. In other words, simply declare Golden Dawn’s political views illegal, since they are too popular. Essentially, it’s a criminal act not to be a leftist. “The prime minister and the government were determined to deal with Golden Dawn solely through the justice system… We have succeeded in stripping them of their political cover and deal with them as what they really are, a criminal organization,” Kedikoglou said. This is democracy: either go along with the System or be branded a criminal.

VNN commenter said…

That’s the rub, isn’t it? Any successful creation of a party that challenges the establishment will be declared illegal. They are branded as criminals against the state for merely having political views and ideologies that fly in the face of the establishment, and have succeeded in gathering support in the populace. Any threat to the continuance of the establishment’s power will be dealt with, not through elections, but by literally declaring any successful opposition to be criminal in nature.

Successful is the key. GD endured the media onslaught and character assassination. The people did not believe the lies the press and government were feeding them—because GD was actually feeding them! When GD was viewed as a minor annoyance, TPTB were happy to handle them in the traditional means, i.e. media attacks, bad press, and harassment (such as any grass roots political party or organization). But because GD weathered these attacks, and continued to gain the support of the people, now we see how the established power deals with them as an actual threat: Arbitrarily making new laws and statutes, ignoring established laws and procedure as they see fit, and bringing the full weight of a corrupt system to dismantle the will of the people.

The new Babylon

babylon


Michael O’Meara, the first white nationalist author I ever read, has said that the United States, as the architect of the prevailing world system, is the source of all evil. But a humble book by Tomislav Sunić is even more focused on the subject. In fact, to me it is the key to understand the West’s darkest hour.

Here there are a few quotes:

“America is the least homogeneous country in the Western hemisphere… But there is one common feature which is characteristic for all Americans, regardless of their social and racial background or status; namely their rejection of their previous roots.”

Homo Americanus, pages 1-2


“The American species, Homo americanus, exists all over Europe now…

Following the Second World War, hundreds of European and American authors were removed from library shelves on the basis of their allegedly extremist, racist and unscientific character.”

Homo Americanus, pages 5, 7


Lawrence R. Brown, in his magnum opus The Might of the West… acknowledges that the Declaration was a form of political theology, compatible with the spirit of the time of Enlightenment, and therefore replete with platitudes and “self-evident” truths. The Preamble of the Declaration could very well fit into the Middle Ages.

Homo Americanus, page 17


“Not a single politician will ever admit that America is a theocratic system with a peculiar political theology.”

Homo Americanus, page 3


“Ethnic or racial discrimination, let alone charges of anti-Semitism, are viewed in postmodern Americanism as the ultimate intellectual sin… Certain dogmatic views, particularly those regarding the sacred Jewish question and inherent goodness of non-European races, are imposed by force and must be accepted by all…”

Homo Americanus, page 14


“However, there seems to be a contradiction in their [white racialists] analyses regarding the waning of the Euro-American world. While they bewail the passing of the white race, they fail to critically examine the economic foundations of Americanism, i.e. an ideology that is fully propitious for low wage non-European immigrant workers… Why should one worry about the passage of the great white race if that race has only been involved in endless economic transactions? This seems to be a feature of many white American racialists who stubbornly refuse to criticize capitalism…”

Homo Americanus, page 23


“It must be recalled that the passionate American desire to make the world safer for democracy also led, after World War II, to the creation of the Nuremberg Tribunal whose legal structures make up the judicial framework of the postmodern European Union, including the European Criminal Code… They opened up, long ago, a Pandora Box.”

Homo Americanus, page 60


Both the American and the Soviet experiments were founded on the same principles of egalitarianism… At the beginning of the third millennium, the immense egalitarian meta-narrative, encapsulated in Americanism, is very much alive… Both Homo sovieticus and Homo americanus herald the slogan that all men are created equal… All academic discussions about genetic or racial differences are quickly neutralized by the all-encompassing words such as “racism” or “hate speech.”

Homo Americanus, pages 55-56


Morgenrot reviews part of Hellstorm

>Thomas Goodrich’s Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944–1947

I have read part of Hellstorm. It is difficult to go on to read page after page of unimaginable crimes committed against Germany and the German people. To draw such hellish hatred from the Good People one has to suppose that Germany holds a key position in world history.

And I think that German being has always gone beyond commerce, power, domination, money, but has striven for an earthly ideal of human freedom and communion with nature which sheds the primitive value system of gold, avarice and covetousness. I can’t put my thoughts more succinctly and less flowery at this point, but it is clear that Germanity is unlike other manifestations of being. I think that the German soul has a genuine way of being happy within this world, perhaps because the old gods hold still sway and make their presence felt.

Pope and Emperor, Church and Reformation, Paganism and Christianity, Democracy and Leader Elect have found their strongest contrary expressions in Germany and for the time being Democracy has won out as Western-style Parliamentarism with all its degeneracy, venality, mendacity, hypocrisy, the exact opposite what Germanic community is: Independence and faithfulness to an elect leader, putting community before individuality as the utmost guiding principle.

I have recently acquired some books on the anti-German propaganda in the English-speaking world. As difficult as it is to read Goodrich’s Hellstorm, as difficult it is to read Vansittart’s writings.

This man carries a large part of the burden of criminal guilt in inciting unrelenting hatred against Germans and Germany and to bring to an end Europe’s development towards freedom for its people and freedom for its manifestation in the world. Even in 1943 (Lessons of my Life) when the million-fold murder resulting from his and other’s instatement to hatred and inhumanity was daily broadcast, he continues to utter his ideas of the German lust for world conquest, even manifest at the time of Hermann the Cherusker who fought against the Romans in Germany.

Apparently, if Germans wanted foreign powers not to mingle in their affairs this was an expression of bellicosity and a plan for world domination, and so it is today.

To understand why that should be so is a key element in history.

Source: here

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 231 other followers