A final solution to the Christian problem

The following excerpts are taken from the introduction and epilogue of Joseph Hoffman’s book on Porphyry. Ellipsis omitted between unquoted passages:



Persecution is a slippery term in the annals of the early church. An older generation of church historians, using the martyrologies and writings of the church fathers as their sources, believed that the era from Nero to Constantine was one of almost unremitting slaughter of professing Christians. Their opinion was enfeebled somewhat by the certainty that the Romans could have tried a “final solution” to the Christian problem much earlier, if they had wanted, and the fact that along with boasting of their many martyrs, church writers like Origen also bragged that rich folk, high officials, elegant ladies, and illuminati were entering the church in great numbers. The pagan writers tried to counter this trend in their insistence that Christianity was really a religion for the lazy, the ignorant and superstitious, and the lowborn—“women, yokels and children,” Celsus had sneered. But the ploy was ineffective. Diocletian’s persecutions revealed that Christianity had crept into the emperor’s bedroom: his wife, his daughter, their servants, the treasury official Audactus, the eunuch Dorotheus, even the director of the purple dye factory in Tyre, were Christians or Christian sympathizers. Insulting the new converts did not stop the process of conversion. The political solution of the third century, therefore, was an attempt to scare people off—to make being a Christian an expensive proposition. Persecution was the strong-arm alternative to failed polemical tactics by the likes of Celsus, Porphyry and Hierocles.

In 250 Decius decreed simply that Christians would be required to sacrifice to the gods of Rome by offering wine and eating sacrificial meat. Those who refused would be sentenced to death. To avoid this punishment, well-to-do Christians seem to have given up this new religion in substantial numbers, becoming in the eyes of the faithful “apostates,” a new designation derived from the Greek word revolt. The apostates also numbered many bishops, including the bishop of the important region of Smyrna, as well as Jewish Christians who rejoined the synagogue, as Judaism was not encompassed in the Decian order.

In the reign of Valerian (253-260) the focus shifted from the practice of the Christian faith to the church’s ownership of property. In August 257, Valerian targeted the wealth of the clergy and in 258 the riches of prominent Christian lay persons. The tactic was obviously intended to make upper-crust Romans think twice before throwing their wealth in the direction of the “beggar priests” as Porphyry called them.

On 31 March 297, under the emperor Diocletian, the Manichean religion was outlawed. Like Christianity it was an “import” of dubious vintage. More particularly, it was Persian, and Rome was at war with Persia. Holy books and priests were seized and burned without much ado. Professing members of the cult were put to death without trial. The most prominent Roman Manicheans (the so-called honestiores) were spared, but their property was confiscated and they were sent to work in the mines. The process against the Manicheans boded worse things to come for the Christians.

Diocletian published his first decree against the Christians in February 303. The edict to stamp out (“terminate”) the Christian religion was issued. Diocletian had hoped to cripple the movement. Termination would have meant extermination. But the survival tactics of the movement made police work difficult. Christians had become sly. The enthusiasm of martyrdom was now paralleled by accomplished doubletalk.

Executions increased, especially after rumors reached Galerius that plots against the throne were being fomented in Christian circles. New edicts were issued with regularity, each a little more severe than the one before. The fourth edict (304) required that all the people of a city must sacrifice and offer libations to the gods “as a body,” Christians included. Diocletian abdicated, in declining health. Galerius issued an edict of toleration.

Maximinus Daia, who had an active retaining program in place, designed to reeducate lapsed Christians in their pagan heritage. But the life was going out of the movement to repress Christianity. The pagan critics had not succeeded in stemming the popularity of the movement, and the “persecuting” emperors (except perhaps Diocletian himself) had miscalculated both the numbers and the determination of the faithful. The movement was Rome’s Vietnam, a slow war of attrition which had been fought to stop a multiform enemy. Even at their worst under Diocletian, the persecutions had been selective and, in their intense form, short-lived. And (as has been known since the seventeenth century) the number of martyrs was not great.

The goal of the fourth edict against the Christians in 304, in fact, had been to compel loyalty to unpopular rulers, and in 308 the greatly detested Maximinus tried the same tactic, “to offer sacrifices and wine-offerings.” The tactic was ineffectual, Eusebius says, because even the enforcers had lost their heart to impose the penalties and to support the machinery required for the “sacrifice factories” Maximinus tried to set up.

Unhappy with this failure, he sponsored a literary attack, circulating forged gospels and memoirs containing the stock slanders against Jesus. These were posted in public gathering-places and schoolteachers were required to assign portions of them to children as lessons. To substantiate charges against the moral habits of the Christians, Maximinus then hired agents (duces) to round up prostitutes from the marketplace in Damascus. Tortured until they confessed to being Christians, they then signed statements to the effect that the churches routinely practiced ritual prostitution and required members to participate in sexually depraved acts. These statements were also distributed to the towns and cities for public display.

Desperate times, desperate men, desperate measures.

By the time Galerius issued his edict of toleration in favor of the Christians on 30 April 311 three waves of attack had failed: the erratic policies of emperors Nero and Marcus Aurelius; the literary and philosophical attacks, carried on in collusion with imperial sponsors; and the more sustained persecutions of the third century, ending in 311. Paganism was dying. Maximinus’ plan for “reeducating” Christians in the religion of their ancestors had failed.

After Constantine’s conversion—whatever it may have been—only Julian (332-363), his nephew, remained to pick up the baton for the pagan cause. Julian did his best to reestablish the old order. He reorganized the shrines and temples; outlawed the teachings of Christian doctrine in the schools, retracted the legal and financial privileges which the Christians had been accumulating since the early fourth century; wrote polemical treaties against the Christians himself, and—in a clever political maneuver—permitted exiled bishops to return to their sees to encourage power-struggles and dissention within the church. Naturally, the Christians despised him. The distinguished theologian Gregory of Nazianzus had been Julian’s schoolmate in Athens, where both learned a love for the classical writers (but where Julian had been converted to Greek humanism). Cyril of Alexandria wrote a long refutation of Julian’s Adversus Christianos (Against the Christians), parts of which hark back to Porphyry and Hierocles. All in all, this pagan interlude—never really a renaissance—lasted only three years, until Julian’s death in June 363.

In the middle of this period we have just described stands Porphyry of Tyre. Born in 232, Porphyry was eighteen when the persecution broke out under emperor Decius. Twelve years later, his dislike for Christianity was firmly established. Porphyry had heard Origen preach, studied the Hebrew scripture, especially the prophets, and the Christian gospels, and found them lacking in literary quality and philosophical sophistication. He had joined a “school” in Rome (ca. 262) run by the famous neoplatonic teacher, Plotinus, where he remained until about 270. In Sicily, following Plotinus’ death, and back again to Rome, Porphyry developed an intense dislike of popular religion—or superstition, as the Roman intellectuals of his circle preferred to call it, regarding Christianity as the most pernicious form of a disease infecting the empire. In a work titled Pros Anebo he pointed out the defects in the cults. Then he tackled Christian teaching in a work. Popular under the rescript of Galerius in 311, the work was targeted for destruction by the imperial church, which in 448 condemned all existing copies to be burned.

The first thing to say about Porphyry’s fifteen books against the Christians is that they are lost. The exact title is not known, and its popular title, Kata Christianon, can be dated securely only from the Middle Ages. Opinions radically differ over the question whether the books can be substantially restored. A few facts can be stated succinctly, however. First, the church was unusually successful in its efforts to eradicate all traces of Kata Christianon from at least 448. Not only were Porphyry’s books destroyed, but many of the works of Christian writers incorporating sections of Porphyry’s polemic were burned in order to eliminate what one critic, the bishop Apollinarius, called “poison of his thought.”

Second, the ninety-seven fragments gathered by Harnack, half of which were taken from the fourth-century writer Macarius Magnes, are enough—if barely enough—to give us shape of Porphyry’s critique. That Macarius does not name his opponent and sometimes seems to characterize rather than quote his opinions could easily be explained as a strategic decision by a Christian teacher who wished his defense to survive. Naming his adversary—or quoting him too precisely—would have almost certainly guaranteed the burning of Macarius’ defense. Put appositely, anyone wishing to write a defense of the faith in the fourth or fifth century would have been foolhardy to identify the enemy as Porphyry.

[Third], I think we owe it to Porphyry and his “interpreters” to permit them speak to us directly. Having been buried—more or less successfully—since 448, the words should be permitted to breathe their own air.

My two ¢:

I took the trouble to type these excerpts directly from Hoffmann’s book of Porphyry’s literary remains. Take it as an invitation to purchase a copy and enjoy a work that, we can surmise, reflects “the master mind of Porphyry.”

Hitler on Christianity (1941)

From David Irving’s web page:

The Table Talks’ content [originally written in shorthand] is more important in my view than Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and possibly even more than his Zweites Buch (1928). It is unadulterated Hitler. He expatiates on virtually every subject under the sun, while his generals and private staff sit patiently and listen, or pretend to listen, to the monologues.

The first excerpt is taken from what Hitler said in a night of July of 1941 (ellipsis omitted between unquoted passages):

Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944

His Private Conversations

Part I

1941

When National Socialism has ruled long enough, it will no longer be possible to conceive of a form of life different from ours. In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.

(On a question from C. S., whether this antagonism might mean a war, the Führer continued:)

No, it does not mean a war. The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions. But in that case we must not replace the Church by something equivalent. That would be terrifying! It goes without saying that the whole thing needs a lot of thought. Everything will occur in due time. It is a simple question of honesty, that’s what it will finally boil down to.

The German people’s especial quality is patience; and it’s the only one of the peoples capable of undertaking a revolution in this sphere. It could do it, if only for the reason that only the German people have made moral law the governing principle of action.

The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.

Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke.

Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. The result of the collapse of the Roman Empire was a night that lasted for centuries.

The Romans had no dislike of the Germans. This is shown by the mere fact that blond hair was fashionable with them. Amongst the Goths there were many men with dark hair.


23rd September 1941, evening

To make death easier for people, the Church holds out to them the bait of a better world. We, for our part, confine ourselves to asking man to fashion his life worthily. For this, it is sufficient for him to conform to the laws of nature. Let’s seek inspiration in these principles, and in the long run we’ll triumph over religion.


10th October 1941, midday

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.


14th October 1941, midday

Special Guest: Reichsfuehrer Himmler

It may be asked whether concluding a concordat with the churches wouldn’t facilitate our exercise of power.

On this subject one may make the following remarks: Firstly, in this way the authority of the State would be vitiated by the fact of the intervention of a third power concerning which it is impossible to say how long it would remain reliable. In the case of the Anglican Church, this objection does not arise, for England knows she can depend on her Church. But what about the Catholic Church?

I’m convinced that any pact with the Church can offer only a provisional benefit, for sooner or later the scientific spirit will disclose the harmful character of such a compromise. Thus the State will have based its existence on a foundation that one day will collapse.

An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as he perceives that the State, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas in the matter of religion, whilst in other fields it bases everything on pure science.

That’s why I’ve always kept the Party aloof from religious questions. I’ve thus prevented my Catholic and Protestant supporters from forming groups against one another, and inadvertently knocking each other out with the Bible and the sprinkler. So we never became involved with these Churches’ forms of worship. And if that has momentarily made my task a little more difficult, at least I’ve never run the risk of carrying grist to my opponents’ mill. The help we would have provisionally obtained from a concordat would have quickly become a burden on us. In any case, the main thing is to be clever in this matter and not to look for a struggle where it can be avoided.

Being weighed down by a superstitious past, men are afraid of things that can’t, or can’t yet, be explained—that is to say, of the unknown. If anyone has needs of a metaphysical nature, I can’t satisfy them with the Party’s programme. Time will go by until the moment when science can answer all the questions.

So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble.

Nobody has the right to deprive simple people of their childish certainties until they’ve acquired others that are more reasonable. Indeed, it’s most important that the higher belief should be well established in them before the lower belief has been removed. We must finally achieve this. But it would serve no purpose to replace an old belief by a new one that would merely fill the place left vacant by its predecessor.

♣

It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund. At that period the ancient world was divided between the systems of philosophy and the worship of idols. It’s not desirable that the whole of humanity should be stultified—and the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.

Science cannot lie, for it’s always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It’s Christianity that’s the liar. It’s in perpetual conflict with itself.

One may ask whether the disappearance of Christianity would entail the disappearance of belief in God. That’s not to be desired. The notion of divinity gives most men the opportunity to concretise the feeling they have of supernatural realities. Why should we destroy this wonderful power they have of incarnating the feeling for the divine that is within them?

I envisage the future, therefore, as follows: First of all, to each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its rights. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.


19th October 1941, night

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society. Thus one understands that the healthy elements of the Roman world were proof against this doctrine.

Yet Rome to-day allows itself to reproach Bolshevism with having destroyed the Christian churches. As if Christianity hadn’t behaved in the same way towards the pagan temples!


21st October 1941, midday

When one thinks of the opinions held concerning Christianity by our best minds a hundred, two hundred years ago, one is ashamed to realise how little we have since evolved. I didn’t know that Julian the Apostate had passed judgment with such clear-sightedness on Christianity and Christians. You should read what he says on the subject.

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called the Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up his position against Jewry. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it’s certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore—of a whore and a Roman soldier.

The decisive falsification of Jesus’ doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galilean’s object was to liberate his country from Jewish oppression.

On the road to Damascus, St. Paul discovered that he could succeed in ruining the Roman State by causing the principle to triumph of the equality of all men before a single God—and by putting beyond the reach of the laws his private notions, which he alleged to be divinely inspired. If, into the bargain, one succeeded in imposing one man as the representative on earth of the only God, that man would possess boundless power.

Nobody was more tolerant than the Romans. Every man could pray to the god of his choice, and a place was even reserved in the temples for the unknown god. Moreover, every man prayed as he chose, and had the right to proclaim his preferences.

St. Paul knew how to exploit this state of affairs in order to conduct his struggle against the Roman State. Nothing has changed; the method has remained sound.

The religious ideas of the Romans are common to all Aryan peoples. The Jew, on the other hand, worshipped and continues to worship, then and now, nothing but the golden calf. The Jewish religion is devoid of all metaphysics and has no foundation but the most repulsive materialism.

It’s since St. Paul’s time that the Jews have manifested themselves as a religious community, for until then they were only a racial community. St. Paul was the first man to take account of the possible advantages of using a religion as a means of propaganda. If the Jew has succeeded in destroying the Roman Empire, that’s because St. Paul transformed a local movement of Aryan opposition to Jewry into a supra-temporal religion, which postulates the equality of all men amongst themselves, and their obedience to an only god. This is what caused the death of the Roman Empire.

It’s striking to observe that Christian ideas, despite all St. Paul’s efforts, had no success in Athens. The philosophy of the Greeks was so much superior to this poverty-stricken rubbish that the Athenians burst out laughing when they listened to the apostle’s teaching. But in Rome St. Paul found the ground prepared for him. His egalitarian theories had what was needed to win over a mass composed of innumerable uprooted people.

Whilst Roman society proved hostile to the new doctrine, Christianity in its pure state stirred the population to revolt. Rome was Bolshevised, and Bolshevism produced exactly the same results in Rome as later in Russia.

Yesterday, the instigator was Saul: the instigator to-day, Mardochai. Saul has changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea.


25th October 1941, evening

Special Guests: Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler and SS General (Obergruppenfuehrer) Heydrich

From the rostrum of the Reichstag I prophesied to Jewry that, in the event of war’s proving inevitable, the Jew would disappear from Europe. That race of criminals has on its conscience the two million dead of the First World War, and now already hundreds of thousands more. Let nobody tell me that all the same we can’t park them in the marshy parts of Russia! Who’s worrying about our troops? It’s not a bad idea, by the way, that public rumour attributes to us a plan to exterminate the Jews. Terror is a salutary thing. The attempt to create a Jewish State will be a failure.

The book that contains the reflections of the Emperor Julian should be circulated in millions. What wonderful intelligence, what discernment, all the wisdom of antiquity! It’s extraordinary.

With what clairvoyance the authors of the eighteenth, and especially those of the past, century criticised Christianity and passed judgment on the evolution of the Churches!

People only retain from the past what they want to find there. As seen by the Bolshevik, the history of the Tsars seems like a blood-bath. But what is that, compared with the crimes of Bolshevism?

There exists a history of the world, compiled by Rotteck, a liberal of the ’forties, in which facts are considered from the point of view of the period; antiquity is resolutely neglected. We, too, shall re-write history, from the racial point of view. Starting with isolated examples, we shall proceed to a complete revision. It will be a question, not only of studying the sources, but of giving facts a logical link. There are certain facts that can’t be satisfactorily explained by the usual methods. So we must take another attitude as our point of departure. As long as students of biology believed in spontaneous generation, it was impossible to explain the presence of microbes.

What a certificate of mental poverty it was for Christianity that it destroyed the libraries of the ancient world! Graeco-Roman thought was made to seem like the teachings of the Devil.

Christianity set itself systematically to destroy ancient culture. What came to us was passed down by chance, or else it was a product of Roman liberal writers. Perhaps we are entirely ignorant of humanity’s most precious spiritual treasures. Who can know what was there?

The Papacy was faithful to these tactics even during recorded history. How did people behave, during the age of the great explorations, towards the spiritual riches of Central America?

In our parts of the world, the Jews would have immediately eliminated Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Kant. If the Bolsheviks had dominion over us for two hundred years, what works of our past would be handed on to posterity? Our great men would fall into oblivion, or else they’d be presented to future generations as criminals and bandits.

I don’t believe at all in the truth of certain mental pictures that many people have of the Roman emperors. I’m sure that Nero didn’t set fire to Rome. It was the Christian-Bolsheviks who did that, just as the Commune set fire to Paris in 1871 and the Communists set fire to the Reichstag in 1932.


5th November 1941, evening

Special Guests: SS Colonel (Standartenfuehrer) Blaschkeand Dr. Richter

The great trick of Jewry was to insinuate itself fraudulently amongst the religions with a religion like Judaism, which in reality is not a religion. Simply, the Jew has put a religious camouflage over his racial doctrine. Everything he undertakes is built on this lie.

The Jew can take the credit for having corrupted the Graeco-Roman world. We can live without the Jews, but they couldn’t live without us. When the Europeans realise that, they’ll all become simultaneously aware of the solidarity that binds them together. The Jew prevents this solidarity. He owes his livelihood to the fact that this solidarity does not exist.


Night of 1st December 1941

I’m convinced that there are Jews in Germany who’ve behaved correctly—in the sense that they’ve invariably refrained from doing injury to the German idea. It’s difficult to estimate how many of them there are, but what I also know is that none of them has entered into conflict with his co-racialists in order to defend the German idea against them.

Probably many Jews are not aware of the destructive power they represent. Now, he who destroys life is himself risking death. That’s the secret of what is happening to the Jews. Whose fault is it when a cat devours a mouse? The fault of the mouse, who has never done any harm to a cat?

This destructive rôle of the Jew has in a way a providential explanation. If nature wanted the Jew to be the ferment that causes peoples to decay, thus providing these peoples with an opportunity for a healthy reaction, in that case people like St. Paul and Trotsky are, from our point of view, the most valuable. By the fact of their presence, they provoke the defensive reaction of the attacked organism. Dietrich Eckart once told me that in all his life he had known just one good Jew: Otto Weininger, who killed himself on the day when he realised that the Jew lives upon the decay of peoples.

It is remarkable that the half-caste Jew, to the second or third generation, has a tendency to start flirting again with pure Jews. But from the seventh generation onwards, it seems the purity of the Aryan blood is restored. In the long run nature eliminates the noxious elements.


13th December 1941, midday

Special Guests: Ribbentrop, Rosenberg, Goebbels, Terboven and Reichsleiter Bouhler

The war will be over one day. I shall then consider that my life’s final task will be to solve the religious problem. Only then will the life of the German native be guaranteed once and for all. I don’t interfere in matters of belief. Therefore I can’t allow churchmen to interfere with temporal affairs. The organised lie must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master.

But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.

When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.


14th December 1941, midday

Special Guests: Rosenberg, Bouhler, Himmler

Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.

I think I could have come to an understanding with the Popes of the Renaissance. Obviously, their Christianity was a danger on the practical level—and, on the propaganda level, it continued to be a lie. But a Pope, even a criminal one, who protects great artists and spreads beauty around him, is nevertheless more sympathetic to me than the Protestant minister who drinks from the poisoned spring.

Pure Christianity—the Christianity of the catacombs—is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics.

End of 1941

“The blood flowed ankle-deep in the streets of many of Europe’s great cities”

Along with the justice brought to the white women who had sex with blacks in the “Day of the Rope” in the last pages of William Pierce’s The Turner Diaries, originally published more than three decades ago, I enjoyed the fate of the feminized western males in the final, apocalyptic stages of the coming racial wars in North America and Europe. Pierce wrote:

“For the first time I understand the deepest meaning of what we are doing. I understand now why we cannot fail, no matter what we must do to win and no matter how many of us must perish in doing it. Everything that has been and everything that is yet to be depend on us. We are truly the instruments of God in the fulfillment of his grand design. These may seem like strange words to be coming from me, who has never been religious.”

Although I am not a religious person either, my chosen images at the right side of this blog, the Florentine Fete murals exhibited at the National Museum of American Illustration, reflect better than a thousand words what we have in mind: the potential divinity of the white race.

To avoid anachronisms, below I slightly edited the final pages of Pierce’s 1978 masterpiece, the toughest book in the white nationalist movement. Take note that in real life there were speculations of blacks lapsing into cannibalism after Katrina hit New Orleans. No ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs:





Food became critically scarce everywhere during the winter. The Blacks lapsed into cannibalism, just as they had in California, while hundreds of thousands of starving Whites, who earlier had ignored the Organization’s call for a rising against the System, began appearing at the borders of the various liberated zones begging for food. The Organization was only able to feed the White populations already under its control by imposing the severest rationing, and it was necessary to turn many of the latecomers away.

Those who were admitted—and that meant only children, women of childbearing age, and able-bodied men willing to fight in the Organization’s ranks—were subjected to much more severe racial screening than had been used to separate Whites from non-Whites in California. It was no longer sufficient to be merely White; in order to eat one had to be judged the bearer of especially valuable genes. In Detroit the practice was first established (and it was later adopted elsewhere) of providing any able-bodied White male who sought admittance to the Organization’s enclave with a hot meal and a bayonet or other edged weapon. His forehead was then marked with an indelible dye, and he was turned out and could be readmitted permanently only by bringing back the head of a freshly killed Black or other non-White. This practice assured that precious food would not be wasted on those who would not or could not add to the Organization’s fighting strength, but it took a terrible toll of the weaker and more decadent White elements. Tens of millions perished during the first half of that year, and the total White population of the country reached a low point of approximately 50 million.

Outside these zones of order and security, the anarchy and savagery grew steadily worse, with the only real authority wielded by marauding bands which preyed on each other and on the unorganized and defenseless masses. Many of these bands were composed of Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos, and half-White mongrels. In growing numbers, however, Whites also formed bands along racial lines, even without Organization guidance.

As the war of extermination wore on, millions of soft, city-bred, brainwashed Whites gradually began regaining their manhood. The rest died.

The Organization’s growing success was not without its setbacks, of course. One of the most notable of these was the terrible Pittsburgh Massacre. The Organization had established an enclave there in May of that year, forcing the retreat of local System forces, but it did not act swiftly enough in identifying and liquidating the local Jewish element. A number of Jews, in collaboration with White conservatives and liberals, had time to work out a plan of subversion. The consequence was that System troops, aided by their fifth column inside the enclave, recaptured Pittsburgh. The Jews and Blacks then went on a wild rampage of mass murder, reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Jew-instigated Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. By the time the blood-orgy ended, virtually every White in the area had either been butchered or forced to flee. The surviving staff members of the Organization’s Pittsburgh Field Command, whose hesitation in dealing with the Jews had brought on the catastrophe, were rounded up and shot by a special disciplinary squad acting on orders from Revolutionary Command.

The only time, after that November, that the Organization was forced to detonate a nuclear weapon on the North American continent was a year later, in Toronto.

Hundreds of thousands of Jews had fled the United States to that Canadian city, making almost a second New York of it and using it as their command center for the war raging to the south. So far as both the Jews and the Organization were concerned, the US-Canadian border had no real significance during the later stages of the Great Revolution, and conditions were only slightly less chaotic north of the border than south of it. Throughout the Dark Years neither the Organization nor the System could hope for a completely decisive advantage over the other, so long as they both retained the capability for nuclear warfare. Then, of course, came the mopping-up period, when the last of the non-White bands were hunted down and exterminated.

With the principal centers of world Jewish power annihilated, and the nuclear threat neutralized, the most important obstacles to the Organization’s worldwide victory were out of the way. From as early as that year the Organization had had active cells in Western Europe.

The disastrous economic collapse in Europe in the spring, following the demise of the System in North America, greatly helped in preparing the European masses morally for the Organization’s final takeover. That takeover came in a great, Europe-wide rush in the summer and fall, as a cleansing hurricane of change swept over the continent, clearing away in a few months the refuse of a millennium or more of alien ideology and a century or more of profound moral and material decadence. The blood flowed ankle-deep in the streets of many of Europe’s great cities momentarily, as the race traitors, the offspring of generations of dysgenic breeding, and hordes of Gastarbeiter met a common fate. Then the great dawn of the New Era broke over the Western world.

As everyone is aware, the bands of mutants which roam the Waste remain a real threat, and it may be another century before the last of them has been eliminated and White colonization has once again established a human presence throughout this vast area.

But it was in that year, according to the chronology of the Old Era—just 110 years after the birth of the Great One—that the dream of a White world finally became a certainty.

Quotable quotes (Letter N)

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

NY Untermensch^*

_______________

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

Greg Johnson on 9/11

Life is short, and our struggle is long. I am a serious man, and I do not have time for things that do not matter, like arguing about thermite and disappearing airplanes with trolls, hoaxers, and well-meaning dupes. I call “Bullshit,” and I am leaving it at that. The people who have the maturity and self-confidence to do the same, and walk away from this circus, are the kind of people we need to make headway. —G.J.

The latest article by Greg at Counter-Currents explains from another point of view what I’ve tried to say in the last two entries with regard to my concerns about extreme credulity in the nationalist movement:

I wish I had an arresting “what I was doing when the twin towers were hit” story. But the truth is that I had slept through the whole thing. The night before stayed up into the wee hours reading Savitri Devi’s The Lightning and the Sun (I had just found a copy of the unabridged version). I first heard around 3 pm when an Aryan barbarian from Alabama (nobody you would have heard of) called me to ask me what I thought.

“About what?”

“Terrorists hijacked two jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, then the towers collapsed.”

“Yeah, sure . . .” I said, as I flipped on the TV (I still had TV then) and saw the second tower collapsing in slow motion. My first thought, I am ashamed to say, was of the huge Miró tapestry I had once seen in one of the lobbies. Then, with horror, I realized I had been there. This could have happened to me! I thought of the terror of the people in the airplanes and the buildings. For the rest of the afternoon, I was glued to the TV.

That evening, I went to the regular Tuesday evening “hate dinner” in Atlanta. Instead of the usual eight or ten people, there were more than twenty. Quite frankly, there was a good deal of gallows humor and Schadenfreude around the table. One person quipped that at least this would get Chandra Levy off the news.

We had all pretty much concluded that the hijackers were Muslims who had targeted us because of the US government’s slavish subservience to Israel and our domestic Jewish community. There was also a consensus that 9/11 was a superb opportunity to awaken our people on the Jewish domination of American foreign policy and the Jewish question in general.

But the public was pretty much already there. Later in the week, Tom Brokaw reported that NBC and Reuters announced that 2/3 of Americans polled believed that we had been attacked because of Americas close ties with Israel. I wondered how (not if, just how) the establishment would spin this.

The answer was soon to come when the New York Times found a “face” to put on a position held by 2/3 of the American public. They went to West Virginia to the “compound” of “neo-Nazi” Dr. William Pierce, leader of the National Alliance, who was of the opinion that 9/11 took place because of Jewish domination of American foreign policy. The Times, in short, sought to marginalize a mainstream position by linking it to a marginal figure.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not blaming Dr. Pierce for anything, certainly not for representing the opinions of 2/3 of the American people. I blame the whole political mainstream for failing to represent us. Apparently every politician and political commentator knows that pandering to the Jewish minority is always more important than pandering to the American majority.

Still, 9/11 was the occasion for my first attempts at open white advocacy under my own name. And I know that I was not alone. I also know many people whose first racial awakening came from 9/11.

We all had high hopes. I was very encouraged when I learned of the arrest of Israeli spies who were filming the attack on the World Trade Center and celebrating. Then I heard that a large Israeli spy network had been arrested, including people who had been shadowing the 9/11 hijackers. There was also the story of a text message sent by Odigo, a text-messaging company in Israel, warning of the attack. Carl Cameron began piecing the Israel connection together for FOX.

But then Jewish power intervened. The spies were released and sent home. Cameron’s investigation was quashed and his stories pulled. And the United States went to war. First in Afghanistan, which was at least connected with Al Quaeda, then with Iraq, which was targeted because of Israeli interests, not American interests. It was child’s play, really, for the Jews. Organized Jewry had already brought the United States into World War I and World War II.

I think that the most reasonable account of 9/11 is the following.

Nineteen Muslims armed with box cutters hijacked four airplanes, crashing two of then into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon. The fourth crashed in Pennsylvania for reasons unknown.

The government of Israel had been shadowing the hijackers and clearly had advance knowledge of the attacks. Reliable Israeli agents in the US government may also have had advance knowledge. But no attempt was made to warn the American government to stop the attacks. 9/11 was allowed to happen because the Jews needed a new Lusitania, a new Pearl Harbor, as a pretext to bring America into a new war or wars in the Middle East on Israel’s behalf. Iraq, Syria, and Iran were at the top of Israel’s hit list. So far, they have had to settle for Iraq. Afghanistan, from a Jewish perspective, was a mere distraction, although it certainly eases the road to war with Iran.

The conclusion and practical implications could not be clearer: Israel is not our friend. American Jews, who if forced to choose between serving US interests or Israeli interests, would overwhelmingly choose Israel, are not our friends either. America’s Jewish community is the reason why US foreign policy is conducted for Israeli, not American interests. If America is to prevent another 9/11, we must break the power of American Jewry over our political system. But that will not be possible without addressing Jewish power in the media, the economy, academia, and all realms of culture. Jews need to be excluded from all channels of powers and influence in our society. And the only practical way to accomplish that is to expel them as a community from the US. And naturally we should send back our Muslims while we are at it.

On 9/12, some two-thirds of the American public already agreed with part of that message, and they certainly would have been willing to hear more. But White Nationalists did not have the money, the talent, the infrastructure, or the organizational maturity necessary to make our message competitive with the Jewish angle. Our people had the ears to hear, but we could not get our message out.

Ten years later, we are in essentially the same position. Yes, there are new webzines, new publishers, and new podcasts. But there have also been considerable losses. William Pierce died and the National Alliance is a shadow of its former self. National Vanguard has collapsed; its excellent webzine is gone; and Kevin Strom has been essentially silenced. American Renaissance has been pretty much driven out of the conference business. And so forth.

It has been worse than two steps forward, one step back, because that presupposes marching in one direction. The course of our movement, however, more resembles a jitterbug contest or a mosh pit. With a trajectory like that, it is impossible to calculate progress. But overall I am optimistic, because in my experience, the average age of people in our movement is far lower and the average quality is far higher than ten years ago.

As for the 9/11 “conspiracy” theories, I have three thoughts.

First, from a purely pragmatic point of view, the 9/11 account I have outlined above is far superior to any of the more complex theories, because it supports every practical consequence that we want, and it has the added advantages of being based on easily verified facts and being easy to explain.

Second, from a rational point of view, most of the conspiracy theories violate basic principles like Occam’s Razor, namely that the simplest explanation of a given fact is to be preferred. Generally people lead with their strongest arguments, but nothing I have seen makes me want to inquire more deeply. It is laughable, for instance, that people who claim that no planes hit the Pentagon or crashed in Pennsylvania don’t feel a need to explain what really did happen to the airplanes. And as for the claims that the twin towers were brought down by explosives, well doesn’t that seem like overkill? Sure, it looks spectacular on TV. But crashing jetliners into the buildings would have been sufficient to achieve any of the posited motives, from starting a war to totaling the buildings for insurance purposes.

Third, because 9/11 right on its surface is so damaging to Jewish power, and because the official American story (they attacked us because they hate our freedoms) is so absurd, and 2/3 of the public knew it, I believe that the enemy felt the need to create a disinformation campaign that would taint even the most cautious and rational critiques of the “official story” with the stench of lunacy. Because the net effect of all the excited talk about disappearing airplanes, controlled demolitions, and false flags manufactured at the highest levels of the US government is that even reasonable alternatives to the official story are dismissed as just more internet conspiracy crankery. Well, maybe that’s what we are supposed to think. Maybe this is the real “false flag.”

Linder on Breivik

If I were Führer of an ethno-state I would name Alex Linder (photo) my Reichsführer-SS. Here’s his take on Anders Breivik from his VNN Forum (source). No ellipsis added between unquoted sentences or quotations from other VNN commenters:




There’s a soft side and a hard side.

The soft side is VNN/F, all White websites, any kind of educational outreach, a potential White HS [home schooling] curriculum (that does not exist and no one shows interest in creating).

The hard side is killing the enemy.

The people agree with us but are scared of the consequences of being called haters.

Who calls us haters, extremists and the rest of the litany? The communists, socialists, leftists, illiberals, feminists, journalists. But who creates the terms and frames and entire ideo-structure? The jews do. They set the agenda. The determine the framework. They raise the issue and define the contestants. They define what is inside the pale and what is outside.

They cut it so everyone opposed to them is sick ‘n’ evil. There is no middle. You cannot be opposed to their agenda and retain your integrity in their eyes, and more importantly, in their mass media.

How do you fight this? On the hard stuff, you simply kill them off. If their technical prowess is such that they can break up cells by early detection, thanks to their owning the FBI and other spy agencies, then obviously those who would take them out must act alone or with one or two people they’d trust with their lives to keep their mouth shut, since their lives are indeed what’s at stake if they screw up, and very likely even if they don’t screw up.

Once a man is willing to risk it all, a lot can be done from the hard side. That’s what Breivik’s act demonstrates. It’s not part of a larger plan, obviously, for the reasons I just stated—the enemy is able to prevent enemy networks from being established, as far as we can tell, judging by what we’ve seen since WWII. So his act was propaganda of the deed. Ably executed, and with an ideological backdrop and context he made sure to circulate, so that all could see his actions as part of a wider strategy, waiting for others to pitch in and push along.

Rounder correctly said that the jews are all in while the goyim who serve them are mostly opportunists. That means, as he said, and I’ve observed the same myself, the goyim are more lightly guarded. Jews have been racial criminals, shifty-eyed parasites, for 2,000+ years. It’s what they know. It’s what they are. They don’t have another way to be. All their eggs are in one basket, and as Twain advised, they are guarding that basket. They don’t have any plan B fallback option. They expect to be attacked. After all, they know what they’re doing! Jews are some of the most detail-oriented, microscopically-observant, mini-movement obsessed people on earth. They not only know what they are doing to us, and know they obtain racial advantage from their tricks, they positively enjoy degrading our culture and torturing our people. That’s the psychological and political truth: jews obtain a near-sexual joy from torturing our people.

These jews must be exterminated at some point—all European-jew history screams with one voice that any other way of treating the threat they present will not work because it cannot work. Jews can no more change the nature of their race than termites can stop eating wood. Only the catholic christ cult dogma that jews are just men like any other defined only by their non-conversion to the One True Way keeps us from seeing what is obvious.

The point is for any hard-siders, the goyim serve the jews not because they like the jews (no matter what it’s in their interest to claim in public), but because they fear the jews and like the benefits that sucking up to and serving the jews gets them. All that means to those who don’t like the existing order is that if there were anywhere near equal and opposite pressure on these weaklings and sellouts—they would find some pretext to flee quickly to the other side.

Remember always the basic lie of the jews, their fundamental conceit: that they rather than we speak for our community. They can get away with this monstrous imposture because they have suborned too many of our elite; they have created and surrounded themselves with goypuppets; and they control the official voices that most white humans biologically incline to respect and listen to and follow. But if the loudspeakers are taken out of their hands, and a new voice comes over them—the people will follow that which in their hearts they genuinely prefer, and default to white normal with no small relief! And the jews well know this. If they were actually self-deceptive about what they’re doing, they would believe their own bullshit and not worry about “hate” and “extremism.” But they do worry about it, enough to lie about its existence, to turn white normal into hate, and to root out and scream down or set up anyone who dares to resist.

The jews are the ringleaders, but in pure numbers, most of their frontmen and lower-level servants are raceless, self-interested goyim. An example: Rush Limbaugh used to criticize homos. One time a bunch of homos arranged to show up at his late TV show, and when he started going off, they started screaming at him. After that, he basically never criticized homos again. He yielded to a pretty small bit of verbal/economic pressure.

How many of the goyish neocons do you think would keep pumping for war if there were even a 1% chance it would get them physically taken out? “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” —John F. Kennedy

Breivik’s actions are a perfect example of what JFK was talking about.

You lying judeo-communists filling our clean, successful, calm Norway with violent stupid third-world rapists and murderers can call us “haters,” “extremists,” and “racists,” and all the other filth terms in your liar’s lexicon all day long—but you are the real haters, the real killers, and the real usurpers. And you are going to get exactly what you deserve.

Itz coming.


[Source:]

You said you want critical responses, so here’s mine.

And that’s a big part of my beef with Breivik and other similar stunts. There’s nothing to run to. It’s not scary if it’s a one-off. Anybody can be gotten to. That’s not news.

It most certainly is news. When was that last time anyone did in literally dozens of White enemies in two fell swoops—expertly planned, competently carried out? I’ve never seen it in my lifetime—and if you’re going to mistakenly refer to Oklahoma City, please remember that was a government sting operation, produced by our enemy, not by our guys. McVeigh didn’t actuate the plan, and McVeigh was never, at any point in his life, a racialist. All ZOG lies.

Remember Solzhenitsyn’s quote:

To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die. There is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time, and betrayal. —Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Breivik sacrificed his future to save his nation. He acted heroically. He had other choices, but chose the most difficult of them. He showed what is possible, not just technically but spiritually. He showed that despite everything we’ve learned from jewish sitcoms and public schools that sex, money and material goods are not what life is all about—at least not to some people. Because Breivik had it all—looks, money, youth, a shining future. Yet none of that mattered to him as much as the spiritual need to defend his own people. That is manly. That is heroic. That is Western. That is white.

“Nothing new here.” In a sense you’re right. Something very old here. Not everyone thinks “it’s all good” and abandons his waking interstice to sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll.

It doesn’t have to be the entire populace—maybe 5%, maybe 10%—some threshold. Within that percentage, you are recognized as legitimate, despite the shit hurled against you by your opponent. You can’t win hearts and minds by first blowing people away—even people who deserve it. You haven’t at that point established any accepted opposition.

You’re talking about Mao’s guerrilla war tactics. It makes no sense to judge Breivik by that standard because he wasn’t part of a cell, to all appearances, no matter what he said.

I would separate the discussion into two parts: 1) what was Breivik’s intent, and what did he achieve, by that measure? 2) how would hypothetical “hardists” be wise to act if they want to rid the West of the judeo-communist elite murdering our nations?

First you establish your core. It’s unassailable. Then, perhaps, one could use political violence—to establish among the fence sitters that you do in fact mean business. But you can’t do that until you can’t be quashed, until your core is large enough to withstand the blowback. Surviving that, you expand the core with the influx of fence-sitters who are now believers. It’s a feedback loop to your favor.

Sure… but this is obvious, and you’re discussing it at a level that’s too abstract to be useful.

“Establish your core.” Yeah, ok. What does that mean? Not in theory, but in actuality. How are you going to do that in an age in which virtually all communications are collected and analyzed; and seemingly most actual physical movements are videotaped?

Forming a physical core seems a rather difficult thing to do, if there is any outward sign this core is bent on physical fighting (or really, anything more than virtual whining). We know the history of the White movement in the 20th century. It’s nothing but a history of being set up and infiltrated and destroyed. Do you know how to change this? Do you have the technical solution, or the organizational solution?

And Breivik’s target… How was that helpful?

That’s been answered. Apparently you don’t agree with the answer, but if you have a better one, you haven’t stated it.

Norway is a country of 5 million. It is run by socialists bent on doing in the Nordic nature of the country and turning into another third-world shithole. A good portion of the rising generation of leaders of its main party has been taken out in a single calendar day. “How is that helpful?” I should think the answer is pretty obvious.

Imagine the electorate. Cow-like. Obtuse. That’s who votes. That’s who you’re winning over.

Ok, so you’re driving off the usual “we have to appeal to people, we have to win them over.” But that is wrong. The way to look at it is what I said in my post above: assume the people are with us, based on the fact that, well, they are. The reason they don’t follow us or vote for us is because they quite rationally fear the consequences of loss of status and livelihood. What will get rid of that fear? Eliminating the people who are causing it: the corrupt elite who will not allow their political monopoly on power to be voted out of office.

That’s the whole argument, which you’re simply avoiding, defaulting to the typical WN [white nationalist] conservative view: that we’re just another electoral option, who must gamely persevere in a rigged game until we finally somehow win at 3-card monte. Breivik ain’t playing the rigged game. He’s not playing democratic politics, he’s playing the same game the totalitarians-pretending-to-be-democrats are: he’s playing ultimate politics. There are no rules. The battle goes to the winner, and no one asks how victory was achieved. And all that is life itself, which all operates on that principle, no matter what the religious fool, to be redundant, asserts out of his ignorant cowardice about god and morals.

How can “we” win if we’re called haters, thrown in jail for making arguments, and denied access to the main media on the same basis as the people occupying the government? There is no way. We cannot win. Breivik shows there’s a way that, potentially at least, we can win. Not one of those dead judeo-socialist nits will ever admit a Somali into Oslo; lead a campaign to normalize sexual perversion in Trondheim public schools; order the bailiff to seize the children from the parents who have taught it that Norway belongs to light-eyed, flaxen-haired Scandinavians. That is victory. However small, it is victory.

Humans are a profoundly imitative species. Breivik knows that. It’s why he did what he did. One reason anyway.

The facade of the System oppressing Whites is democratic. Deliberately is created the illusion that things-as-they-are be the result of neutral machinery, rather than a nasty dark tyranny inside a big-grinnin’ Richard Nixon bankrobbing mask. But when you try to get a little o’ that tasty democratic process (laws, courts, established procedures, mass media access) for your own White self to create fundamental change in favor of your people, the gigantic majority… why, you find that the works are jammed, and your call isn’t put through. No matter how many times you redial.

Breivik called the System’s bluff. He played not the game the oppressed are supposed to play, but the game the actual rulers of the country are playing: “Just win, baby!” as NFL jew Davis once put it. The System does not like that. It damages its facade, it shows it’s not invincible, it puts ideas in the heads of onlookers who just maybe are tired of getting mugged and harassed by the mud monsters the leftists keep bringing into the city centers. All bad for the jewish-left trying to nation-wreck Norway.

Now you go out and blow away a bunch of sitting ducks on an island.

What connection does Bjorg dipshit, out on his fjord, make of that? Nothing positive. “But they were the new cadre of destroyers!” Yes they were. “They deserved it!” Can’t argue with you.

But the vast majority of the white public does not and will never understand that. It’s intangible. It’s too intellectual. The crowd doesn’t get that, and never will.

The crowd understands exactly what it needs to: the reason Breivik did what he did. The fact that he killed a lot of enemy.

This, as the economists say, exerts downward pressure on the number of jusos (young socialists) who might want to be part of next summer’s fun-in-the-sun commie indoctrination camp, and it exerts upward pressure on any enheartened by the idea that, hey, maybe I could kill a few punk-ass hate-communists too!

If it were put to a vote whether Norway should open its borders to Africa and the rest of the Third World, would the majority vote to do that, or to retain Norway’s boundaries and character? The majority would vote for the latter. So the argument breaks Breivik’s way. The majority is made up of people who have to step lightly in their biggest cities; who have daughters and sisters and friends who have been robbed, raped and harassed by the monkeys the socialists let in. They are intelligent enough to grasp what Breivik meant by his act, whether they agree with it or not. That’s all that matters. Of course one act won’t win the population over into active resistance, no more than the first pickaxe blow splits the boulder. But it does make the public opens its eyes, look around, sniff the wind, wonder just what might be going on here. Put the first little shiver of doubt in the ruling party, and make the herd nervous that maybe, just maybe, there’s going to be a battle for authority.

Now, sink a ship of dusky invaders crossing the Skagerrak, and simultaneously blow away the immigration ministry where these “liberal” kids are working—even Bjorg can figure that out, and almost certainly applaud.

Except the whole problem is how passive whites have become, especially in the Nordic countries. If Breivik killed a bunch of niggers or muslims, they would fight back with great vengeance, which would be blamed on him. Instead he went after the whiteskin leaders of the passives—and all they will ever do is hold a candlelight vigil. Which they already have. Yeah, they’ll make noise about taking away butter knives and requiring a journalist license to use nouns and adjectives outside the Official Vocabulary List, but that means nothing. Norway already has no freedoms worth mentioning. Multiply zero as many times as you want, and the result is the same.

The most important right of all is the one that no man can rescind: the right to fight back against your enemy.

The hard part is building the core. You can’t begin to think of anything serious on the macro scale before you’ve accomplished this. You must win hearts and minds. There’s no equation (that I’m aware of). Maybe there will be after we’re through. It’s chaotic.

You’re confusing two different things. The need to have a base for a guerrilla war, per Mao’s doctrine, and the need for WN to spread their message. We can’t win hearts and minds in the mass way you’re talking about without control of tv, and that is the same thing as saying we’ve won the revolution. It simply doesn’t have anything to do with violence; they’re two separate considerations. We have to assume people are with us, which is biologically true, as we represent white normality, and work to reduce the fear that prevents them from associating and working with us politically. Striking physical blows at the enemy reduces their fear of ZOG, since they see right before their eyes ZOG elitists being blown away.

You think some Norwegian journalists and bureaucrats aren’t going to think twice after this event? Or after it happens a few more times? Of course they will. It’s human nature. If all the blows are struck by one side against the other, then who the heck wants to join the losing side? But if the blows begin to run both ways, why, then it becomes a much more interesting question. Joining with the pro-Norway forces, if they prove they’re serious, as Breivik has, begins to become a serious option in the eyes of the people. Who of course fall into the usual bell curve of cowardice/bravery. Bravery not only attracts the brave, it emboldens the less brave. It shifts the bravery curve to the right—it increases the amount of bravery, just as men literally generate more testosterone when they triumph at something. That’s how men are.

Our side is so bitchy and whiny because all we do is take take take blows and never deliver them, except in our cutesy little typings. Well, this guy, altho not technically one of us, did deliver a blow. ZOG/Norway has indeed been hurt by Breivik’s action.

Stuff like a homeschool curriculum feeds into this. Not sexy. But part of it. Winning hearts and minds. Winning women. Winning children.

Yes—it creates actual community, mental and physical. But it’s entirely a different and smaller order than controlling tv, which is the only real way to effect mass mind change. That means, you’re never going to build up a large enough community to get the support for violence through homeschooling, so it’s not part of that discussion. WHS is just something that should be done for its own sake, as part of the soft agenda. The average white is with us in the sense I’ve said many times. That is a political fact. But that “with us” doesn’t mean anything until we’re in position to leverage it, which means we have a political force that speaks for it cogently (offers it defense, racial aid, and a plausible new system to counter/replace ZOG’s). WHS is for growing a hard seedcore of people who aren’t just white but White—white not just racially but White politically, socially, consciously, organically and life-contextually. The parallel would be to conservative christians building HS networks and setting up HS colleges and law schools—they’ve created a full, if small, parallel culture to the ZOG mainstream culture, even if they’ve yielded (or never had opposed) the ZOG ideology on the central points (equalitarianism, loosely).

The first 5%: It’s a meat grinder. It isn’t pretty. For the vast majority who lead in this period, who play a role that will have been pivotal later on, there will be no glory, no accolades. That’s just the way it is.

So I really don’t want to read about Breivik being a hero or a genius. He isn’t. Smart guy? Generally… apparently. He gets a big mark for having balls, that I grant.

But so what? What base has he built? Don’t give me any brain-dead “starting a fire” crap. He wouldn’t have had occasion to recognize (to his immense credit) the imminent danger posed to Norway by non-white immigration if his society were amenable to righting itself by the act he committed.

You’re conflating two different things. There is a hell of a lot more than 5% of Norway that doesn’t want muds let in to ruin the country.

You’re saying that Norway can’t begin to physically resist until 10% are hard-core, ideologically solid, professionally and personally networked racial nationalists. My counter to that is you’re forgetting the size of the country, and the demographics. There’s 5m people, and about 500k mud invaders, and more coming daily. There isn’t enough time to do what you describe. The muds will overwhelm before any ideologically solid base can be built.

Rather, resistance must base on never having control of mass media, but being on the side of the Norwegian majority, which does not want Oslo turned into Lagos. Based on that unchanging passive support, others following Breivik must through their deeds and organization convert passive feelings into positive action. Taking out a bunch of the vile and murderous and nation-wrecking enemy seems to me a pretty darn good way to do that.

After all, as the Italians say, “eating makes appetite.”

A final solution to the Jewish problem

A moral commitment to the permissibility of exclusionary identity for European-derived people lies at the heart of starting to think about a final solution to the Jewish Problem. Let’s take a look at a couple of comments today in a thread at Mangan’s:

Armor said…

An easy solution to “save the Jews” [in 1939-1945] would have been to resettle them all in Palestine or Madagascar. I’d rather have 10 million Jews safely expelled from Europe than millions of Germans and other Europeans killed in a war.

[Responding to an Anonymous commenter—]

JSM said…

“Sheila, Pat, and Svigor, and other Jew-critical people, what should the Jews do, according to you? Should they stay in Western countries or should they go to Israel?”


My opinions:

Going to Israel would be best. Most particularly, none be allowed to reenter the U.S., where they might agitate in U.S. government affairs.

“If they stay in the West, should they convert and intermarry or could they stay there as Jews?”



Not stay as Jews. If any stay, in recognition of their and their people’s complicity in our current mess and in demonstration of their sincere regret and willingness to make amends, should willingly agree to give up the Judaism, should intermarry and assimilate, and in addition, should agree to no occupations in finance, education, government or media for at least three generations of unremitting assimilation. If Jew or part-Jew marries Jew or part-Jew, they should go to Israel.

“If they go to Israel, should they claim it as the Jewish nation state or should they share it with Arabs as a proposition nation?”



Shrug. Not my problem. You guys do what you want, but NO foreign aid from U.S. in any form.

“Or should they all be killed (sterilized)? What would be a good solution?”


Yeah, this last bit is proof that you’re not sincerely seeking solutions with us but trying to smear us as Nazis to get us to shut up.

You turd.

A German-American woman scolds Takuan Seiyo

Freyja’s cats is the penname of a German-American woman. Takuan Seiyo is the penname of a half-Jew, half-Polish man. With an American passport and married to a Japanese, half-Jew “Seiyo” now lives in Japan.

The following is a sister article to the entry “Tanstaafl et al on Takuan Seiyo”: a collection of posts that I gathered a year ago.


Jew-blind counter-jihad

The counter-jihad movement is notoriously philo-Semitic. The blogsite Gates of Vienna in general and Seiyo in particular have had the nasty little habit of shunning white nationalists when the latter confront the counter-jihadists with their dissociation about the Jewish Question. No frank discussion about the influence of Jews in our civilization is possible within the main sites that alert the western world against the concerted effort by Islamic jihadists.

If counter-jihadists fancy themselves as defenders of western civilization why do they often resort to shunning genuine nationalists? The straightforward answer is that, when the best minds in the counter-jihad movement dare to enter the arena, the nationalists thoroughly deconstruct their philo-Semitic views.

That’s what they fear.

For example, in addition to the article cited in the lead paragraph of this entry see how Takuan Seiyo has been debunked here, Fjordman here and Larry Auster here.

Seiyo’s extremely arrogant words when Freyja tried to discuss with him moved me to write this as the first article in the new incarnation of The West’s Darkest Hour. Addressing other Gates of Vienna regulars, both Jews and philo-Semitic gentiles, Seiyo wrote about Freyja:

I don’t think that arguing with a “Nazi” (term of convenience here) or a Progressive is useful. It’s time to accept that either kind is from a different planet, and ought to live among and talk to its own kind only. For the rest of us, it’s time to move forward and argue over what’s arguable. Hitler is not arguable. Holocausts (including that of the Slavs) are not arguable. Jews are arguable, but again, not with a Nazi.

Seiyo thus shunned all debate with a woman who had rejected the “Nazi” label applied on her (that thread was precisely about an article by Seiyo). Freyja’s long comments were an endeavor to specifically deconstruct Seiyo’s piece and to expose the blindness in the midst of vision of the bloggers at Gates of Vienna, who have been persistently unwilling to see the elephant in their room.

The following is a well-deserved scolding that Freyja administrated to Seiyo almost two months ago in the commentariat section of Gates of Vienna. No ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs:


Freyja’s cats said…

Takuan Seiyo cuts some insightful strokes with his calligraphy pen. However, at the same time, he cleverly uses the techniques of Sun Tzu in his essay, to bury some uncomfortable facts and truths.

The sense of fairness in me compels me to come to the defense of Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis, by allowing the ghost of Kevin MacDonald, who is Takuan Seiyo’s nemesis, the opportunity to comment up the buried material regarding the neoconservatives—which is the wolf pack to which Takuan Seiyo belongs, he being neither Chinese nor Japanese in reality.

I would point out that the “red-diaper Jewish society improvers” to which Mr. Seiyo refers are the very clan to which the neoconservatives, themselves, belonged, before they started to notice the handwriting on the Western wall relative to the threat of Islam to Israel and the Jews, and walked over to the other end of the see-saw.

Seiyo encourages Westerners desirous of survival to throw Europe’s native sons Hitler and Charles Lindbergh and the “white nationalists” over the cliff, along with that half of the Eurosphere that fought valiantly, if brutally, against the Marxist-Leninism that was poisoning all of Western civilization, and Europe and Britain, in particular.

Seiyo writes, “Without understanding that Hitler was the worst thing that ever happened to the White race.” I would contend that this distinction should instead be conferred upon Karl Marx. But, to the Jewish peanut gallery this is an uncomfortable truth.

I would point out in response that it is the Jewish concept of Tikkun Olam, which is Hebrew for “repairing the world,” that brought us the “social justice” jackhammer that turned Europe and the West into a lesson in how to commit civilizational suicide. The ancient peoples of Europe were getting along nicely in defending their territory from Asia and Africa, except for perhaps the incursions by Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan. Yes, the warrior societies of Europe tended to leave the grass of Europe rather bloody from time-to-time, but, when looked at as a whole, they were fairly successful at holding down the continental fort.

In the warrior ethos of the peoples of Europe, there was no shame to be found in wiping out the odd tribe here and there, in a rather brutal fashion. That was how you survived. It was only when the Jews of Europe—who were a mercantile and money-changing people rather than an assemblage of proud, strong and physically-fit warriors of the home team—and their Anglo and American diasporas, foisted their squeamishness and guilt-trip upon the half of the West that [it] lost the war, and demanded that the losers be dragged in front of “human rights” tribunals; that the Marxist-Leninist, World Jewish Congress, ADL, SPLC and Tikkun Olam thugs were able to accelerate their race-replacement methods, the net benefit of which went to building Israel.

Seiyo states, “Western civilization can be balanced and healthy again when it has recovered all five of its cornerstones. They are the pantheist-pagan, Greek, Roman, Judaic and Christian.” To this, I would suggest that he and the reader revise this statement to read, “Greco-Roman, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic.” For this is the rootstock from which Western civilization arose.

I would also encourage Seiyo to utilize the more appropriate term “heathen,” when addressing in English the Germanic people of Western civilization. It is time for Seiyo and his neoconservative brethren to drop the axes that they repeatedly sharpen for purposes of bludgeoning the Germans and other European nationalists. Hitler was the Charles Martel against the “invading” fifth-columnist Marxists.

It would be best for Western civilization for Jews to accept that Hitler was just one in a multi-millennia long succession of lion-hearted chiefs and kings of Europe. We freedom-loving children of indigenous Europe will no longer continue to throw our own blood over the cliff, in order to bow to the PC demands of the Middle Eastern tribe of usury and Tikkun Olam.

Latté island said…

Freyja’s cats, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Takuan Seiyo said…

@ Latte island: Well said. I often refer to ardent liberals as “Body Snatchers.” It means to convey the idea that coils in their brains are arranged differently, without necessarily a pejorative connotation. A discussion with a liberal is therefore pointless; you speak Basque, he speaks Urdu. It’s the same thing with Nazis and their various crypto, neo, and nonsocialist strains (hereinafter “Nazis’). There is no point in responding or arguing. My main concern is that we deal in this forum and others, e.g. AmRen, VFR, [both philo-Semitic sites - Chechar] with issues that hardly any strain on the putative Right even mentions, let alone discusses—but the Nazis do. It’s useful therefore to develop some criteria for where the demarcation line is. By the way, if anyone considers Freyja cats’s disquisition too much, in those circles Jared Taylor of AmRen is referred to as Shmuel Jerry Taylor. There has to be a separate corner somewhere for these folks too, all-White, Judenfrei as they wish. But mixing with them, even through discourse, is a bad case of such miscommunication that it’s akin to miscegenation.

Freyja’s cats said…

Mr. Seiyo:

I am not talking about anything “Judenfrei.” I am requesting that Jews melt down their axe against Germans and Germany and their supporters, and accept the need for all “white people” who want to work for the salvation of the West and our peoples, to participate in the project. Nobody out.

For Hitler to take out a bunch of Marxist-Leninist third columnists is branded by your choir as “pure evil.” But somehow firebombing the hell out of Dresden, and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki isn’t?

Clearly, a review of the history of modern-day Israel shows that the Sons of Israel are not opposed to contemplating and engaging in “evil,” themselves, when that seems to be a good option for their survival, or otherwise in their national interest. Neither the Jews, collectively, nor any currently extant tribe or nation of Europe wears a halo. So give it a rest and knock off the anti-Germanism.

The reality is that there are a lot of folks across the world who are waking up to the fact that the Chosen People don’t have the halo around their heads that they once claimed they had, any more than the Germans did.

That old Communist Party-infiltrated organization known as the Federation of American Scientists has a lot of Jews on its Board of Sponsors, who used to decry the American development of strategic weapons in the 1970’s. It’s interesting, though, that after bid Laden and al-Qaeda hit New York City on 9/11, Israel and some American Jews started feeling really threatened by Islam and the surrounding Arabs, and a lot of the Jewish neoconservatives began to find it an imperative for the U.S. to attack Iraq and Iran. That seemed like a grand idea to many Christian Americans, and George Bush went along with taking out Saddam Hussein.

Saddam Hussein, though, brutal as he was, was a secular kinda guy, and didn’t let the Islamists annihilate the Iraqi Christians, as is being done now that Hussein is gone. Today, a goodly part of the planet is pissed off at Israel, and the current Arab uprising is threatening Israel’s former southern ally, and Coptic Christians are being put to the axe. People are starting to examine what has really gone on to get us to this point.

We Germans and German-Americans and other European patriots who lost World War II—including those of us in America whose German-American family members were sent abroad to kill our own German family in order to save the Jews—are today supposed to grovel in the dirt perpetually because our German brethren tried to take down the Marxist-Leninist Fifth Column in Europe, of which a goodly proportion of Jews were a part, which was working toward enslaving all of Europe under communism, and eventually the entire West.

Friends, the West is waking up. We are not only waking up to the threat of Islam amongst us, but we are also waking up to how this Fifth Column came to be embedded among us. Now that valuable research tools are available to use from the comfort of our own homes, we in the Anglosphere are now able to look underneath the AJC and WJC and ADL and SPLC and neoconservative propaganda, and look at the great expanse of European history in a different way. One doesn’t have to be a Hitler-worshipper, or shave his head, or tattoo swastikas all over his body and wear replicas of Nazi party clothing, to start realizing that something is very, very wrong in the Western civilization created by the Eurosphere.

It’s clear that the same infection that plagued Europe after Karl Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto didn’t die with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Marxism-Leninism has clearly infected the rest of the West, too.

With the Internet, the humble housewife can now study history, and determine the source of the infection.

I can see them, and their other aging 1960’s/70’s/80’s communist radical buddies, with my own eyes, indoctrinating the high school and college kids into Third-Worldist Marxism-Leninism, and agitating the local Muslim and Latino communities to “rise up” against the “racist white capitalists.” I’m in Chicago. And I can see the activists of Chicago’s Jewish Council on Urban Affairs standing right next to CAIR’s Ahmed Rehab, demanding approval of the construction of more mosque complexes in Illinois.

Europeans in the West who are waking up to all of this, are now asking ourselves why we should continue to blame our cousins, the Germans in Europe, for trying to eradicate the Fifth Column amongst them that was trying to enslave them under communism, when now the neoconservatives like David Horowitz, who used to be allies with the Black Panthers, are now trying to motivate the right wing of Europe and the European diaspora to eradicate the Fifth Column of Muslims that the Jews demanded that we let into our lands in the first place!

I am of ancestral Teutonic stock. I have a lot of friends and acquaintances who are Jewish. Many are good-hearted people who contribute good things to the community and don’t try to subvert the West and replace the children of Europe with Asians, Africans and Latin Americans. I harbor no desire to wipe those people off the face of the planet. But I’m wiser now than I used to be, and I have ascertained and ferreted out the history and source of political correctness and multi-culturalism/multi-racialism. I’m not going to fall for the Jewish demands that I wear a blindfold to the facts and that I succumb to their constant cries of “anti-Semitism” and “racism” and “Hitler and the Germans were evil and must perish!”

I am not going to throw my Europid cousins off the cliff, who are determined that Germans, Germany and “White people” should live and retain control over their European homelands, just because they don’t hold the “politically-correct” thoughts about World Wars I and II. I very respectfully request that Jews put down their axe against the German people, and work together with all of my Germanic and European cousins, to reverse the damage that has been caused to the West by the “political correctness” and “multi-culti” society that they have foisted upon it.

The motto for the salvation of the West must be: “All of our European brethren in; nobody out. Not even the White Nationalists.”

Mr. Takuan Seiyo relies upon Sun Tzu to develop his essay that is the subject of this thread. He leaves unmentioned in the essay any contribution that the Jewish teachings with which Jewish children are indoctrinated by the elders of their own Hebraic ethny, religion and culture.

Takuan Seiyo blames the present condition of Western civilization on an awful lot of stuff… except for teachings like the above-mentioned kol ha-olam negdeinu that could very well be motivating Jews of all stripes, including those of the deep Left, to keep engaging in behaviors to destroy European civilization and the Germanic peoples (and perhaps other nations, too); behaviors that, in cyclical fashion, tend to only cause Jews, eventually, more grief and generate more “anti-Semitism” down the line. The root problem of the West might not be indigenous Germans being indigenous Germans on German homeland soil. The root problem may include the songs and sayings that Jews in the West sing to their children when they are babies.

Seiyo wrote: “Perhaps the Dakotas too, if they come to their senses and curb that Scandinavian-Lutheran gene.” Another fine example of Jewish contempt for Germanic, European and Christian peoples. They just keep coming.

Friends, I would advise those persons with Jewish proclivities toward re-engineering European peoples, to ditch the habit.

When are you guys going to suck it up and accept the fact that it is your people’s capacity and demonstrated penchant for radicalizing your offspring, subverting your host society and enslaving and killing them off (by proxy, if strategically preferable) that, in cyclical fashion, comes back to kick you in the butt a few years down the line?

You guys have a choice:

1. You can continue to spit on the peoples of Europe. In that case, it would be wise of us of indigenous European stock to give you a one-way ticket to Israel, and slam the door behind you. You can cope with the Arab uprisings all around you on your own.

Or,

2. You can drop the club of blame and guilt that you repeatedly use to continue to pulverize Western society, and accept that it is normal for the indigenous people of Europe to have a desire to defend their homelands and protect their people against subversion, violent revolution, slavery and death.

We children of Europe are not going to pitch our own blood overboard, so that the Jews that purposely generated all of this immigration and race-replacement can take their places in the lifeboat.

[Plan A] Everybody in. Nobody out. That’s the deal.

[Plan B] Or you guys can go shack up in Israel, and fend for yourselves amidst the sea of Muslim Arabs.

____________

My comment:

Since arrogant Jews like Seiyo will never change, I’m afraid we will have to resort to Plan B…