“The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848. The Bolshevik Revolution took place in 1917. Mao took power in 1949. Marx and Engels laid the metapolitical foundations of Communism—the ideological and organizational foundations—long before Communist states were actually formed.”
The moment Billy Pierce started selling “hate core” CDs via the National Alliance’s putrid distributor Resistance is the moment he shoved a figurative gun barrel clean down his clucking, chicken-skinned, babbling throat and yanked the trigger.
Brainz wuz eberwheres, folks!
Kendall is right. And Johnson is right too that—as I interpret his latest article—, since the US is not economically suffering like Greece, Americans still cannot have the benefits of a movement like Golden Dawn.
But like most white nationalists Johnson ignores that America’s bottom will drop out sometime during this decade. See for example the first comment at Johnson’s piece: a whole essay on its own where a commenter, suffering from typical normalcy bias, imagines that business as usual will continue… until 2045!:
If, a hundred years and more after Hitler is dead, it’s still too soon for any assertion of white interests, I think that would be a logical reason for being pessimistic about our prospects.
Here at WDH I have been embedding quite a few Peter Schiff videos (see for example this one) that, with the honorable exception of the commenter John Martínez, have not convinced anyone.
Why people, why? Because Schiff is of Jewish extraction?
Oh boy! I own a copy of the documentary film End of the Road. If some of the regular commenters want to listen voices of economists light-years away from Counter-Currents’ point of view on economics, including gentile voices of course, let me know. I could lend the DVD by mail to those who are willing to listen the pretty solid arguments of those who have been predicting the crash since Alan Greenspan started to print dollars like crazy (and let’s not talk of Obama’s Jew, Ben Bernanke).
Thanks to the fact that, as Mike Maloney says, “fiat currencies always fail” and that “there’s no exception to this,” the days when white populism are no longer premature in America are closer than what the average nationalist imagines.
Ex Gladio Libertas!
68 Anno Hitleris
Armor, a commenter in another thread, said:
“The way you use the word monocausalist reminds me of how Hunter Wallace liked to divide the white nationalist scene between the vanguardists and the mainstreamers.”
It’s because, perhaps, I have not been clear enough:
1.- Monocausalists – Most of the commenters at Age of Treason, and people like Dave Duke whom I deeply respect. These people believe that there’s but one cause of our woes: the subversive Jews. For instance, Tanstaafl here, in late Summer 2007, quotes himself:
Isn’t it absurd that anyone would even think to blame Christianity or WASPs for the rise of PC and its catastrophic consequences? Isn’t this in fact a reversal of the truth? Hasn’t the rise and spread of PC eroded the power of Christianity, WASPs, and whites in general? Blaming them is in effect blaming the victim.
Yes, there are Christians, WASPs, and whites who have fallen for the PC brainwashing. Yes, there are some who have taken it so deeply to heart that they work to expand and protect it. That’s the nature of PC. That is its purpose. To control the minds of the people it seeks to destroy. The left, at its root, is all about destruction.
You don’t have to be an anti-Semite to notice where these ideas originate from and who benefits. But you do have to violate PC to say: Jews.
For strict monocausalists, “there is nothing wrong with whites.”
2.- Bicausalists Type A – Those who, like Greg Johnson, Alex Linder and some commenters at Linder’s VNN Forum, believe that Jews are the main cause of our woes, though there are other important factors as well. Unlike Tanstaafl, these bicausalists also blame our parents’ religion. For instance, Johnson recently commented against Christianity at Counter Currents and last Saturday Linder briefly discussed with Carolyn Yeager the role of Christianity in debilitating the Aryan mind when dealing with the subversive tribe.
3.- Bicausalists Type B – Those who, like Tom Sunic, Manu Rodríguez and I believe that there’s something seriously wrong with us, extremely wrong actually. Whites’ mental issues (which include a Calvinist type of Old Testament Christianity that conquered North America) are the main infection, and the Judaization of the West, a secondary infection (like AIDS / pneumonia, etc).
A popular image to visualize this later type of bicausalism would be through the archetype of Isildur, a character of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings.
“Now of course, if White people were naturally as aggressive and prone to violence as the Arabs, their society would be harder to penetrate for the Jews…”
But ethnically we were even more aggressive and prone to violence than the Arabs (who became sand-niggers with time). I trust you have read my controversial entry on Portugal, where several of my sources agreed on the fact that in the first centuries of our era the Iberian Goths burned at the stake their fellow Aryans that dared to mix their precious blood.
Pace Duke, James Edwards, Yeager and so many white nationalist Christians who have been saying “Happy Easter” in the white blogosphere these days, Christianity changed all that, and not only in Iberia: something that they’ll never acknowledge.
We need a new generation of nationalists who, unlike the conservative Spaniards of today (whom I find intolerable by the way) or of yesterday (silly burners of heretics instead of dispatching the miscegenators) leave universal Christianity behind.
(This entry was expanded on April 27)
The first time I read Michael O’Meara’s “White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism,” published in October 2, 2011 at Counter-Currents, it confused me: On the one hand, O’Meara’s Toward the White Republic had made a profound dent in my thinking; on the other, by that time I still was under the impression that the Jewish problem was probably the main cause for the West’s darkest hour.
Now that I have read Tom Sunic’s latest book, extensively quoted in my previous post, I have finally made up my mind about that highly controversial O’Meara piece. In brackets I’ll offer my comments about that brief article originally written in 2010.
“White nationalism” is a much abused term.
Its defining tenet holds that European-Americans need their own ethnostate to prevent their destruction by the anti-white forces controlling the political and social systems of the United States and that such an ethnostate is the necessary precondition for re-asserting America’s European destiny. It is thus not an aspiration for racial supremacy or segregation, not a form of racial hatred or eugenic social engineering, but rather a movement of thought, akin to historic nationalism, which champions the New World’s “white nation.”
Relatedly, white nationalism has an important anti-Jewish facet because Organized Jewry is a powerful (some claim the most powerful) force compelling the present ethnocidal assault on European America.
This anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic facet, however, is but one aspect of white nationalism. The struggle—with ideas today, in the streets tomorrow, through force of arms in the end—to establish a European ethnostate in North America entails, by definition, resisting not just the alien forces threatening white life, but, more important, consciously affirming and asserting America’s European destiny.
As a critique of alien cultural distortion, anti-Semitism, then, may be a necessary part of the larger “national” struggle—but it is neither the aim of that struggle nor its essence.
A great many of those associated with white nationalism, however, not just fixate on the “inner enemy” to the exclusion of everything else, they tend to define their project in terms of the “Semitism” they oppose. The result, I contend, distorts or side-tracks white nationalism’s higher purpose.
* * *
If anti-Semitism is the natural “anti-body” that America’s cultural organism produces to defend itself, then to see white nationalism solely in its terms is to think that it is the opposite of the “body” it resists. This makes the “Aryan” the negative of the Jew, for anti-Semites assume not just a certain symmetry with their Semitic enemy, they inadvertently turn white nationalism into a sort of inverse Semitism.
[On this point I kind of disagree with O’Meara. As I pointed out in my essay-review of Kevin MacDonald’s second book of his trilogy, what we need is exactly a mirror-image of Judaism: National Socialism.]
More specifically, a Judeo-centric white nationalism promotes a strictly nullifying orientation in so far as it seeks to overthrow Jewish supremacy not on the basis of anything positive or native, but solely because of its destructive—“parasitic”—impact on white life. This negative orientation is supportable, though, only as long as its costs are ignored, for it leaves whites totally unconscious of what they are fighting for and, when exaggerated, fosters pathologies of another kind.
[One of the most infantile pathologies in the American white nationalist scene is the infatuation of many with ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theories: “Mossad orchestrated the attacks!”]
A critique of Jewish power that serves white interest would inevitably go beyond negativity to stress the informing and transcendent values which Jewish interests (among other contending forces) threaten.
Judeo-centric white nationalism, however, rarely attains such levels and, as a dogma oblivious to every differing view, usually ends up discrediting the nationalist cause.
As such, this dogma knows the answer to every question before it is even posed—for every failing and misfortune we suffer is automatically assumed to be the fault of the Omnipotent Jew. No need, then, for laborious studies in history, culture, and political-social analysis—just “name the Jew” and everything is explainable.
[In spite of the fact that both William Pierce’s and Arthur Kemp’s histories on the white race constitute a literary treat, very few American white nationalists seem to have taken the trouble of reading them. Is this because Kemp’s and Pierce’s focus is not America?]
So positioned, it can’t see that Jewish power is aided, abetted, and made possible by the very principles undergirding America’s liberal order—that Jewish power involves “Aryan” compliance, and that this compliance, routinely venerated in America’s Low Church worship of Mammon, emphasizes quantifying factors indifferent not just to a man’s qualities, but to the “rights” of blood and spirit.
[I am not an American. But when I lived in San Rafael in California, my roommate Guy Palmer—no: I am not afraid of dropping names—told me that, although he professed no religion whatsoever, for him money was the closest substitute of religion. I was shocked.]
Worse, an inordinate number of Judeo-centric white nationalists tend to share the same antipathy to Europe (our Fatherland) as do the Jews and consider materialism, egoism, and democratic corruption, inherent to America’s liberal project, as something uniquely Jewish, and not, as the most cursory examination of the historical record shows, an organic offshoot of the liberal system created by Americans of European Christian (mainly Calvinist) extraction.
[Again, see Sunic’s most recent book.]
For this reason, I often wonder if obsessing about Jews doesn’t cause certain culture-distortions in those so involved and that the white nationalism of these obsessives neglects, as a consequence, all that is positive and life-affirming in our own project—naively assuming, as they do, that a solution to the Jewish problem is all it will take to ensure a future for white children in North America.
[Is it what makes them blind that a final solution to the Jewish problem was not enough for the inquisitorial Spaniards and the Portuguese? After all, they failed to ensure a future for Iberian white children in both the Americas and the Iberian peninsula itself.]
Totally oblivious, then, to the fact that America’s shallow, latently anti-European culture favors Jewish methods and Jewish concerns, these blinkered anti-Semites prefer to indulge in fairy tales about “cultural Marxism” and the Frankfurter bogey man—unconscious of or uninterested in the larger subversion.
Knowing only their caricature of the inner enemy, they also either ignore the outer enemy (the colored world), treat it as a friend, or consider it a mere adversary. The West’s 1400-year conflict with Islam and its various conflictual relations with the non-white world are thereby reduced to Jewish machinations, dismissed, in effect, as an actual danger to Europe’s destiny and to the True America born of Europe.
[Counter-jihadists have a point here, in spite of the fact that they’re blind to the Jewish question. Those who want to expand their voyages beyond the strait waters of “orthodox” white nationalism could start by watching Craig Bodeker’s interview of Srda Trifkovic as a previous step for becoming familiar with Trifkovic’s work on Islam.]
This unbalanced, all-consuming Judeo-centric white nationalism is above all politically timid, emphasizing Jewish machinations, but neglecting the ways in which the American project itself betrays our European destiny. It thus conveniently ignores the revolutionary changes that whites will need to make, in themselves and in the larger order, if they are ever to throw off the alien, anti-white forces governing the United States and resume their European destiny. In this sense, Judeo-centric white nationalism is just another variant of the prevailing country-club conservatism.
In sum, Jew-obsessed nationalism:
• is purely negative and potentially distorting;
• fosters a Manichaeism that neglects every other factor responsible for white dispossession;
• ignores that the culture of critique and other anti-white stratagems are inherent to America’s modern liberal order;
• neglects the outer enemy;
• threatens to turn white nationalism into an inverse Semitism;
• and, in the last instance, has no real idea of what white nationalists are fighting for.
[In the heated comments section of the Counter-Currents thread, O’Meara criticized even further those who believe in the single Jewish cause for our problems. He said:]
I think their ignorance, reductionism, and resentment are a disgrace to everything associated with nationalism.
[O’Meara, by the way, is also the author of the essays “The Psychopathology of Judaism” and “Evola’s Anti-Semitism.”]
Kevin MacDonald, unlike his epigones, knows how to make an argument and support it with substantiating evidence. Nevertheless, his argument proves nothing (except his own intelligence), for with the same methods but in reference to different facts, I could make an equally convincing argument to “prove” that corporate capitalism (or the Cold War state, Catholicism, Protestantism, or a half-dozen other factors) were far more influential in legalizing the formal de-Europeanization of the American people.
[Isn’t it a shame that O’Meara is not presently sponsored, and that he has to do blue-collar jobs for a living? If American white nationalists were a little more responsible, the movement might count by now with a scholarly work that rivaled MacDonald’s paradigm in the sense of proving that capitalism and a form of evangelical Christianity enabled the empowerment of the Jews.]
I think it’s significant that in the years I posted at VNN [Vanguard News Network], I was less offended by the numbskull things said by obviously badly educated types there (who at least had the virtue of saying them with some wit), than I am by the numskull things said so often by so many middle class intellectuals associated with a site ostensively aimed at the higher IQ types [i.e., the commenters at the Counter-Currents webzine].
[This reminds me that the owner of a Jew-wise blog, whose working hypothesis is also that Jews are the main factor, has stated openly and unabashedly that he and his audience must focus on the US. This is exactly the wrong approach insofar as America is just the product of bad European history.]
A final comment.
To my critics: Misread my piece and make me into a philo-Semite if you like—that way you won’t have to abandon your virtualist understanding of things (which, I realize, is the normal, comfortable de-Aryanized approach favored in America’s Low Culture—the real source of our predicament).
To Greg: You know I’m not a New Rightist. I call myself a “revolutionary nationalist,” but my identitarianism is closer to the [European] NR than your appeasing anti-Semitism, which tries to couple that which cannot be coupled. If you don’t get this, your NANR [North American New Right—Greg Johnson’s term] is likely to end up in the same historical garbage can as Rockwell’s ANP and all the other pseudo-NS follies of the last half century.
“Send Off The Clowns”
Hillary concluded by announcing that “the patience of the American people with racism and terrorism is at an end, and we are going to crush these evil men like the insects they are.” She announced that a new paramilitary force, the Federal Anti-Terrorist Police Organization (FATPO) would be immediately deployed into the Pacific Northwest and that they would operate under “special rules of engagement” that would allow for the “complete eradication of terror, and at long last mete out the condign punishment that should long ago have been applied to every manifestation of racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, nativism, and sexism.”
An obviously twitchy and nervous Arnold Blaustein, who had taken over Paradigm on the demise of Sid Glick, announced the establishment of a special private “justice fund” by the movie industry, which offered a reward of five million dollars per head for information leading to the apprehension alive of any terrorist who could be shown to have participated in the events of Oscar Night in any way.
Movie stars and B actors, rappers and rock stars, television personalities and newscasters, studio moguls, directors and producers, screenwriters, executives and attorneys, and all manner of lesser fry began to flee the city.
“I wouldn’t have believed it,” Brewer reported back. “Hollywood has become a ghost town in a week! Most of the major enemy assets on our hit list are gone now, scattered all across hell’s creation. You guys may run out of targets.”
“Oh, they’ll be back,” said Hill with a shrug.
The hits continued, despite the paucity of targets:
* A massive car bomb was smuggled onto the DreamWorks-Disney back lot and leveled an entire Santa’s Village set, totally derailing a major Christmas movie and costing DW-D about 40 million dollars in losses.
* Foul-mouthed standup comic Marta Moskowitz, whose shtick consisted almost entirely of obscenities, references to excrement and snooty flaunting of her Jewish heritage, was found tied with duct tape to a chair in her apartment’s kitchen, strangled with a garrote, and a bar of soap jammed into her mouth.
Within thirty days, the Northwest Volunteer Army had effectively shut down the entire American movie-making industry and over half of the television production. Studio budgets were snapping like sticks. Ratings were in the toilet because the whole country was glued 24/7 to the cable news waiting to see which Hollywood celebrity was next on the hit parade, in a runaway reality show from hell.
Please, compare Covington’s views about Hollywood to Greg Johnson’s opposite views and leave a comment: either below, or in a recent thread.
The art of having my cake and eating it too
Last year, at Counter-Currents Greg Johnson wrote:
To win this battle, it might be necessary for some of us to become monsters who cannot return to normal society to enjoy the fruits of victory. We need leaders who are willing to sacrifice their immortal souls to this cause. I don’t believe there is an immortal soul, but psychologically speaking what passes for it are immortal scruples or absolute principles other than victory. All these need to be slain and sacrificed on the altar of victory.
But at Alex Linder’s own forum a few days ago Greg rebuked me for taking seriously William Pierce’s ethnic cleansing fantasies once the white revolutionaries take over (“…and Pierce’s absurd Nordicism and repugnant exterminationism have only reinforced my sense that something about your critical faculties is not quite right”).
I am tempted to argue in coming entries, perhaps at the Addenda, that the late Pierce, not the more conservative figures in today’s pro-white movement, held the upper moral ground. But first I’d like to say something more about
Unlike the later Nietzsche, it seems that Greg still subscribes Christian doctrine and, inadvertently, Christian axiology too, i.e., the inversion of values. This is the diametric opposite of the indented quotation above. Consciously or unconsciously, I believe that Greg lies to himself and his readership by claiming that he already left Christianity behind.
See for example what he said in a December, 2010 lecture at the Swedenborgian Church of San Francisco. Alas for Greg, the lecture was recently “outed” in the pro-white community, much to his embarrassment. At the Swedenborgian meeting Greg Johnson said:
“What most inspired me was his [Swedenborg’s] discussion of the life of Christ and the meaning and the mystery of that… Swedenborg gave us the means to understand that mystery.”
After quoting Scripture Greg asked, “What does it mean to say that ‘God is with us’?” and went into a theological peroration where he added:
“…a child was born. A child that somehow was the God of eternity. This unique incarnation is the great mystery. It is the conundrum of theologians and metaphysicians. Why was Jesus born? Why did God become man? Swedenborg claims that this was not part of Plan A… Jesus was Plan B… because of certain contingencies that [should not have] happened.”
Greg then used autobiographical vignettes mentioning his childhood and his father to illustrate “Plan B,” presumably what God felt obliged to do when mankind fell into the original sin. He even mentioned the word “salvation.” At some point Greg seemed to endorse the infinitely monstrous—the real monstrosity, not my endorsement of Pierce’s views—belief that it’s within God’s freedom to send us to Hell. (As an aside, see my theological piece on eternal damnation here.) After speculating on the Second Coming, Greg finished his lecture with an “Amen” and the Swedenborgians started to pray.
Listen to the audio linked above to hear, in Greg’s own voice, the above thoughts. Greg’s lecture sounds like the Catholic doctrine I was taught as a kid before my First Communion.
Apparently, Greg has two personas. He is a Nietzschean at Counter-Currents and a pious Christian at his church in San Francisco. He literally had it both ways before his activities with the Swedenborgians were outed. As to his other persona, take note of what Greg Johnson commented this year at The Occidental Observer:
[Christianity] did undermine racial exclusivity for nearly 2,000 years. Racial and subracial differences were no bar to marriage, as long as both parties were Christian.
And at another blog:
Christianity will not be dead until its secular offspring, liberal universalism, is dead as well. But you know that, don’t you? Christian fanatics are precisely the ones who believe that blood differences don’t matter.
I wonder what would his Swedenborgians friends say if they hit in the internet these impious comments (see my brief collection of anti-Christian comments authored by Greg here).
My purpose here is not to psychoanalyze Greg but to show that, with his kind of closet Christianity, he is not the genuine Nietzschean that I previously thought. Given his doublethink I even doubt that Greg can be a consistent leader in advancing the nationalist agenda. Just compare his Himmler-like advice that could have been taught at Wewelsburg Castle (“To win this battle it might be necessary for some of us to become monsters…”) with his more recent pronouncements (“…and Pierce’s absurd Nordicism and repugnant exterminationism”).
OK, were it not absolutely necessary to transvaluate the inverted values back to “master” (not “slave”) morality in order to save whites from extinction, I wouldn’t have extended on Greg’s duplicity above. But see the opening words of chapter 56, “Old and New Tables” of Thus Spake Zarathustra, the new Moses:
Here do I sit and wait, old broken tables around me and also new half-written tables. When cometh mine hour?
Not yet at Counter-Currents… I’m afraid to say that its editor-in-chief seems to specialize in the mischievous art of having my cake and eating it too.
Brad Griffin (“Hunter Wallace”) is the administrator of the popular blogsite Occidental Dissent that focuses on the conflict between his beloved Dixie and the treasonous Yankees. In his recent discussion with Alex Linder, Brad challenged his opponent’s exterminationism with a very tough question:
Let’s suppose you were handed a Glock. There is a 6 year old female Jewish child in the room across the hallway. Could you walk into the room next door, point the gun at the child’s face, and pull the trigger? If so, how many times could you do it?
How many people here [VNN Forum] could do it? Anyone?
In the last few years Brad has also called Alex a “sociopath” precisely because of Alex’s “exterminationism” on a purely intellectual plane. And it’s worth noting that a couple of years ago, in an interview that Jim Giles apparently deleted, Brad issued the same challenge to Jim but this time imagining a hypothetical seven year-old Jewess (I remember so well the edge in Brad’s voice). Independently of what Alex and his henchmen at VNN Forum have said about Brad’s tough question, I’d like to respond to Brad directly:
I would not shoot the girl.
This said, final solutions on the millions of adults who pose serious threats to the fourteen words must be considered. My own preferred solution to the Jewish problem is stopping all Jewish immigration; designating Judaism as a political, endogamous, racial evolutionary strategy hostile to the West—instead of a just another “religious faith”—and placing legal restrictions on it throughout the White world; initiating Jew out-migration, and the quarantine of the Jewish people within Israel.
However, what bothers me, as I confessed in “Vanguardist poll,” is that apparently Jews have the right to openly and unabashedly fantasize about exterminating us (“The best of the Goyim must be destroyed”—The Talmud), while, at the same time, whites feel extremely dismayed when one of us dares to return the favor.
Yesterday Jim Giles interviewed Kevin and directly asked the professor what does he think about Alex’s exterminationist anti-Semitism. The show reminded me Jim’s now deleted interview of Brad two years ago, when Brad pleaded to save the little, thoroughly hypothetical Jewess with anguished edges in his voice. Since then, Jim has revisited his previous tolerance of Alex’s exterminationism and is now dismayed that Alex and a few of his VNN commenters openly advocate permanently getting rid of the subversive tribe.
In yesterday’s interview, Kevin told Jim that Alex’s exterminationist position is “pretty crazy and counterproductive.” The good professor also said: “That’s the kind of thing that I think is absolutely detrimental,” and used the term “black eye” as to how would nationalists be seen in public relations after such pronouncements.
VNN Forum of course takes the opposite stance. In one of the threads commenting these inter-blogs exchanges a Serbian wrote, “White nationalism shouldn’t be about ‘appealing’ to the impotent, superstitious, feminine and mentally sterile. Whites need leaders who think like jews, not christ morons.”
Well, while I see the point in the recent Jim Giles show, it still bothers me that the West tolerates exterminationist anti-Whitism pronouncements by the Jews while, at the same time, it freaks out when hearing that someone of us advocates exterminationist anti-Semitism.
A chutzpahthic double-standard!