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 point out to 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 like 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 truly scientific article “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…

Alex Linder on GD crackdown

GD symbol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everything they do is on this pattern.

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

Get it?

At long last, do you understand this, people?

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

Whatever works, works. Whatever goes, goes.

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

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

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

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

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


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

Quotable quote

“We need a regime that (1) bans pornography and (2) erects statues of gorgeous naked nymphs and athletes in every public square and crossroads.”

 —Greg Johnson

The beam


And why beholdest thou the mote that is in the Jude’s eye,
but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

In “Lefty river” I said: “Imagine a river that took a very wrong turn to the Left. Those who fancy themselves ‘white nationalists’ are deceiving themselves, for in a way or another they are navigating that river too.”

To navigate the river as westerners do since the 1960s means to be part of the so-called sexual revolution (actually, libidinous ethno-suicide) that includes women’s and homosexual “rights” and civil “rights” for non-whites. Westerners who subscribe the new zeitgeist view all navigating through the river as a mere relaxation of social taboos, especially “taboos” relating to “racism” and “sexism.”

If Hegel is right that music only reflects the spirit of an age, such promiscuous and ethnic relaxation was readily expressed, since the 60s, in new forms of music such as rock; and if today’s white nationalists were as honorable as Commander Rockwell and William Pierce, like them they would also feel revulsion for the outer expression of a rotten soul.

But today’s nationalists do exactly the opposite. They navigate the same river that has been driving Western civilization to an ocean of black sewage. Most white nationalists of course are totally blind about this because, like the rest of whites, they have been navigating it for decades.

A couple of days ago for example Greg Johnson published an article, “Death June in San Francisco,” where he praises a concert he attended in California’s sin city, San Fran: a band of a homosexual who plays deafening folk-rock, post-punk music. Having in mind what he saw in the concert, Johnson claimed that “any signs of cracks in Jewish-led anti-white coalition of homosexuals, feminists, environmentalists, and liberals should be welcomed by White Nationalists.”

This of course assumes that Jews are our only enemy and that whites, including white nationalists—actually including Johnson—are not active actors in the demise of the West. But what if they are? What if any white who navigates the river is a racial or cultural traitor?

I have said it before and I’ll iterate it again: What convinced me that the Jewish problem is not the main problem in the West’s darkest hour was precisely the behavior of white nationalists. Since they are presumably the only group in the West that is fully conscious of the Jewish question, destructive views and lifestyles among them—praising homosexualism and even “gay marriage,” heavy metal, Hollywood filth, sports featuring Negroes and getting laid heterosexually or adding soft-porn pics in some of their sites—proves beyond reasonable doubt that even pro-white advocates are implicated in their demise.

It is useless, and kind of silly for me, to say, “Stop navigating the river and live like our ancestors did.” The grim fact is that very few, if any, will do this because they are blind about the beam in their own eyes.

The One Ring

“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.”

—Greg Johnson

“After all, the chief business of the American people is business.”

—President Calvin Coolidge

Yesterday I listened Tom Sunic’s interviews of Andrew Fraser, author of The WASP Question. Fraser is a Protestant and Sunic, of Catholic background, like me has given up Christianity. Although their very friendly discussion on the role that Calvinism and Puritanism may have played in today’s suicidal zeitgeist was fascinating, what piqued my interest was the view that both Sunic and Fraser share: how White Anglo-Saxon Protestants fell into the spell of the One Ring (economics-over-race policies).

Since the Jewish Question was almost absent in this two-part interview, it reminds me very strongly Michael O’Meara’s view that the JQ is secondary to America’s Low Church worship of Mammon. In the heated debate at Counter-Currents between O’Meara and the monocausalists (those who believe that whites are blameless), that I copied and pasted, O’Meara said:

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.

I think that Sunic, Fraser and O’Meara are right. In fact, the moral of the historical books by William Pierce and Arthur Kemp is that non-whites have always overwhelmed the white minority after some centuries. Pierce and Kemp have proven, to my satisfaction, that ever since the civilizations of the Ancient World to date, whites have been losing because they don’t follow the golden rule: total separation from non-whites. Instead, they have fallen, and still fall, in the temptation of trying to use non-whites as “capital”: whether slaves, servants, second-class citizens, or wet-backs in the US and elsewhere.

From this meta-perspective that reviews several millennia of history the culprits of the West’s darkest hour may be listed, in order of importance, thus:

1) The One Ring

2) The Christian Problem

3) The Jewish Problem

This blog has been focusing on the second etiological factor because other white nationalist blogs are reluctant to fully discuss it. Nonetheless, both the Christian and the Jewish problems are far from being the most influential factors, and it is a pity that nobody is sponsoring O’Meara because, in addition to his published articles, I believe that his thesis must be expanded as thoroughly as MacDonald has presented his views on Judaism. (But why does this movement have no wealthy sponsors…?)


Michael O’Meara

On Megalodons and scorpions


Megalodon tooth with two great white shark teeth.

I have re-read my year-old post “Blaming the shark, sparing the Megalodon” and it struck me as solid.

Those familiar with my classification (see for example: here) are aware that “bicausalists type B” like me maintain a totally different cognitive process than “bicausalists type A”: those who basically blame the Jews for our woes.

One of the most important questions in the movement that both monocausalists and the type Bs avoid is, What enabled Jewish empowerment in the West? (keeping in mind that they never took over the media in, say, China or the Muslim world). We must never forget that in the aftermaths of the French Revolution, Adrien Duport, a member of the Jacobin Club, ascended the tribune and said:

I believe that freedom of worship does not permit any distinction in the political rights of citizens on account of their creed. The question of the political existence of the Jews has been postponed. Still the Moslems and the men of all sects are admitted to enjoy political rights in France. I demand that the motion for postponement be withdrawn, and a decree passed that the Jews in France enjoy the privileges of full citizens.

Duport’s proposition was accepted amid loud applause, which means that Whites empowered Jews; the members of the tribe did not empower themselves. To my mind, the event reflects white suicidal tendencies, with all the euphoria of a triumphant liberal Revolution, in a nutshell. If the West survives its current condition, historians of the future will surely mark this momentum event as the quintessential not only of French pathology, but of white pathology in general.

I am starting to suspect that my “bicausalism type B” stance is the reason why my metaphor of the witches’ brew, that I picked from Pierce, is not being taken seriously—let alone my initiative to identify each ingredient of the brew (yes: including the transferences resulting from child abuse).

If I could I’d poll readers of the pro-white blogosphere: TOO, CC, MR, OD, AmRen, AOT, AltRight, VNN and NWF to see who’s bicausalist type A and who’s type B; asking them to intuitively assign percentages of blame on Jew vs. White.

In such an hypothetical poll I would say this: Since Jewish power is completely derived from white treason I would assign, tentatively, a bicausal blame to whites approximately in proportion to the size of the Megalodon vis-à-vis a modern white shark (see e.g., this virtual image of these two animals in the sea). If this hypothetical assignation reflects reality, it would mean that white pathology is the main factor of the West’s darkest hour.

Of course, I could be wrong. But I need reasons and facts to change my mind rather than insults, especially because I still believe in final solutions to the J problem. (Even when, mixing metaphors, bacterial pneumonia is a secondary infection to viral AIDS, such bacteria is still killing us; we must get rid of them.)

I cannot emphasize strongly enough that I find it rather comical when either a monocausalist or a type A bicausalist drops Jewish names in discussions with me pointing out that some kikes were involved in the Revolution. The central issue in this debate is, again, that whites empowered them and precisely because of enlightened ideas developed by whites.

Moreover, if my reading of history is accurate, the most important century to understand our current dilemma is the 19th century. After those Jacobins I quoted above, in the next century European nation after European nation subscribed the French emancipatory ethos throughout that century. (The singular case of the U.S. is even more pathological as that nation was founded not only upon Enlightenment hubris in 1776, but even previously by the original founding fathers of puritanical extraction that used the Old Testament as their guiding star.) From this point of view, the 19th century was the traitorous century par excellence: European whites virtually started to hand over their banking, media and cultural institutions to a clearly subversive tribe.

I cannot figure out a best way to close this entry than to quote from the mentioned article “Blaming the shark, sparing the Megalodon,” where an intelligent commenter responded to Greg Johnson, a type A bicausalist, with these words:

Deinking said…

When 2 percent of a population controls 98 percent with impunity, it’s empirical proof that that the 98 percent is inferior. If they weren’t inferior, things would be the opposite. Blaming Jews would be understandable if they were 20-30 percent of our population, but when they’re just a tiny fraction and still rule over us, we have no one to blame but ourselves. If we were just one-tenth as motivated, organized, and pitiless as they are, there would be no possible way for them to dominate us. They would hardly matter at all.

We Whites have always been too naive, too gullible, too kind, and idealistic. That’s our problem. If we were hardened realists then we would have destroyed Judaism and Jewish identity thousands of years ago, when the Romans had total control over Judea. But even the Romans were too softhearted and continually let the Jews have their own society even after they viciously slaughtered Roman citizens in their various rebellions… and this was before Christian morality warped our minds. There’s something seriously wrong with us.

Greg Johnson said…

Are humans inferior to scorpions and spiders because we are vulnerable to their stings? The term “inferior” is misplaced here. We are vulnerable to Jews, just as we are vulnerable to bullets. When a man has been shot, you don’t blame him for not being bullet proof. You blame him, though, if he handed his gun over to a criminal.

Denikin said…

A human getting accidentally stung by a scorpion is one thing. But when millions of humans have been repeatedly stung by scorpions for 2,000 years and have not yet learned to stay away from them, it means there’s something wrong with the humans, not the scorpions.

Thanks Mr. Deinking. I have nothing to add.

On the need of cultured thugs

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

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

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

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

Snake said (below, in the comment section):

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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 196 other followers