Why I am not a neonazi

The following are some of the last pages of my forthcoming book, The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. I will include a PDF of the whole book in my next blog entry.


Virtually all white males have been feminized. This is due to the fact that they, including white nationalists, are reluctant to repudiate every single conquest of feminism—starting not only with allowing women to vote (we have seen that democracy is the worst kind of political system) but even with their “right” to inherit wealth or property. The humiliating empowerment of white women throughout the West is directly proportionate with the cretinization of white males. However, now that I reproduced my translations of a book about the prime example of polar Yang in our history, Sparta, I would like to qualify that what we need is Aristotle’s proverbial golden mean. Sparta produced the best soldiers in world history but perished because it ignored what we now know: that enslaving non-whites is fatal in the long run. What we need is the Hegelian synthesis between yang Sparta and yin Athens: a sort of modern Rome.

That is exactly what National Socialism was all about. Inspired in Rome, and let us remember the virile Roman salute, the Third Reich incorporated and eliminated—Hegel’s aufheben—the contradictions in both extremes: it was highly cultured as well as a tough military state.

I consider myself a spiritual inheritor of the Nationalist Socialist legacy. But I reject neonazism. Why? Because neonazis are basically white nationalists plus Nazi paraphernalia. We have already seen that, unlike the NS men, these groups love degenerate music, Judaized Hollywood and non-reproductive sex. Many of these décadents are also anti-Nordicists who would dismiss a command cited in the very first lesson of Stellrecht’s Faith and Action quoted in the previous page: “But if your blood has traits that will make your children unhappy and burdens to the state, then you have the heroic duty to be the last.”

It may seem hilarious to say it here but there are some neonazis in Mexico—mestizos! Some of them live their “Nazi” lifestyles under the delusion that they are whites. Of course, I have zero friends among these poor bastards. They would never consider Stellrecht’s advice for the Hitler Youth, which should apply to them far more. I confess that my only friend in Latin America is the Brazilian Larry Mars, a true believer in the fourteen words whom I have quoted in this book. Unlike the neonazis Mars does indeed believe that his duty is to be the last of his line, insofar as he concedes he is not properly white.

Mexican clowns aside, the surreal thing is that even the pure Aryans hate Nordicism. Conversely what I love about Himmler is that, precisely because he was not handsome, he admired the hyper-Nordics of a Norwegian town he visited and harbored the thought that its people could be a paradigm for the Reich. Remember Stubb’s words about white nationalists:

Not only does it [Nordicism in general and real National Socialism in particular] retrigger all the anti-racist conditioning they thought they’d gotten rid of, but it makes them ask “where does it end?” “At what point can we finally stop paying attention to each others genetic (and non-genetic) flaws?”

The answer is that it doesn’t end: that all life is struggle and hierarchy and that the Aryan race will never be perfected nor entirely freed from threats. But that’s not what they want to hear. Pierce made eugenics the core of his religious outlook as a means of protecting the eugenically-selecting society. But I see little concern for the subject among modern white nationalists. Can you imagine a racial state with a comprehensive eugenic policy which didn’t consider the reversal of mongrelization to be a major objective? [Stellrecht’s “heroic” advice] That it wouldn’t make its population look more like Swedes and less like Sicilians, as time goes on? It’s hard to do so, which is why I believe “anti-Nordicism” in white nationalism has, among other things, shut down much of the discussion on the subject.

On September 2013, in Harold Covington’s Northwest Front blogsite, several commenters subscribed politically correctness by bashing Covington in order not to offend the feelings of contemporary Greeks. A saner Northwest Front commenter said, “Those among us who don’t have the ability to look at a picture of half-Turks and tell they’re not White weren’t ever going to amount to anything on behalf of the White race.” The other side, the “revolutionary” neonazis, ignored that DNA tests have even revealed nigger genes among quite a few of the Portuguese; and we have already seen El Greco’s painting of crossbreed Spaniards as well as Pierce’s statement that “a 5 percent decline in average IQ would cause our civilization to collapse,” which applies to Sicily and Greece even before the Turkish invasion.

This cowardly lack of recognition of the very Letter A in Indo-European studies is not the only thing that annoys me about the embryonic movement known as white nationalism. Over the internet boards I find it bothersome when typical neonazis demand that I dismiss the Holocaust stories as hoax; and that if I fail to do it my morals are beyond the pale.
 
irving08-12

David Irving in 2012

As someone who has spent many years studying controversial subjects (the pseudoscience in both parapsychology and biological psychiatry), I know perfectly that you must spend at least a decade of your life trying to digest the scholarly literature of both sides of an academic debate. I am in my middle fifties now and don’t have the time nor the motivation to research the Holocaust claims and counter-claims. For me it is enough to point out that two former Holocaust revisionists, Mark Weber, the director of the Institute of Historical Review, and David Irving, the famed historian of the Third Reich, have changed their minds over the years, both accepting now that a few millions of Jews probably died during the war. According to an email of March 16, 2014 sent to me by Irving himself, his book on Herr Himmler will be released later in this year. Irving’s forthcoming book quotes historical records proving that, even though the six-million figure is an invention, a few millions of Jews probably died as a result of harsh Nazi treatments.

But I would like to go beyond the scruples of our best historian in the field. Joseph Walsh recently stated in my blogsite that “The Truth is that the glad stirrings of genocide lurk in the heart of every man, yet only the Nazis had the courage to acknowledge the Truth.” Panina, a Swede that in 2012 used to comment in my blogsite, went even further:

What is certain is that the Holocaust would not have produced any debilitating psychological effect on non-Christian whites. (By Christianity I mean “Christian morality.” Most atheists in the West are still Christian, even if they don’t believe in God or Jesus.) Being emotionally affected by the Holocaust presupposes that you think:

1) Victims and losers have intrinsically more moral value than conquerors and winners

2) Killing is the most horrendous thing a human can do

3) Killing children and women is even more horrendous

4) Every human life has the same value

None of these statements ring true to a man who rejected Christian morality. In fact, even if the Holocaust happened, I would not pity the victims or sympathize with them.

If you told the Vikings that they needed to accept Jews on their lands or give them gold coins because six million of them were exterminated in an obscure war, they would have laughed at you.

It must be comical for the Nietzscheans of the North that, unlike the monocausalism ubiquitously present in the neonazi and white nationalist movement, Himmler acknowledged other factors: “Our people’s thinking was misled by the forces of the Church, Liberalism, Bolshevism, and Jewry.” And let us never forget Hitler’s own words in one of his table talks: “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity.” If neonazis were true Nazis and had transvaluated Christian/Neo-Christian values they would be trying to demonstrate that Himmler’s Posen Speech in 1943 is genuine, not a hoax as they claim, and even find genocidal inspiration from the speech.

Of course: they will never do it because all of them are Neo-Christian pseudo-Nazis. Speaking with a little humor I would say that neonazis, white nationalists, and American southern nationalists subscribe what we may call the Harry Potter approach to the Jewish problem. Throughout those novels for children, the female author presents us a Harry who never uses “Avara Kadavra,” the killing spell against the bad guys; Harry only uses the disarming charm, “Expelliarmus.” But only in novels and movies for kids the good guys, who never are depicted as cold assassins, can win. In real life you have to make a transition to the dark side to become a soldier.

I have read The Turner Diaries twice. When I read it for the first time, or rather listened the audio version with Pierce’s own voice, I was still struggling with the last remnants my Neo-Christian programming. I didn’t like the Breivik-like cruelties: for example the killing of an innocent black—the first killing of the novel—or the dispatching of an entire group of pro-white warriors for not taking care of the Jewish problem in Toronto. And in the novel’s Day of the Rope I was troubled by the description that many innocent young women also die. Then I read most of Covington’s Quintet and sensed a moral difference. Covington’s characters are not so bloodthirsty, not so genocidal exterminators. I could imagine myself doing the things in Covington’s novels but in the past some passages of the Diaries made me wonder…

But now that I have definitively left behind Christian axiology I can see that Pierce was ultimately right. As NS soldiers in the coming racial wars, altogether imbued in the martial qualities of gravitas and severitas, we must behave. The huge difference between the Quintet and the Diaries is that in Pierce’s world not only an ethno-state is born: in the final pages it’s described that only the white race shall inherit the Earth. In Covington’s world that is dismissed because it would mean genocide on a scale not even performed by the Bolshevik Jews. But as Pierce said in Who We Are, already cited way above:

The hard lesson taught by the different results of the European colonization of North America, Latin America, Australia, New Zealand, India, and southern Africa is that the only type of colonization with lasting significance is racial colonization; and that racial colonization can succeed only when Whites are willing and able to clear the land of non-White inhabitants and keep it clear.

This item of both Who We Are and the Diaries is so strong meat that I will elaborate on it only in Day of Wrath, a book reproducing my essays already available in The West’s Darkest Hour.


Feminist quotas in the Northwest Front

Rockwell was assassinated in 1967; Pierce died of natural death, more than thirty years later. None of them were properly white nationalists. (“White nationalism” is a term introduced in the middle 1990s for the internet.) Their worldview was much closer to the thoroughgoing Yang reaction in National Socialism against the feminizing forces of degeneracy.

Presently in the American racialist scene Harold Covington, called “The Kid” in the times of Rockwell and Pierce, is considered the most radical (“Yang”) element as ideologically he is a revolutionary, not a mere reactionary. But Covington does not believe that millions of Jews died as a result of harsh treatment by the National Socialist Germans. Unlike Panina, Walsh and a few others, he is still stuck in Neo-Christian values. (I would dare to say that the stirrings of genocide should lurk in the heart of every transvaluated white, which means accepting as grim necessity what seventy years ago happened to the subversive tribe.) As already said, in Covington’s quintet the purpose is not to reconquer the whole United States for the race, but to form an ethnostate within a few Northwestern states by means of secession; leaving the rest of the US territory to the blacks, mestizos, Jews, and white traitors. In fact, in Covington’s plan the nuclear weapons of mass destruction are left in the power of the federal government of the United States!

In more than two thousand pages the plots of Covington’s quintet—The Brigade, A Distant Thunder, A Mighty Fortress, The Hill of the Ravens and Freedom’s Sons—are situated in a balkanized, anti-white and dying America until freedom fighters create an independent White Republic in a corner of the territory. In 2010 I purchased copies of the first four novels of the saga and devoured them with uttermost interest (The Brigade, which almost made me cry, contains the perfect tactics as to how to conduct a racial war in the 21st century). While I felt uncomfortable that the last pages of A Mighty Fortress featured a female director of movies in the newly created Republic, I let it pass because National Socialist Germany also allowed the career of filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl. But Riefenstahl was the exception, not the rule. In NS Germany women were generally not allowed to carry out official functions: they were excluded from positions of responsibility.

In Covington’s saga the ethnostate is clearly depicted as a self-styled National Socialist state, even during the revolutionary period before the creation of the Republic (“‘You a Nazi, sir?’ ‘I am’”—page 278 of The Hill of the Ravens; “…a lot of us are outright Nazis”—page 74 of The Brigade). And I cannot agree more with what Covington said on page 53 of A Distant Thunder, “When a race of people loses its women, it loses everything.” (This, incidentally, is what moved me to reproduce a Maxfield Parrish illustration of an ethereal nymph on the cover of this book.) On pages 187-189 of the Ravens Covington even enumerates his “Ten Principles of National Socialism,” of which I will mention a few lines:

Be Honest. A National Socialist faces a fact whether he likes it or not. Dishonesty is the mark of the enemy, who has falsified man’s conception of life, past and present. National Socialism represents the truth of life in its purest form.

Be Faithful to your Race. No one must be allowed to spoil what nature created in eons of racial evolution. Your highest purpose in life must be: to carry on that evolution toward a better, stronger more beautiful mankind. The purity of the highest race is basic requirement for ever-higher evolution.

Fight for your Race. Fight for the holy ideals of National Socialism, which is the heart of our great race.

Nothing is Impossible. Where there is a will, there is a way. Everything falls before the man of indomitable will. It is necessary for us to suffer many cruel sacrifices because we must harden ourselves for the most decisive struggle in history.

Reject Decadence. Everything must be judged in relation to the survival and improvement of your race. Anything and anyone who hinders either the existence of our race or its perfection must be rooted out and destroyed.

But Covington violated this last principle by playing decadent, rock music in some of his radio podcasts. Furthermore, in his last novel, the only one that I did not purchase (Covington kindly sent me a PDF draft of the first 452 pages of Freedom’s Sons, which I printed and read), he makes huge concessions to runaway feminism.

On page 13 for example, an order is expressed about the need to keep female soldiers out of direct combat in spite of the fact that Covington’s female characters are “as brave as lions.” Similarly, page 16 states: “A number of Nationalist soldiers wearing NDF tiger-stripes—mostly female…” On pages 18-19 a feat is described about one of these female tigresses, and on page 38 it is stated that “The new government department consisted of 342 people plus himself, about evenly split between male and female.” The most offensive line in Freedom’s Sons is found on page 50 which contains a dialogue: “A lot of Christians and general Neanderthal male chauvinist type want to go back to an all-male army.”

I confess that as a potential revolutionary I used to listen Covington’s Radio Free Northwest shows, and loved his urgent plea to invite all conscious whites to move to the Northwest corner in preparation for the civil war. However, when Covington included the voices of a couple of women in his podcasts I lost interest and stopped listening the show.

More than a year passed… Then I learnt that one of these women betrayed Covington. She flipped sides to the point of becoming anti-white, and in her website she even disclosed what happens in some “Secret Nazi Meetings” attended by the supporters of Covington: supporters who had indeed taken the trouble to move to the Northwest in preparation of Covington’s civil war.

The Old Man had violated his first principle, “Be Honest,” because a National Socialist honestly faces the biological fact that women are simply not interchangeable with men and that, in genuine NS, positions of responsibility belong to the Boys Only Club.

White nationalism is only a stone in the middle of the rapid-flowing waters of a dangerous river; an over-the-water large stone that can help us in our endeavor to jump to the other side. I myself used that flat stone in my crossing from Christianity and Liberalism to National Socialism. (In fact, I could even write down such a spiritual odyssey in a text that might be titled “From St Francis to Himmler.”)

But even accepting my metaphor that the stone is not meant to be a permanent residence let me say that, on a very generous estimate, the contents of this book are incomplete. Its intellectual content must be balanced with two more books about what really happened before, during and after the Second World War; non-fiction books that will detonate an emotional bomb in the reader’s mind:

1.- The abridged version of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago (the full version is for scholars or Russians), and:

2.- Thomas Goodrich’s Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944–1947, reviewed way above.

Only after assimilating them, together with the present book, will the reader be purged from all the viruses of the mind with which the Judeo-Christian-Liberal establishment infected his soul.

Rockwell, Pierce, Hitler

I’ve seen enough specimens of white Untermenschen in my life to understand that skin color alone is unfortunately not enough…

Panina

Andrew Hamilton’s latest piece includes stupendous quotations that I can quote again apropos my provocative views that most humans are “Untermenschen,” including those whites who are behaving like the blond Eloi before the Morlocks.

Hamilton wrote:

 
We have been without genuine freedom of speech or association for so long that we don’t even know what they mean anymore. Ordinary whites are completely clueless. They’re anti-white racists and neo-communists because that’s what the System tells them to be. From morning to evening and birth to death that’s all they hear. They’re denizens of Oceania.

White racialists, an iconoclastic subset, think it means addressing a miniscule audience on a tiny website or individual blog, or organizing six people for a street protest—until a writer or activist is taken down by the System, at which point remaining racialists gleefully join the Left-wing mob in kicking the helpless victim to a bloody pulp. He didn’t get it! He said the wrong things! He acted the wrong way! I have witnessed this unedifying spectacle again and again over the decades.

Any given Counter-Currents article I write will be seen by roughly 1,000-2,000 people. Seen by (i.e., clicked on), not necessarily read or agreed with; only a small number will actually read a piece with some degree of sympathy and understanding, or have a seed planted that will eventually take root and grow, which is the best one can hope for…

The situation is especially strange in that in addition to theoretical access to a worldwide audience of English readers, market forces—supply and demand—are in my favor. I fill an unmet need. In a genuine marketplace of ideas there would be some demand, certainly more than there is now, for suppressed facts, information, and opinions. But this natural demand is not there. The absence of a greater positive response is like the dog that didn’t bark in “Silver Blaze,” alerting the perceptive observer that something was seriously wrong. (“I had grasped the significance of the silence of the dog, for one true inference invariably suggests others,” Sherlock Holmes noted.) In our case the primary culprit is disparate power, and the refusal of elites to play by the rules.

Conversely, those who hate my race—and I mean hate it—broadcast their hatred repeatedly, many times daily, to billions of people worldwide: a distinctly unnatural state of affairs in an ostentatiously “anti-racist” culture. Thousands and thousands of people make exceptionally good livings doing this. They monopolize not only the mass media of communications with their racist and totalitarian bile, but educational systems, governments, legal systems, and other institutions as well—everywhere. This, also, is not natural. It is exceedingly strange.

Such a lopsided disparity of power can have only one possible outcome in terms of who wins, who loses, and why. Therefore, I never scratch my head, stumped, wondering blankly: “Why are whites doing this to themselves?” I’d be dense, dishonest, or willfully blind to express such puzzlement…

As one man long ago observed:

The fundamental error of the right wing—that sweet reason will change the world and save us from the Jewish tyrants.

Rockwell

Reason is still an infant in human affairs, a precious and rare development found in the mutational brains of an infinitesimal minority of Homo sapiens. And even the few geniuses able to exercise genuine, independent reason are almost entirely incapable of acting in accordance with the dictates of that reason—which is one of the reasons so many of them end up as failures in a world which does not appreciate them or their reason.

It is FORCE, POWER, STRENGTH which rules the world, from the ebb and flow of the tides to the decision of your neighbor to join the Rotary. Only a negligible fringe of oddball humans change their mind as a result of being convinced by a superior argument. The overwhelming masses, including the mass of today’s “intellectuals” [emphasis added], change their minds only in order to CONFORM. In other words, the minds of the vast majority ALWAYS bow to the strongest opinion—the opinion which brings rewards and avoids punishment.

The right wing examines its reasons and arguments and facts and finds them true and good—as they may be. They then become outraged [or hopelessly befuddled] when the slobs next door cannot see and appreciate this rightness and, very probably, throw them out of the house for preaching “hate.” But this is only as things are. The slobs will hold whatever opinion seems to show the most strength and WILL TO POWER. They are completely, hopelessly female in their approach to reason and always, ALWAYS prefer strength to “rightness.”

This is a “secret” the Jews learned long ago.

Another voice from the past:

Things are very bad indeed, but they are far from hopeless. Only a people or a nation that gives itself up for lost is truly and irrevocably lost. There is a bloody and terrible ordeal ahead of us, and many will perish—but our race can still be saved, and that, in the long run, is all that counts.

WilliamLutherPierce

Do not be discouraged by the indifference of the people around you. Remember, the great mass of people have always been like that and always will be. When the Christians are ahead they cheer for the Christians, and when the lions are ahead they cheer for the lions. They have no understanding or concern for anything but the present and for what they see as directly affecting their comfort, welfare, or security.

But the masses do not make history. [Again, “the masses” includes academics, intellectuals, and high-IQ and socially successful people generally. It is not a class thing.] That is and always has been the task of the few. Those few must embody in themselves a majority of will and determination. They must know what they want and be willing to do whatever is necessary to achieve their goal.

Today the old order of things is crumbling into ruin, and the world will never again be restored to what it was before. But a new order will eventually emerge from the wreckage of the old.

It is only too late to save the present order from final collapse. It is not too late to begin building the new.

How many are “the few”? Here’s the assessment of a formidable achiever, also deceased, whose judgment on such matters cannot be taken lightly, much less dismissed out of hand:

“In my view, when there are nine thousand men in a country who are capable of facing prison from loyalty to an idea, this idea remains a living one.”

For conceptual purposes, this might be adopted as a provisional benchmark since, implicitly, the reference is to a minority existing amidst a hostile majority in a Jewish-Leftist state. It imparts concrete substance to the idea of “the few” whose task it is to embody within themselves a majority of will and determination.

Of course, the speaker was probably referring to an extraordinary level of commitment, on the order of an Anders Breivik or Timothy McVeigh. Even so, he added:

“And as long as a man [i.e., presumably one man] is left to carry the flag, nothing is lost. Faith moves mountains.”

The-answer-to-1984-is-1933

Each of the three men just quoted was an optimist. They said so explicitly and their words and deeds bore them out. Yet each “failed.” I qualify “failed,” because in a larger spiritual sense (as far as white survival is concerned) they were all successes given the insurmountable odds they faced.

Moreover, the battle in which they were engaged still rages. It is world-historical and spans generations. The outcome has yet to be determined.

 
__________

My 2 cents:

Quotations in order according to Hamilton: George Lincoln Rockwell (“reason is still an infant in human affairs”); William L. Pierce (“must embody in themselves a majority of will and determination”); Adolf Hitler (“9,000 men” / “a man left to carry the flag”).

But Hamilton is wrong. Rockwell, Pierce and Hitler were not. Hamilton said, “I never scratch my head, stumped, wondering blankly: ‘Why are whites doing this to themselves?’ I’d be dense, dishonest, or willfully blind to express such puzzlement.”

Well, he has the answer right in front of his nose and he chooses not to see it. He is willfully blind indeed.

The same site that recently published Hamilton’s piece has also published, yesterday and today, pieces about homosexual “wild boys” by an author that Franklin Ryckaert nailed not long ago:

It is a pity that Greg Johnson has this attitude, because he is fairly intelligent and writes and promotes a lot of good stuff. I could accept an in-the-closet homosexual WN, if only he had no homosexual agenda. But people like James O’Meara, who promotes the idea of a homosexual “Mannerbünd” as the vanguard of WN, or Greg Johnson who pleads for homosexual “marriage”, seem unable to do that.

WN not only means the survival of the White Race, but also its flourishing, and that entails cultural and moral regeneration. Homosexuals-with-an-agenda cannot really contribute to that.

I have stated many times that the 19th century is the most important one to understand how whites empowered the subversive tribe. But that subject aside, Hamilton just cannot see that if whites were not doing it to themselves prototypical white nationalists like his editor, so conscious of the Jewish problem, would simply not subscribe a liberal agenda, such as homo “rights.” And Johnson is not alone in the pro-white movement promoting this. Alternative Right, the site for white Untermenchen has also joined the fad.

I must say something outside the subject of both sites to better illustrate my point. A hetero blogger who over the pro-white boards has been willing to discuss with me about the extent of Jewish influence in our woes, a man from Louisiana (who incidentally also defends the homos), has stated that his daughter has decided to be independent, in the sense of not being bothered with a traditional marriage and lots of kids, and he has no problem with that.

This is the same man who is so conscious of the Jewish problem that always jumps over the boards to defend his point of view. But at the same time he—like Hamilton—is unwilling to see that once you tolerate the liberal view of placing individualism whims above racial duties (both the gay movement and feminism are the product of runaway individualism), you simply cannot blame the Jews. You must blame yourself.

There’s no other interpretation of the facts. If the editor of CC and this Louisiana blogger are so conscious of the subversive tribe, why on earth they themselves subscribe the toxic aspects of the tribe’s agenda for whites?

The answer is simple: Modern suicidal liberalism, and the economics-over-race policies since the times of ancient Rome and even before are white phenomena. Or haven’t you read my very recent posts quoting Yockey’s magnum opus?

If the blond Eloi are not ultimately responsible for what the Morlocks do to them, who is? I have already said it and I’ll say it again: What moved me to change my mind from blaming the Jews to blaming Whites was the ethno-suicidal behavior (feminist whims; homo tolerance, and more) coming from the white nationalists themselves. That’s why I have abandoned the term White Nationalism and adapted instead the old-fashioned National Socialism.

Stick to the giants! Stick to honorable men like Hitler, Rockwell and Pierce. Forget white nationalists. As the Swede Panina said in the comment linked in the epigraph, the American movement is just pathetic.

Liberalism, 3

by Francis Parker Yockey

Imperium Eagle

The type of mind which believes in the essential “goodness” of human nature attained to Liberalism. But there is another political anthropology, one which recognizes that man is disharmonious, problematical, dual, dangerous. This is the general wisdom of mankind, and is reflected by the number of guards, fences, safes, locks, jails and policemen. Every catastrophe, fire, earthquake, volcanic eruption, flood, evokes looting. Even a police strike in an American city was the signal for looting of the shops by the respectable and good human beings.

Thus this type of thought starts from facts. This is political thinking in general, as opposed to mere thinking about politics, rationalizing. Even the wave of Rationalism did not submerge this kind of thinking. Political thinkers differ greatly in creativeness and depth, but they agree that facts are normative. The very word theory has been brought into disrepute by intellectuals and Liberals who use it to describe their pet view of how they would like things to be. Originally theory was explanation of facts. To an intellectual who is adrift in politics, a theory is an aim; to a true politician his theory is a boundary.

A political theory seeks to find from history the limits of the politically possible. These limits cannot be found in the domain of Reason. The Age of Reason was born in bloodshed, and will pass out of vogue in more bloodshed. With its doctrine against war, politics, and violence, it presided over the greatest wars and revolutions in 5,000 years, and it ushered in the Age of Absolute Politics. With its gospel of the Brotherhood of Man, it carried on the largest-scale starvation, humiliation, torture and extermination in history against populations within the Western Civilization after the first two World Wars. By outlawing political thinking, and turning war into a moral-struggle instead of a power-struggle it flung the chivalry and honor of a millennium into the dust. The conclusion is compelling that Reason also became political when it entered politics, even though it used its own vocabulary. When Reason stripped territory from a conquered foe after a war, it called it “disannexation.” The document consolidating the new position was called a “Treaty,” even though it was dictated in the middle of a starvation-blockade. The defeated political enemy had to admit in the “Treaty” that he was “guilty” of the war, that he is morally unfit to have colonies, that his soldiers alone committed “war-crimes.” But no matter how heavy the moral disguise, how consistent the ideological vocabulary, it is only politics, and the Age of Absolute Politics reverts once again to the type of political thinking which starts from facts, recognizes power and the will-to-power of men and higher organisms as facts, and finds any attempt to describe politics in terms of morals as grotesque as it would be to describe chemistry in terms of theology.

There is a whole tradition of political thinking in the Western Culture, of which some of the leading representatives are Macchiavelli, Hobbes, Leibnitz, Bossuet, Fichte, de Maistre, Donoso Cortes, Hippolyte Taine, Hegel, Carlyle. While Herbert Spencer was describing history as the “progress” from military-feudal to commercial-industrial organization, Carlyle was showing to England the Prussian spirit of Ethical Socialism, whose inner superiority would exert on the whole Western Civilization in the coming Political Age an equally fundamental transformation as had Capitalism in the Economic Age. This was creative political thinking, but was unfortunately not understood, and the resulting ignorance allowed distorting influences to fling England into two senseless World Wars from which it emerged with almost everything lost.

Hegel posited a three-stage development of mankind from the natural community through the bourgeois community to the State. His State-theory is thoroughly organic, and his definition of the bourgeois is quite appropriate for the 20th century. To him the bourgeois is the man who does not wish to leave the sphere of internal political security, who sets himself up, with his sanctified private property, as an individual against the whole, who finds a substitute for his political nullity in the fruits of peace and possessions and perfect security in his enjoyment of them, who therefore wishes to dispense with courage and remain secure from the possibility of violent death. He described the true Liberal with these words.

The political thinkers mentioned do not enjoy popularity with the great masses of human beings. As long as things are going well, most people do not wish to hear talk of power-struggles, violence, wars, or theories relating to them. Thus in the 18th and 19th centuries was developed the attitude that political thinkers—and Macchiavelli was the prime victim—were wicked men, atavistic, bloodthirsty. The simple statement that wars would always continue was sufficient to put the speaker down as a person who wanted wars to continue. To draw attention to the vast, impersonal rhythm of war and peace showed a sick mind with moral deficiency and emotional taint. To describe facts was held to be wishing them and creating them. As late as the 20th century, anyone pointing out the political nullity of the “leagues of nations” was a prophet of despair. Rationalism is anti-historical; political thinking is applied history. In peace it is unpopular to mention war, in war it is unpopular to mention peace. The theory which becomes most quickly popular is one which praises existing things and the tendency they supposedly illustrate as obviously the best order and as preordained by all foregoing history. Thus Hegel was anathema to the intellectuals because of his State-orientation, which made him a “reactionary,” and also because he refused to join the revolutionary crowd.

Since most people wish to hear only soporific talk about politics, and not demanding calls to action, and since in democratic conditions it matters to political technics what most people wish to hear, democratic politicians evolved in the 19th century a whole dialectic of party-politics. The idea was to examine the field of action from a “disinterested” standpoint, moral, or economic, and to find that the opponent was immoral, unscientific, uneconomic—in fact—he was political. This was devilishness that must be combated. One’s own standpoint was entirely “non-political.” Politics was a word of reproach in the Economic Age. Curiously however, in certain situations, usually those involving foreign relations, “unpolitical” could also be a term of abuse, meaning the man so described lacked skill in negotiating. The party politician also had to feign unwillingness to accept office. Finally a demonstration of carefully arranged “popular will” broke down his reluctance, and he consented to “serve.” This was described as Macchiavellism, but obviously Macchiavelli was a political thinker, and not a camouflageur. A book by a party-politician does not read like The Prince, but praises the entire human race, except certain perverse people, the author’s opponents.

Actually Machiavelli’s book is defensive in tone, justifying politically the conduct of certain statesmen by giving examples drawn from foreign invasions of Italy. During Macchiavelli’s century, Italy was invaded at different times by Frenchmen, Germans, Spaniards and Turks. When the French Revolutionary Armies occupied Prussia, and coupled humanitarian sentiments of the Rights of Man with brutality and large-scale looting, Hegel and Fichte restored Machiavelli once again to respect as a thinker. He represented a means of defense against a foe armed with a humanitarian ideology. Machiavelli showed the actual role played by verbal sentiments in politics.

One can say that there are three possible attitudes toward human conduct, from the point of evaluating its motives: the sentimental, the realistic, and the cynical. The sentimental imputes a good motive to everybody, the cynical a bad motive, and the realistic simply seeks the facts. When a sentimentalist, e.g., a Liberal, enters politics, he becomes perforce a hypocrite. The ultimate exposure of this hypocrisy creates cynicism. Part of the spiritual sickness following the First World War was a wave of cynicism which arose from the transparent, revolting, and incredible hypocrisy of the little men who were presiding over affairs at that time. Macchiavelli had however an incorruptible intellect and did not write in a cynical spirit. He sought to portray the anatomy of politics with its peculiar problems and tensions, inner and outer. To the fantastic mental illness of Rationalism, hard facts are regrettable things, and to talk about them is to create them. A tiny politician of the Liberal type even sought to prevent talk about the Third World War, after the Second. Liberalism is, in one word, weakness. It wants every day to be a birthday, Life to be a long party. The inexorable movement of Time, Destiny, History, the cruelty of accomplishment, sternness, heroism, sacrifice, superpersonal ideas—these are the enemy.

Liberalism is an escape from hardness into softness, from masculinity into femininity, from History into herd-grazing, from reality into herbivorous dreams, from Destiny into Happiness. Nietzsche, in his last and greatest work, designated the 18th century as the century of feminism, and immediately mentioned Rousseau, the leader of the mass-escape from Reality. Feminism itself—what is it but a means of feminizing man? If it makes women man-like, it does so only by transforming man first into a creature whose only concern is with his personal economics and his relation to “society,” ie. a woman. “Society” is the element of woman, it is static and formal, its contests are purely personal, and are free from the possibility of heroism and violence. Conversation, not action; formality, not deeds. How different is the idea of rank used in connection with a social affair, from when it is applied on a battlefield! In the field, it is fate-laden; in the salon it is vain and pompous. A war is fought for control; social contests are inspired by feminine vanity and jealousy to show that one is “better” than someone else.

And yet what does Liberalism do ultimately to woman: it puts a uniform on her and calls her a “soldier.”’ This ridiculous performance but illustrates the eternal fact that History is masculine, that its stern demands cannot be evaded, that the fundamental realities cannot be renounced, even, by the most elaborate make-believe. Liberalistic tampering with sexual polarity only wreaks havoc on the souls of individuals, confusing and distorting them, but the man-woman and the woman-man it creates are both subject to the higher Destiny of History.

_____________

Yockey’s views on liberalism appear in Imperium (1962), 208-223.

Hunter – 7

dr_pierce


Excerpted from
William Pierce’s novel
Hunter, which depicts one man’s attempt to right the wrongs in society by murdering interracial couples:



I just believe that it will be a very hard job and the result won’t be enough to make a decisive difference. Remember, this used to be Caldwell’s audience. Their religion is not based on idealism, it’s based on the idea of getting into heaven, of getting a share of the pie in the sky, by and by. They’ve been taught that Jesus hates racists, that racists don’t go to heaven. You would not only have to turn that belief around, but you would have to make idealists out of people who are essentially self-indulgent materialists.

“C’mon, Harry,” Oscar responded testily, “you don’t really believe we’re the only people in the country who give a damn.”

“No, I don’t. Millions of people—maybe as much as a quarter of the White population—are very unhappy about the way things are going. Not everyone believes what he’s told to believe. A lot of them would cheer if the earth would open and swallow every queer, every Jew, and every Black—but not one in ten thousand has the gumption or the guts to do anything to make that happen. They’ll make no sacrifices and take no chances, so what they believe isn’t all that important. It’s not for lack of the right ideas that our race is going under; it’s for lack of character.”

“I won’t argue with your last statement,” Oscar responded, “but I don’t agree with your statistics. I don’t believe that men like that secretary’s husband with the shotgun are as rare as you think. I believe that there’re thousands more like him, and that they’d respond just as forcefully if we could motivate them. And then, after those thousands had set the example, hundreds of thousands more would come out of the woodwork.”

“Well, I may be a little too pessimistic, but you’re way too optimistic,” Harry came back. “The only time you’ll find hundreds of thousands of White Americans turning on their enemies is when they’re convinced that it’s absolutely safe to do so. When there’s a Jew hanging from every lamp post, and they’re sure there’s no danger and it won’t cost them anything, they’ll come out and spit on the bodies, but that’s about all you can count on them for.”

Published in: on September 30, 2013 at 12:22 pm  Leave a Comment  

Sparta – XVIII

Translated from EVROPA SOBERANA

“I think that civilization tends more to refine vice than perfecting virtue.”

—Edmond Thiaudière


sparta


The lesson of Sparta


A nation as exceptional as Sparta, which ravaged its enemies in an era when man was infinitely harder than now; a nation that was feared in “an age that everything grinds and splashes of blood” had an exceptional mission: to point out a path to us, the children of the West and therefore heirs of Sparta. That was the purpose of Lycurgus, and the Delphic Sibyl grasped it as soon as she saw these peoples, sanctifying their mission. But Sparta also signaled to us the only weakness of such a civilization, so that its decline may be a lesson for us, so that the great pain of Spartan discipline and military asceticism had not been in vain.

What happened to Sparta has happened to every civilization: it succumbed to the multiracial curse, the gold of the traders, the corruption of women, the softness of men, the relaxation, the luxuries and the fratricidal wars; although the laws of Lycurgus extended their glory and agony. The best and bravest men in Greece were finished. Then its body was trampled by purer and more vigorous and youthful peoples.

But what is the moral of the story? That the awakening of European humanity, as once the awakening of Sparta, can occur only after the advent of a terrible racial trauma that acts as an initiation of the sort of a “mystical death.” Who will give Europe the dreaded initiation?

Sparta also teaches us something that we can not afford, something we should avoid at all costs, that quality men die without leaving abundant offspring: pure, protected and cultivated; procreated with congeners of identical racial quality. To cultivate the best blood is the solution. Having a garden perfectly ordered and distributed is the solution. And Sparta was successful for a long time, but ended up failing. And it fell gnawed at its roots from the inside.

If today, therefore, we had to ask which country is more like Sparta in terms of its strategic location and methods, only Israel could give an answer. Jewry has realized that losing their head and being seduced by the confidence that overwhelms the victor is the moment of greatest danger, and therefore has established something so outrageous and incomprehensible at first glance as the State of Israel. Despite having conquered the West, thanks to Israel Jewry can even afford to be in an environment of danger and war. There, the enemy lies inside and constantly threatens to attack. There, only the oppression of the Palestinians and keeping themselves in perpetual guard ensures their safety and mentalizing to avoid decay. There they have a fanatical, hysterical, heavily armed and militarized people, surrounded by hostile neighbors that increase even more their paranoia, their racism, their self-defense mentality and eagerness to compensate, through quality, their numerical inferiority: feeding a feeling to be alone with the danger—an absolutely false feeling as they have on their feet the media of almost all the West.

Compared to the barbarism prevailing in the slums and shanty towns of the Third World; the Asian corporate organizations in the East, the troglodyte immigrants on the streets of the West, and the barbaric state consolidated in the State of Israel, the West appears to be extremely soft, old, head down, sissy, with no instincts or spine, and doomed. Today, the West transits its most vulnerable stage and this condition is increasing at accelerated pace. Our civilization will not be saved if it cannot awaken its primal instincts.

Against the empire of Yin

“The only way to restore vitality
to Western Civilization is to
recalibrate its yin-yang balance.”


Presently, almost all white males are thoroughly and grotesquely feminized (even quite a few white nationalists), most beyond repair. Now that I am reproducing translations of a book on the toughest empire of Yang in western history—Sparta—, I would like to quote what Takuan Seiyo says about the empire of Yin that is destroying our civilization.

What we need is a Hegelian synthesis between yang Sparta and yin Athens: a sort of modern Rome, i.e., national socialism (what half-Jew Seiyo so much fears). Like Rome, the Third Reich incorporated and eliminated—the Hegelian aufheben—the contradictions in both extremes: it was highly cultured as well as a tough military state.

Seiyo wrote (excerpted):


yin-yang

We will examine in later installments in more depth what’s on the scales in the balance that has gone awry. For now it suffices to say that according to Oriental cosmology, the forces in the eternal cosmic play are the hot, male, condensing element, or yang, and the cold and wet, female and expansive element, or yin. Arnold Toynbee, who posited that all democracies die from suicide, applied the ideas of yin and yang to discern patterns in history. For Toynbee, history is like a current alternating between the yin pole, which he equated with a quiescent civilization, and the yang pole, which he equated with turmoil, barbarian conquest and drastic change.

In his 1939 magnum opus, Study of History, Toynbee explained the rise and fall of empires according to this yin–yang paradigm, but a deeper scrutiny of applied Oriental cosmology might find that it was oversimplified. For what is most salient about the force of yin is not its quietism but its expansive femaleness.

The West has careened dangerously out of balance, and its political and philosophical concepts have not been able to identify correctly what it is that’s out of balance. The forces of the West’s postmodern decay are vested disproportionately in such disparate groups as city dwellers, lawyers, teachers, actors, artists, public sector employees, people with graduate degrees and academics; Jews, Swedes, Norwegians, diaspora Irish; blacks; Muslims and Mexican and Central American mestizos (but not in their original countries); women; adolescents; homosexuals.

The entropic motors that seem to be preponderant in these groups may be, singly or in combination, a drive for power or money; identity politics stemming from racial, ethnic, or gender pride wounded in the past but pretending as the present; utopian proclivities combined with naiveté; compassionate feelings overriding empirical analysis; displacement of personal feelings of inferiority—what Nietzsche called ressentiment, or ideological hatred.

People of good faith ought to diagnose and combat in their personal lives the decline that feminism has wrought on them and on the West. Men are at fault here for having caved in completely, instead of employing a reverse Lysistrata tactic, or anything else that might have worked in this dire predicament. At least a varied group of courageous women has begun beating back this particular fungus. The cultural left’s reaction to Sarah Palin shows how effective that can be.

The vast heterosexual majority may want to consider that it’s time to protest the outsize din raised by the homosexual and the comically self-labeled GLBTA minorities. We will not ask if you will not tell; frankly, we don’t want to hear or see too much either. Don’t rub our faces in your orifices.

Maybe it’s time to say to the churches, if this be your retail markup, I am buying directly from the wholesaler. Because, as Chesterton has noted, some humanitarians care only for pity, but their pity is often untruthful.

However mortified by the Holocaust and appreciative of the inestimable contribution that the Jewish minority has made to the West, people of good faith and sound mind may have to start putting public Jewish figures on the spot, as Jews, for the destructive currents they propagate. Because if the establishment club of “racism” “fascism,” “antisemitism” “homophobia” and “sexism” keeps the West’s hundreds of millions of reasonable indigenous people cowering in their diminishing corners, soon the West will have decayed so much that tens of millions of newly-unreasonable people will be rising, and their numbers will be growing at an astonishing rate.

Lickspittles

popular-hitler

If you fear writing sympathetically about Adolf Hitler and of National Socialist Germany then you are committing the sin of allowing Jews and their lickspittles to set the agenda; not only for your writings but for your own private thoughts.

Are you really that timid? Do you wish to be remembered as men who had actually achieved manhood?

There are two alternatives only: National Socialism… or International Socialism. We have all seen the merciless and bloodthirsty destruction the latter has brought to humanity.

Anglo Saxon

Published in: on August 22, 2013 at 12:47 pm  Comments (1)  

Bimbo queen

bimbo!I have now watched the thirty episodes of the three seasons of Game of Thrones and really loved the visuals of the series (with the exception of the botched desert scenes with that dumb blonde).

With racially-conscious directors such beautiful art, in a series filmed in the ethnostate based on fantasy dramas of writers that presently might only be children, will certainly inspire and bring much good to the white psyche and morals.

However, I must rephrase what I said yesterday. Among other problems, the fatal flaw in Game of Thrones is that the bimbo Daenerys Targaryen looks like she will be destined to conquer and rule the kingdoms of earth. Just compare the bimbo with the manly Tywin Lannister. How I would love to dress like him!

tywin-lannister

Quite a few female characters of Game of Thrones behave like men. In my humble opinion this is Jewish propaganda destined to debilitate our self-image and self-esteem in the real world. Remember my quotable quote of the last week? “If a woman has only manly virtues, we run away…”

Thanks Herr Nietzsche. It is a pity that quite a few feminized western males in the pro-white movement believe otherwise.

On the need of cultured thugs

Now that I reread William Ventvogel’s “On Cities, Women, and White Survival,” linked in my previous post, “Sanskrit saying,” it struck me to see the gulf between Ventvogel’s approach to white preservation and Greg Johnson’s latest article, “The Nigger Word,” where Johnson writes: “We do not use the nigger word and other crude racial slurs… We don’t have to be hateful. We don’t have to be strident. We don’t have to be crude.”

Compare this with the cited Ventvogel 2003 article, that incidentally mentioned the word nigger eighteen times, and especially with Ventvogel’s revolutionary sentiments:

There is too much enemy energy in the cities, too many Jews, too many questionable White women. And a healthy White man wants to clean it out, hunt them down and kill them, kill them all. And if he can’t or won’t, the stress eventually turns him passive—then apathetic—then cowardly—then materialistic. He is caught in the Jew vortex.

No need to be hateful? Really? Now that the dollar will crash and that the large American cities will become killing zones, you can guess who has better chances to survive, the Johnsons armed with “porcelain guns” (Greg’s own words—search for the word porcelain: here) or the Ventvogels…

Snake said (below, in the comment section):

The real problem has been combining righteous hatred with calm rationality. We’re effectively stuck with craven intellectuals and idiots whose sole contribution to our race is screaming “kike-nigger-spic!” As Jonathan Bowden would say, we need cultured thugs.

Lefty River

Or:

On the Supreme Court & homo marriage


This is my response to Mr. Deutsch’s comment in the previous post:

Yes: at midnight I glanced thru it and the one that Matt Parrott wrote on Sebastian Ronin, and also Andrew Hamilton’s take on the Nazi film “Victory of Faith,” so I didn’t pay special attention to Greg Johnson’s article on homo marriage. He doesn’t want to say that the Supreme Court decision is a marker of how corrupt, evil and degenerate Western culture has become. He even uses Newspeak words like “gay” that I would never dare to use.

Let me put it this way:

Since the 1960s the whole Western culture, and I mean the whole Western culture including so-called conservatives, started to shift to the Left.

lefty river

Imagine a river that took a very wrong turn to the Left. Those who fancy themselves “white nationalists” are deceiving themselves, for in some way or other they are navigating that river too.

In the previous entry that features the painting about the Horatii family I stated that I would like to be a revolutionary, and that most “white nationalists” are mere reactionaries. But sometimes they’re not even genuine reactionaries who want to change the course of the river toward the Right: they simply navigate the Lefty River as many other liberals and conservatives do.

I even stopped listening to Harold Covington’s revolutionary radio shows when he introduced two women as co-speakers. You can imagine how diluted Hitler’s voice would have appeared in the 1930s had he added the voices of women during his inflammatory speeches… In other words, nowadays even revolutionaries are, in some ways, navigating that Lefty River.

To be perfectly honest, I feel uncomfortable with the female voices in the “white nationalist” blogosphere. There are some subjects (cf. the entry “Lycanthropy” in this blog) about which you cannot speak out with brutal honesty if a cute Little Red Riding Hood, however intelligent or committed to the 14 words, is present. I actually believe that a genuine white or ethno-nationalist movement should be a Boys only Club, with Little Reds in a completely separate location, as in National Socialist Germany.

Going back to Greg Johnson’s article on the recent Supreme Court ruling. I don’t see it as a specific Johnson problem. I see the big picture from above, like a pic on the river taken from the air. What Johnson did is fairly common in the “white nationalist” movement. In this Lefty River that every nationalist navigates in some ways, may I remind you that Robert Stark and Tom Sunic didn’t ask tough questions to James O’Meara during their respective interviews of this homosexualist.

No, you cannot deliver a speech like the one that Himmler delivered about faggotry if Little Reds or non-Lycanthrope males are present. Their Aryan female pity completely overwhelms their sense of morality and not even “nationalists” would tolerate sending the fags to the concentration camps. In our Empire of Yin, as Takuan Seiyo called today’s West, even pro-white activists—think of the site Alternative Right—have become so feminized, that their sense of pity is undistinguishable from that of our Fair Ladies. Compared to Commander Rockwell all of them are, in one way or another, navigating the Lefty River, increasingly distancing themselves from the Yang side of the Aryan psyche.

That’s why, as implied in my previous entries, our only hope is the convergence of currency and energy catastrophes that will wipe out both the current anti-white System and the feminized males in the movement.

My pedagogy is hard. What is weak must be hammered away. In my fortresses of the Teutonic Order a young generation will grow up before which the world will tremble. I want the young to be violent, domineering, undismayed, cruel. The young must be all these things. They must be able to bear pain. There must be nothing weak or gentle about them. The free, splendid beast of prey must once again flash from their eyes. I want my young people strong and beautiful.

That way I can create something new.

—H.V.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 196 other followers