On the art of having it both ways

As I have stated before, one of the reasons I have repudiated white nationalists is because they really want to eat their cake: enjoying the pleasures of liberal hedonism while at the same time pretending to be saving their race. Below, a recent exchange between other bloggers who think like me:

Iranian for Aryans said:

Gregs weaponThe only reason I link to Counter Currents is because it sometimes features very well written and culturally insightful articles. Nonetheless, much that comes out of this site is balderdash; to put it very innocuously. For instance, besides the articles on trite subjects, asinine and insipid articles and books are promoted by two homosexual authors: Jack Donovan and James O’Meara.

It’s bad enough that I have to read monotonous essays, which, truth be told, at least have educational properties for the neophyte, but I have to be victimized, traumatized, and violated by two disgusting faggots: one who pushes other faggots (James O’Meara) and one who preaches to us about the necessity of having a masculine militia so, I’m sure, we can sodomize each other to oblivion (Jack Donovan).

God, how I miss the original, vintage, nationalist groups and movements! The Old Parties who smashed homosexuals within their midsts. The Old Right which was raised on opera, march music, folk music, and the Masters—the Old Vanguard who would have looked at his bastard descendants with disdain and disgust.

Roger said:

White Nationalism should be a one-issue political outlook. White Nationalism is for the interests of whites and against the interests of our racial enemies. Period. Anything else is beside the point.

This is what Greg Johnson wrote in his article about homosexuality and white nationalism. If one’s sole concern is to propagate the interests of whites, the corollary is to attack degenerate behaviour among whites. This has to be inclusive of homosexuality and all other forms of non-reproductive sexual misbehaviour. If the outcome of a man’s sexual deeds is a disease rather than a baby, he is doing it wrong. He is lowering the general health of his race and increasing the risk of contaminating normal people. James O’Meara actually uses the term “ambisexual”, so one can assume he thinks it is acceptable for a man to poke turds and then pass his diseases on to a woman. He envisions these alleged benefits of teenage “ambisexuality”:

In a traditional society, these erotic energies would be recognized, valued, and safely diverted into “homoromances” (along the lines of Nietzschean “sublimation” vs. Judeo-Christian asceticism). This is possible because, contrary to Freud and Hirshfeld, humans are, as Neill documents, an “ambisexual” species, which allows society to shape and prune human sexuality in various ways and into various channels. In this way, male/female relations are reserved for marriage at appropriate ages, and the whole problem of teenage pregnancy, STDs, knife-fights among pubescent Romeos, etc. is avoided.

Such tripe. Teenage pregnancy is not a problem. It was normal for women to be married before the age of twenty in the past. 18-23 is the peak fertility age. They are better off getting married at 18 than packing their bags to study psychology at the University of Gomorrah, and men are better off finding a woman than being subjected to “homoerotic inter-generational pedagogic relations”. Teenage pregnancy is only a problem among populations which treat sex as nothing more than a form of pleasure, and I can only laugh at the idea that STDs would become less prominent if male homosexuality was encouraged. I don’t doubt that teenage boys will get sexually frustrated and seek some outlet—for most of them, onanism or celibacy will be preferable to buggery until they find a shrew to tame.

If Johnson conceives WN as a single-issue cause, and positions himself as a WN, why does he spend so much time and money advancing causes which do not benefit white interests in any way? Everyone who donates money to Counter-Currents is funding new books by James O’Meara.

Iranian for Aryans said:

As always, well written and humorously so. The truth of the matter, as you asseverated, is that male homosexuality is disease-ridden. Not only that, but that “knife-fights among pubescent Romeos” would increase as male homos have shown throughout their nasty history to be involved in more numerous physical conflicts.

Why would anyone promote a “lifestyle” that is detrimental to White reproduction, health, and normalcy? Well, because Johnson and Co. are part of the problem with their ugly distortions.

Being and the 14 words


The blindness discussed in my previous posts, and Greg Johnson’s second thoughts on Harold Covington, have moved me to relocate this entry originally posted elsewhere.

An old comment of Michael O’Meara:

This [Johnson’s book-review of Covington’s Quartet] is an extraordinary article on an extraordinary subject.

I am constantly amazed by the fact that the Quartet has been virtually ignored in our community. Part of this, I imagine, is due to the fact that the present generation of racialists, like their unconscious cohorts, no longer reads. Anything that’s more than two or three thousand words long and lacks illustrations is practically inaccessible to them.

A second reason I imagine the Quartet has been ignored is probably due to Covington himself, who is apparently an uncompromising individual and certainly one who has acquired a great many enemies. I don’t personally know Covington, so I have no way of evaluating the various charges made against him.

In any case, even if the nasty things said about him by his enemies are true, it still distracts not in the least from the quality of his works, which are virtually unparalleled in our community. This gets me to the third reason I think the Quartet is ignored. Both white nationalism and race realism are largely cyber phenomena. If you take Covington seriously, however, you would have to tear yourself away from the computer monitor and act in the real world—with all its attendant inconveniences. The thought of political activity, though, is apparently too much for most of us. We too, even if we have remained unmoved by the system’s racial fictions, seem to behave in ways not unlike the rest of the sheep. Will we also go quietly to the slaughter?

I think it’s significant that the spontaneous uprising depicted in the Quartet at Coeur d’Alene, which provoked the war leading to the eventual formation of the Northwest American Republic, was something of a mystery. This rings true to me.

We may no longer be the men who defied the might of the British Empire in 1776 or 1916, but there are other forces that might save us from ourselves.

The greatest of the “conservative” thinkers, Joseph de Maistre, pointed out long ago that the French Revolution led the revolutionaries rather than was led by them. For he believed that certain Providential forces rule our lives. These forces he saw in Christian terms, but others, like Heidegger, for instance, saw them in terms of Being, over which humans have no control. In either case, the force of Providence or Being or Destiny has a power that has often made itself felt in our history [italics added by César Tort]. For this reason, I have little doubt that Europeans will eventually throw off the Judeo-liberal system programming their destruction. I’m less confident about we Americans, given the greater weakness of our collective identity and destiny. But nevertheless even we might be saved from ourselves by this force—as long as we do what is still in our power to do.

Let me know…


In my previous posts I have been bashing white nationalists and race realists because of their blindness to see that John’s apocalypse is coming soon. (Disclaimer: I am not a Christian and am speaking metaphorically.) With the honorable exception of my friend Sebastian Ronin, nationalists have failed to do their homework and see that the coming energy devolution will cause the death not of millions but of billions of humans this century. It goes without saying that the struggle to hostilely takeover the remaining oil fields will be accompanied by ethnic warfare and even wars among the starving nations.

Ignorant of all this (see the links within my previous entries), Franklin Ryckaert, whom I fairly quoted in The Fair Race, commented a couple of days ago:

Excellent article which puts the lie to the idea that white homelands can only be achieved by genocide on a mass scale as envisioned by such persons as Pierce and Chechar. Slow repatriation in an orderly and humane manner is very well possible and need not be considered as immoral.

Immoral? Ryckaert posted that comment in a Counter-Currents thread of an article by Greg Johnson, who for years has been promoting a peaceful takeover of white nations to the point of condemning the vision of revolutionary novelists like William Pierce and Harold Covington.

I am moving outside Mexico City in order to protect myself from the dollar crash that, when it happens, will escalate the insecurity of my native town exponentially. The beauty of my viewpoint against the non-genocidal pacifists at Counter-Currents is that history will disabuse them horribly, probably this very decade when the dollar hyperinflates.

If I am wrong about this prediction I’ll feel a little humiliated and even ridiculed. On the other hand, if the pacifists who believe in business as usual in the following decades are wrong—they could even die as they are not preparing themselves for the collapse.

If a regular is willing to start being educated on this subject I will send him the didactic documentary End of the Road on condition that, after seeing it, he in turn will send it to another regular visitor of The West’s Darkest Hour.

Let me know, and be ready for Armageddon…

The Ukrainian crisis


Michael O’Meara said yesterday:

Beyond the distortions and misrepresentations of this series, there remain the fact that the Ukrainian crisis is essentially a proxy war between Putin’s Russian national government and the Evil Empire of the Washington / London / Tel Aviv axis.

By championing the Ukie thugs, who lick up the vomit of their CIA / Mossad handlers, certain “white nationalists” are once again demonstrating their utter ignorance of world realities by inadvertently supporting the very forces they ostensibly oppose: the Judeo-monied elites controlling the banking system known as the United States. What a sad joke.

Greg Johnson responded:

I challenge you to document a single “distortion” or “mis-
representation” in this series.

While Putin jails genuine Russian Nationalists, outlaws historical revisionism about WW II, and professes to be fighting against fascists, racism, Nazism, and anti-Semitism in Ukraine, what explains his continued popularity among Western anti-Semites and fascists?

It is simply a delusion to claim that what is happening in Ukraine boils down to a proxy war between Jewry and its opponents, since Putin is in bed with Jews as well. Nor is it a battle between globalization and Russian nationalism, since Putin suppresses Russian nationalism in favor of his own form multicultural imperialism. The only actor in this mess with bona fide anti-Semitic credentials is Svoboda. The only real nationalists in this whole mess are the Ukrainian nationalists. Principled White Nationalists should be far more sympathetic with Ukrainian nationalists than with Putin.

Putin-philia is just the latest version of Ron Paul mania or Tea Party mania. White Nationalists need to stick to their principles, not engage in yet another adventure in wishful thinking and cuckoldry. White Nationalists need to grow up.

If Ukraine is to pursue its own destiny, its first priority is to deal with the Russian threat. Then it can deal with the EU. It is folly for the US to be guaranteeing the borders of the Baltic states, but I completely understand why the Baltic states were happy for such guarantees. If Ukraine had been part of NATO and the EU, it would still have Crimea today. Any sensible nationalist would take the same course.

Karen Toffan commented:

Greg Johnson: it’s unnecessary for Michael O’Meara to document a single distortion or misrepresentation in this series, Askold has already done so [in the TOO threads].

Hadrian concluded:

If Jews are on both sides of the conflict, that means that the conflict itself has been created by Jews, and that both sides are controlled by them. We should be on our own side, not whatever side they offer us because any side they offer us is going to benefit them, not us.

How can you possibly call these Ukrainian nationalists “principled” when the first thing they did when they took power was install a bunch of Jews into high government positions? Why didn’t they install Ukrainians into these positions?

Real Nationalists must first and foremost be opposed to Jewry because Jews are the number one threat to any and all White nations. Any Nationalist movement that is not openly anti-Semitic is not for real. You cannot simultaneously be a Nationalist and ignore the Jewish problem, because it is the problem that Whites face today.

Linder responds

linderSurfing the internet in search of insightful thoughts by Vance Stubbs on the VNN forum (and I did find this one: “You can’t have a revolution until people are willing to put anger ahead of their comfort”) I causally hit this 2012 reply of Alex Linder to Greg Johnson:

Originally posted by Johnson:

Alex: Men are merely motivated by greed and fear, on your account.
Linder responded:

Did I say those were their only motivations? I said, or implied, fear is their main motivation. Fear of sticking out, in part, which is what happens when you embrace the right politics prematurely. People are PC out of fear more than out of positive belief it is a moral or good thing. Your politics fails to account for this most basic psychological fact, and so you and MacDonald and others are endlessly reaching out for these imaginary respectable middle-class people who just need to hear our arguments to be convinced.

You know what, bourgeois people aren’t stupid. But they are self-interested and, if not cowardly, then philistines—people only interested in causes that will net them personally some advantage, whether money or status. If you and MacDonald could deflate your egos, you might realize that people like Hitler already figured all this out. But like the bourgeois selfish you’re trying to reach, you only want to do what you enjoy—not what actually needs to be done. Your kind is basically irrelevant, and that’s why you never discuss Golden Dawn. That party’s experience directly contradicts every last assertion you make about the way your notional New Right will effect change.

Johnson quote: Morality is for kiddies, you say.

Morality is the name men give to their preferences. Or their self interest. Even if they believe it strongly enough to act against interest—very rare in this world—it still doesn’t change the fact their good and bad are merely labels for their own preferences. Morality is not absolute, no matter who asserts otherwise. If you’d spent more of your youth reading someone wise men like Twain, Bierce and Mencken instead of a fool like Swedenborg, you’d know that kind of thing.

Johnson quote: There is a pattern here: vulgarity, cynicism, nihilism—not to mention malignant narcissism and casual dishonesty and calamitously bad judgment of character. Nothing good can come from you.

I’m the cynical one? If I were cynical I would write tastefully and appropriately, that I might attract those unlike me. If I were cynical, I’d praise the South to the skies, and talk up their Book of books. If I were nihilist, I would stick to no principles. Or perhaps, following your example, I would proclaim one set of principles during the week, and the opposite on Sunday. [César Tort's interpolated note: Johnson preaches Nietzsche on his webzine and Jesus at his Swedenborgian church — see “Dies irae” in my new book] Then I would cynically say to myself, well, a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do. That’s just how it is. Or I would publicly announce I’m a new fascist, building on the same proud legacy of old fascists that I’m also, by the way, simultaneously, and publicly, rejecting!… [see Linder's expansion on this: here] And then I would go to others’ sites and blame them for cynicism and nihilism? While not allowing them to criticize me at my own. [Johnson is good at that!]

Well, little semen-sucker, maybe your self-interested sybaritic syncretism is sans sense and, well, just plain silly.


Source: here.

Führer anniversary


Rockwell’s numinous call vs. white nationalism

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

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

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

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

Cited in “Rockwell: A National Socialist Life.”

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Carolyn and Tan


Blaming the Morlocks, sparing the Eloi

For those who don’t believe Whites are capable of imposing this madness on themselves, I will point to France during the French Revolution which abolished slavery in the name of the “Rights of Man” and made every Negro a citizen of the French Republic.

Hunter Wallace

I have listened to the recent show on The White Network hosted by Carolyn Yeager and my ol’ friend Tanstaafl (Tan). The show was a reaction to Kevin MacDonald’s article on The Occidental Observer: a summary of a collection of papers of the journal The Occidental Quarterly or TOQ about white pathology.

I have to say something about the show. In the first place, I see that after the debacle of the last year Tan—and I must steal a sentence from Franklyn Ryckaert—is still incapable of seeing the difference between guilt tripping by Jews and honest self-criticism by Whites. Tan still seems to think that self-criticism by Whites is nothing but interiorized guilt tripping and he proceeds then to proclaim the total innocence of Whites. Jews are the only ones who are guilty of white decline, and anyone who suggests that Whites have a responsibility of their own is deluded. He calls that “delusion” the “suicide meme.”

Judge it by yourself, visitors. Listen the show and tell me if Tan continues to identify honest criticism with guilt tripping.

This of course reminds me the recent exchange between Tan and Greg Johnson at Counter-Currents, where Johnson said:

If the problem is a coalition of minorities who are “in most cases” but not always Jews, then it really is more accurate to refer to them as minorities than as Jews, isn’t it? Thus your desire to find-and-replace “minorities” with “Jews” betrays a certain monomania and lack of scruple.

Sort of like my Baptist cousin who tries to shoehorn Jesus into every conversation. It is very low-churchy to clamp down on “one thing needful,” insist on discussing it even when it is not appropriate, and then to bitterly accuse people of being evil when they draw back from you, or simply exceed your narrow range of interests.

I don’t like that about you.

Understandably Tan became chagrined about this sharp comment and reacted on his blog Age of Treason saying that Johnson is no longer welcome to republish Tan’s articles.

Back to the Carolyn show but keeping in mind the exchange that resulted in the recent distancing between Johnson and Tan. When Carolyn said something Tan mildly criticized her that she was using “the passive voice.” Tan is a reductionist, like Johnson’s cousin, and wants to use the active voice. That’s why Tan made it very clear in the show that he doesn’t like MacDonald’s term “white pathology,” and it struck me that at the beginning of the podcast Tan always referred to MacDonald as an “expert in psychology,” never as an expert in the Jewish Problem (JP). This is remarkable because MacDonald is the foremost expert on the JP, and Tan only an amateur. (As a professor with tenure MacDonald has been a full-time researcher for a while and people like us, who have to make a living elsewhere, cannot compete with that.)

Carolyn started then to mention, one by one, the authors who contributed to the TOQ issue about “white pathology.” Tan commented that he disliked the phrasing of one of the first authors mentioned by Carolyn, that today’s liberalism “is rooted in equality” because, Tan maintained, the Jew-controlled media bombards us all the time with such message. But that just begs the question. The disturbing fact is that precisely because whites elevated the notion of equality by the end of the 18th century to the level of a civil religion, the Jews were gradually empowered throughout the 19th century.

As far as I know, Tan has not tried to take issue with the many articles by Hunter Wallace on Occidental Dissent. Wallace started the now abandoned blog Antisemitica and in my opinion is fairly aware of the JP. Wallace now believes that the Yankees of the last centuries and the French Jacobins were basically on the same page of the Jews as to white dispossession (what I call in the subtitle of this blog “assisted suicide”).

Napos-big-blunderIt seems to me that Tan commits exactly the same fallacy that the blogger Lew commits when challenged about precisely those roots that show how liberalism was originally a white phenomenon. Lew wants to count serious history since 1910, after the Jews were already empowered, something that misleads his readers by giving the impression that the subversive tribe empowered itself.

Like Carolyn, Tan doesn’t say a peep about the role played by Christianity in the development of suicidal universalism or suicidal out-group altruism. In fact, in Carolyn’s show he did exactly the opposite. About the TOQ contribution of the blogger who goes under the penname of Yggdrasil, Tan disliked it too because Yggdrasil wants to go to the roots (that’s well beyond 1910). Tan commented that pondering into the remote historical past “is a form of escapism” because “now it is Jews running the show,” and added in pretty sarcastic tone that it is silly to go back as far as the French Revolution and—the horror—up to the times of Rome so that these intellectuals “can find excuses for the Jews.”

I very much doubt that the motivation of the TOQ contributors is excusing the Jews. As Aristotle said, to have a profound grasp on a subject one must delve deeply into the past. Few sentences by Greg Johnson have been more illuminating to understand what I have recently been calling the Aryan Problem (economics over race) than Johnson’s phrase, “In ancient Rome, as in modern America, the economic system and its imperatives are treated as absolute and fixed, whereas the people are treated as liquid and fungible.”

Click on the pic of Mammon at the top of this blog and then click again on the Kenneth Clark epigraph. Follow the white rabbit to dismiss the single Jewish-cause hypothesis. But Tan labeled all of this historical pondering in TOQ as “lame,” which misses the whole point of bicausalism that in this post I’ll define as you need two to dance tango, the Morlocks and the Eloi.

Like the TOQ contributors, my motivation has absolutely nothing to do with excusing the “Morlocks.” If we use as a metaphor the novel by H.G. Wells, The Time Machine, I would say that my motivation is to try that the Eloi wake up.

Remember the 1960 film that adapted Wells’ novel for the silver screen? When George (Rod Taylor) spots young blond people by a river, a woman, “Weena” is drowning but the other Eloi are indifferent (I would call this “white pathology”). Later in the film George is outraged by the Eloi’s apathy and finds out that they’re mere cattle for the anthropophagus “Morlocks.”

time machine 1

What Tan and many others in the American pro-white movement don’t want to see is that today’s whites are behaving like the Eloi. We are in this mess because the masses of whites are basically animal conformists. See the insightful quotations by Rockwell, Pierce and Hitler in my previous post. They’re absolutely essential to understand the viewpoint of The West’s Darkest Hour.

I must acknowledge that in the show Carolyn sounded more reasonable by blaming, together with the Jews, the liberal Whites. But Tan made it clear in the show that he disagrees with the use of that word, liberal. “It is hard to blame the poor white people,” the Eloi. According to Tan, all blame should be laid on the feet of the Morlocks.

Tan also said that white behavior comes from the current Zeitgeist, and that the white traitors are just opportunists. But the central question in this darkest hour of ours is, again, who empowered the Jews. My educated guess is that Tan and those who think like him will always avoid this question.

“Don’t they deserve some blame?” asked Carolyn. At least Tan acknowledged that a specific acquaintance of Carolyn’s that she mentioned was not forced by the Jews to harbor such traitorous thoughts. Then both talked about Jared Taylor and his concept of “pathological altruism” among whites but the Taylor case is problematic because he tolerates Jews in his conferences. Suffice it to say that at least Tan conceded that white altruism “may have biological roots.”

About the article that MacDonald himself wrote, Tan commented (remember that I don’t know shorthand):

My reaction was negative. Look at these white people who acted like idiots! [sarcasm]… He specifically identifies Christian philanthropists. The point I’d like to make… [is that even as far back as] 1861… to neglect to mention the Jewish influence in that kind of thinking and its influence on Christianity is a mistake.

In other words, Tan leaves Christianity off the hook. Only Jews are to be blamed. He has never replied to my very iterated argument that here in what used to be called New Spain the Inquisition, already familiar with the Jewish tricks at the Iberian Peninsula, persecuted the crypto-Jews; that New Spain was the first Judenfrei state in the continent, and that even sans Jews the Spaniards and the Creoles managed to blunder on a continental scale to the point of destroying their gene pool with Amerinds and the imported Negroes.

Hardly the Jews can be blamed for what happened here or even at the Iberian Peninsula. It was clearly a case of white suicide sans Jews.

If you don’t like to read my posts on New Spain, Spain or Portugal because you might fear that I may have distorted information on a subject that Americans have little interest, go to Occidental Dissent and see the posts by Wallace that prove that, long before the Jews took over the US, a specific form of evangelical Christianity plus the Enlightenment of the founding fathers already contained the roots of suicidal liberalism.

Let my finish this entry with yesterday’s quotations by Spandrell on an interesting exchange at Counter-Currents:

And yes, Jews are evil, but it’s the white elite who brought them in, as it has been since the early Middle Ages. You can hate Jewish chutzpah, but blaming them isn’t going to solve much, because: you can’t remove them, and even if you sent them all to Madagascar, it wouldn’t solve the problem of white leftism.

That’s more or less the idea. The Dark Enlightenment is about studying leftism per se. You might believe leftism is a jewish conspiracy and in their absence whites would suddenly arise as a sane and anti-egalitarian ethnicity. We disagree.

Not that white polities wouldn’t be awesome: personally I’m all for ethnic segregation. But as a European let me tell you that it’s not that easy.

And later on that thread he added:

I apologize if I misrepresented your views on the Jewish Question. I’m aware of Kevin MacDonald’s work and find little to disagree with, but it’s hard to blame the parasite when the host has developed a symbiotic relationship with it. Still I just think focusing on the Jews is a waste of time, people get emotional and discussions are seldom productive.

Which is why this blog focuses on the Eloi.

Rockwell, Pierce, Hitler

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


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.


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.


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.”


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.

Johnson’s doublethink

Greg Johnson has visited this site quite a few times since I published “Johnson’s amnesty.” Instead of accepting defeat he has now published a scholarly article by Ted Sallis with his hatnote: “The following essay is one of the most important pieces published at Counter-Currents so far.”

It is difficult to rebut the obvious sophistry of Sallis precisely because the piece is scholarly and, although I took a biology course at the Open University in my forties, I am no expert on genetics. It is easier to notice Johnson’s incredible doublethink, as in this comment:

“White” to me just means “European,” which includes a whole range of skin tones, from the whitest white to brown.

Wow! This redefinition of “white,” that the most radical anti-white leftist would wholeheartedly embrace, means that Johnson is asking us not to make any substantial distinction between those Southern Mediterranean mudbloods and the purest Scandinavians!


(A pure white Nordid.)

Would Johnson agree of a marriage between a pure Nordid, let’s say the sister of the young man of the pic, and a brown Sicilian to bring to the world cute coffee-and-milk kids? And what would be the next step? Massive Sicilian immigration into Scandinavia because according to Johnson both are “whites,” thus mongrelizing away—and this time forever—what is left of the pure Nordids?


(A brown Sicilian man. Sicilian mongrelization with Whites started since the Semitic Carthaginians dominated the island.)

Johnson’s definition of “white” deserves inclusion in my Dictionary of Newspeak. As to the other commenters of Sallis’ piece, I stick to what I implied in “Johnson’s amnesty” about the Counter-Currents commentariat: they still seem totally ignorant about the new racial classification (see last line).

In another comment of the same thread, Johnson said:

“Ancient admixture is OK. That is simply part of our identity, not something extraneous to it… As for recent admixture, lines must be drawn.”

Doublethink! Ancient Spaniards mixing genetically with the Moors and the Semites during centuries 8th to 15th was “OK” but today, regarding the identical mixing taking place in Spain (or France), lines must be drawn? Right? Johnson again:

The further back the admixture, the greater the chance that the alien genes have washed out.

Johnson has not visited the Iberian Peninsula. Has he? In my most recent visit to Spain I was annoyed that some Spaniards didn’t look to me white at all, nor did some of them acted white, thought white, and fought white (in spite of the fact that some of the purer Spaniards do). There has been no washing out of the Arab and Semitic genes since the 15th century certainly: eight centuries of miscegenation left a permanent mark among all Iberians (actually, a permanent mark on myself!).

Read the first installment of “The New Racial Classification” before you give some credit to what Johnson just tagged as “one of the most important pieces published at Counter-Currents so far…”

Johnson’s amnesty

“White Nationalists treat Mediterraneans like Republicans treat Mestizos.”


In “Dies Irae” I responded to Greg Johnson’s bashing of Pierce’s novels, especially The Turner Diaries, and I exposed him as the pseudo-Nietzschean that he is. (Warning: that article is very strong meat indeed, not for the faint-hearted.) Now Johnson is bashing Pierce again but this time Pierce’s last book, Who We Are. He didn’t do it in writing but in a segment of his recent audio interview of Matt Parrott. In about minute 40 of the interview Johnson started to talk about “genetic purity and white identity,” and in minute 41:30 he began his anti-Nordicist tirade speaking about what he calls “weird forms of purism”:

My attitude is that we… should just have an amnesty for all remote past miscegenation. Because the really important thing… is to preserve our race as it exists right now.”

Since Johnson has in mind the miscegenation that took place in historical Europe through the millennia, he is omitting the crucial question: are, say, brown-looking Sicilians “white”? Pay attention to his words that I italicized below:

“…save the race as it exists… rather than being caught up in the past; and caught up in weird forms of purism.

There’s a kind of fallacy in this statement. Is Johnson implying that every European individual before the mass immigration of recent decades is per definition “white”? Is he asking us not to see the phenotypic difference between, say, a modern Greek that looks like a Turk and the hyperborean nymphs that make me mad? What about the Frenchmen and Frenchwomen who have nigger blood in their veins? Let me rephrase a bit from Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans:


(French women with non-white blood.)

According to official French statistics, some three million of North African Arabic mixed race and African Blacks, all from the French colonies, immigrated into France itself during the period 1919 to 1927. (Take note that this happened before the Second World War and the Morgenthau Plan to exterminate the Germans.) Kemp’s point is that a significant minority miscegenated with women like those in the pic, creating the inappropriately named “Mediterranean” look associated with the French in certain areas. But apparently, Johnson is not a believer of the one-drop rule: once you are descendant from a Negro you cannot be considered properly White.

Johnson continues his anti-Nordicist speech in his interview of Parrott:

One example of weird kind of purism is in this book by William Pierce called Who We Are, which I have been briefing thru. This book basically is a warrant for genocide—if you will—a brief for genocide, of whites by whites!

Has Johnson read the mini-book about Sparta, originally written in Spanish, that I recently translated? Or Kemp’s? Or Who We Are with due attention (“…which I have been briefing thru”)? The moral of these books is that you simply cannot coexist with non-Aryans or use a class of non-Aryan servants because, in the long run, quantity overwhelms quality. The blond Spartans decayed after the Peloponnesus War precisely because they had not expelled non-Aryans from their conquered territories: a hypothetical prophylactic measure that makes white nationalists like Johnson and liberals shrug in horror!

What Pierce wanted for ancient Greece, which outside Sparta had a substantial amount of Asian and North African half-bloods, is analogous to having expelled the Amerinds to a corner of the continent as the English-derived peoples did in America. The non-Spartiate Helots could have been whiter than the Amerinds, yes: but tolerating them and even darker peoples inside their lands caused the extinction of the Aryan Greeks (see the link to Pierce’s chapter that I baptized as “White suicide in ancient Greece” at the end of this post). Johnson continues:

Pierce basically wants to do [it] by identifying himself as a Nordicist… Everything is blond hair and blue eye and his attitude about say Greeks is that the Dorians invaders should have exterminated all these darker cute white people so they didn’t mix with them. So my attitude is that there were people in the past who were Dorians or Aryans of various sorts. They do not exist any more. They are just ingredients now in what we call white people today. Anglo-Saxons don’t exist anymore. The Anglo-Saxons tribes which landed in England—they are just ingredients in the modern Englishman.

I don’t know shorthand and had difficulties with my laptop to easily rewind the interview after minute 44 but still managed to catch Johnson phrases such as: “If we are concerned with preserving Americans, English, Greeks…” and his mocking for what Pierce, Kemp and others considered “the terrible miscegenation.” Johnson also claimed that we must get “out of that mentality,” and that it is “impractical” to do an “insidious distinction among whites today” (my emphasis).

The same old fallacy again: assuming that all ancient Europeans were, per definition, “white.” In another moment of the interview Johnson says he is concerned about the miscegenation of today but not about the miscegenation of yesterday.

He is simply begging the question. The question is that precisely because in the past white peoples were utterly unconcerned about mongrelization that we have mongrels today. The question is whether or not the French descendants of, say, the women in the above pic should be considered whites or not. Pay attention how in the above quote Johnson mentions the modern “Englishman” together with the modern “Greeks” as if both could be plainly considered “whites.”

When Johnson finished his speech Parrott mentioned his distant drop of Indian blood. But that’s different. A distant drop of Amerind blood does not invalidate your whiteness as some black drops do. See for instance Andrew Hamilton’s article, “Whiteness, blurring.” I believe Hamilton is on the right track as to where drawing the line. Curiously, most commenters of that article published at Counter-Currents subscribe Johnson’s anti-Nordicist stance so common in white nationalism today.

White blurring aside, the issue of this post is people that are literally brown, like many Greeks and Sicilians or even some Southern Spaniards and Portuguese. They look brown: and by mentioning the modern Greeks in his interview together with the Englishmen Johnson seems to be using a handy doublethink to consider them white irrespective of what his very eyes are telling him.


(Felix von Luschan’s skin color chart.)

The doublethink mentality one sees in the comments section of Counter-Currents is exactly the kind of mentality that caused the problem centuries ago. Either white skin is white; olive skin olive, and brown skin brown, and black skin black, or we have entered the world of Wonderland.

When a humble commenter like me has to remind adults all-too elemental things that any toddler can understand—like colors!—something must have gone terrible wrong within the adult mind. Anti-Nordicist nationalists cannot refute us with facts just as liberals cannot refute the hard facts of race realism advanced by the likes of Jared Taylor. Like the liberals, what nationalists do is appealing to emotional non-sequiturs as to what is “practical” from the “political viewpoint.” The paramount issue about whether it’s OK to marry and have kids with, say, a Greek that looks like a Turk is treated with the same horror of what a leftist liberal would say. The leftist would label “racist” those who abhor the idea of seeing a daughter with mulatto grandsons. Would white nationalists call “Nordicist,” a pejorative term in their mouths, someone who would abhor the idea of having a daughter with Sicilian-like grandsons? If so, what about those who the media labels as “white” in the US? Is George Zimmerman a “White Hispanic”?

“Nordicism” is the white nationalist equivalent to “racism” in the liberal mindset. It might seem incredible but the stuff written a hundred years ago by American racialists like Madison Grant was un-infected with the virus of politically correctness as white nationalism is today. See the von Luschan chart. Isn’t it a no-brainer that human “white” skin is up to, say #15? Where do non-Nordicist nationalists draw the line, in which specific number?

Even if some would grant the lighter olive skin as still Caucasian, many so-called Mediterraneans fall into the numbers twenties of the chart. Harold Covington had a hilarious point recently when he said that quite a few modern Greeks “look like Mexicans.” And I find it rather incredible that for nationalists even of the revolutionary type not even the clearly brownish colors of the chart are to be considered “brown” anymore. If theirs and Johnson’s “amnesty” is conceded to them all what is the next step? What about the so-called White Hispanics in Johnson’s own town of San Francisco? Isn’t it so obvious that the line should be drawn somewhere in the second column of the chart (together with other factors, of course, like the shape of the cranium)?

But it is useless trying to discuss the matter with Johnson because he does not answer to honest criticism. In his site he has had a history of not letting pass the comments of those who present cogent critiques to his opinions.

Johnson controversies aside, Pierce was light-years ahead from contemporary racialists. He was the true spiritual inheritor of National Socialism for the American scene. Most, though not all, white nationalists are pigmies compared to him. Who We Are was his last testament and you will probably learn more brutal truth from that book alone than pursuing the diluted racialism so fashionable today. My purpose of translating texts from the Spanish blogsite Evropa Soberana is precisely to warn English-speaking racialists about what we might call politically-correct white nationalism. It was precisely the sort of mentality that we see in this movement, if we contrast it with the purer American authors of yesterday, what led to a runaway anti-racism that is about to grant amnesty to millions of “White Hispanic” Mexicans and other non-whites in the US.

There is a strong trend of anti-Nordicism in the movement just as there’s a strong trend of anti-racism in the conservative movement. Ultimately, when compared to personalities like Grant or Pierce, white nationalists are closer to the conservatives. Here there are three must-reads that transmit the idea of why I believe that today’s anti-Nordicist movement is a dead-end:

• “White suicide in ancient Greece.” These are my excerpts from the tenth installment of Pierce’s Who We Are: A Series of Articles on the History of the White Race. It is telling that this entry has received zero comments as to date.

• “Why Rome fell.” These are my excerpts from Kemp’s appendix to his March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race.

• “Were the Greeks blond and blue-eyed?” Yesterday I added all of my recent entry translations on the subject to Chechar’s so that this Evropa Soberana article may be read comfortably, starting with the first entry.


Parting word to the anti-Nordicists: Compare the so-called “Mediterranean” descendants of the Frenchwomen caught in the first pic above with the original phenotype of the handsomest ancient Greeks…


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 231 other followers