After AD: Before and after the Führer

Or:

The fall of the New Constantinople

In the thread on Judeo reductionism, Roger commented today:

Think of the fall of Byzantium. This may have been seen as a great calamity for Europe but on reflection, this helped concentrate power in western Europe and reinvigorated it. Likewise, the utter destruction of America may be the best thing for the White Man… but obviously anyone within those territories will have differing views.

Great point on the need of the fall of Constantinople (which, incidentally, was already too mongrelized ethnically by the time when Mehmed’s cannons made a huge hole on its walls).

I have observed, in the three and a half years that I have been active over white nationalist boards, that quite a few nationalists are infinitely more immature than the leaders of the National Socialist regime insofar as religion is concerned. Even long before the Nazis America was larger and more prosperous economically but more primitive spiritually (just compare German to American music). Genuine spirituality cannot be measured through the American way. Believing in traditional religion or new age nonsense is not enlightening but psychological dissociation.

If homo Americanus is indeed homo Judaicus as Tomislav Sunić maintains, the only way that Americans and Canadians change their so-called spiritual ways is that Murka burns after the dollar crashes and all of their worldwide hegemony be lost. In this New World Order scenario the German people will have a last chance to reclaim their (presently) murdered self-esteem, as a blogger of Germanic origin stated in the post that I have linked the most, “The Red Giant.”

After what the Anglo-Saxons did in the 1940s the only way that these people could possibly atone for their sins is to get rid of the Anno Domini calendar, the one that betokens the birth of “Jesus”—a Latinized, post-Exilic modification of the Hebrew Yĕhōšuă, (Joshua)—as a model for Aryans. In fact, they must get rid of the Jewish god altogether and, instead, base history on the death of Hitler—not on the day when he was born—: a genuine human, all too human model for the white peoples. Only thus will the crime that the Allied forces perpetrated in the century when we were born be remembered for posterity. Books like Hellstorm must be expanded a thousandfold by future scholars in landmark works, just as the Gulag Archipelago functioned like a stake through the hearts of deranged French leftists when I was much younger.

I know that on this issue I am alone among the white nationalists of this continent, which are still stuck in Judeo-Christian values. Today, for example, I received an e-mail that Greg Johnson delivered to all subscribers of Counter-Currents’ newsletter that mentioned Matt Parrott. Although Greg is supposedly an anti-Christian and Matt an Orthodox Christian, axiologically these two Americans are almost exactly on the same page. Greg for one claims to be a fascist in his webzine but he de facto functions like a conservative, as I have pointed out in what is perhaps the most emblematic post of WDH. After the death of William Luther Pierce no American nationalist that I know has transvaluated Christian values back to Aryan values, at least not in such a direct and unabashed way as Pierce did.

My philosophy results from my brutal honesty: Don’t take seriously this politically-correct, new generation of American white nationalists. They don’t feel the same hatred towards the New Constantinople that Pierce felt. As long as, unlike him, they don’t bring Nietzschean axiology to its ultimate consequences, they will continue to function as reactionary conservatives instead of genuine revolutionaries.

Pace the American New rightists, the New Constantinople will fall soon. The commenter Deutscher recently linked at another WDH thread an article that pointed out that it is common that dying empires unravel with unholy speed: a single year for Portugal, two years for the Soviet Union, eight years for France, eleven years for the Ottomans, seventeen years for Great Britain… I predict that the United States will fall in about the same time that the other empire that eventually liberated the blacks fell: Portugal. After all, Austrian economists predict that the collapse of the American dollar will unfold very, very rapidly, with hyperinflation leading to the collapse of all of the US government’s power. (If you don’t believe it and want to discuss the issues, please do it in a thread that has received zero comments: here.)

The good news is that imperial decline tends to have a remarkably demoralizing impact on a society especially after economic privation.

Only decades after the coming eschaton and the ensuing chaos and cure for humility for North Americans could a revaluation of all Judeo-Christian values be manifested by means of replacing the Gregorian calendar by the new one. Only such a cultural shock will convey the westerners in general and the North Americans in particular the eschatological sign that the Christian era, which inadvertently had been responsible for the Judaization of the West after Luther, is over. Like the author of “The Red Giant” I believe that the age of all those centuries since the founder of Constantinople handed over the Roman Empire to his bishops is coming to an end. In the new era no more white children will be taught of the feats of Moses and David and Yĕhōšuă (“Jesus”). Instead, they will be taught the doings of Vercingetorix and Hermann and Hitler—even when these Aryans died most tragically while defending their people.

Novelist Harold Covington in uniform

For that reason alone, yesterday I added excerpts of a novel that conveys the feeling of what a future Nationalist Socialist Republic would look in the American Northwest, just in case that the Anglo-Saxons do indeed atone for their mortal sins.

In the following days I will be adding more and more excerpted chapters. Enjoy the coming entries or, still better, obtain a hard copy of a novel where the Swastika will be used in the uniforms of the Seattle and Portland military and police.

Ex Gladio Libertas!
Anno Hitleris 68

Dies Irae

“The Hellenes of Sparta and Athens both strove to keep their blood pure, but both ultimately perished. The only way they could have survived would have been to eliminate the entire indigenous population, either through expulsion or extermination, from the areas of the Mediterranean world in which they settled.”

—William Pierce

For three years I have been reading white nationalist literature and have come to the conclusion that William Luther Pierce ought to be considered the central intellectual figure of the movement (George Lincoln Rockwell on the other hand was perhaps the noblest individual on this side of the Atlantic). Besides his superb essays Pierce inaugurated the novelesque genre of a revolutionary takeover of white societies, and his axiological ruminations about the history of the white race that he was concluding when he died, like the above epigraph, are still unsurpassed. Present-day pro-whites on the other hand are still comfortably living under the sky of Christian and/or liberal axiology, as I will try to demonstrate in this article. For example, Greg Johnson, the editor-in-chief of Counter-Currents Publishing, has been ambivalent on Pierce. He wrote:

Some time later, on April 22, 2000, I purchased [the novels] The Turner Diaries and Hunter from Dent Myers at his Wildman’s Shop in Kennesaw, Georgia. Frankly, I found them repulsive, The Turner Diaries in particular. Pierce may have been inspired by National Socialism, but his model of revolution was pure Lenin and his model of government pure Stalin. If he had the power, he would have killed more people than Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot combined. He epitomizes everything about the Old Right model that I reject: one party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide. At the time, I remarked that as a novelist and political theorist Pierce was a first rate physicist.

I regarded him as a monster…

Take note that Johnson’s webzine is considered by some the crème de la crème of white nationalist blogsites, something like the haute culture magazines for the sophisticate, and that he presents himself as a fan of Friedrich Nietzsche to the webzine’s readership.

The trouble with Johnson is not only that he’s living a double life, but that politically he wants to have it both ways: sometimes he seems to be in favor of revolutionary fighting but other times he condemns violence. In Johnson’s own words in his manifesto, “New Right vs. Old Right”, “The only gun I want to own is made of porcelain.”

Doesn’t this amounts to say that his “New Right” rejects winning, since throughout history there has been no nation-building without violence? This is Alex Linder’s most recent pronouncement on Johnson: “His attempt to claim heir to the legacy of Hitler and Mussolini while renouncing actual fighting, and going beyond that to denounce those men’s movements in pretty much the same terms jews do [“I regarded him as a monster…”] is simply bizarre. And that, in particular, he should not be allowed to get away with. Of course, he won’t allow criticism at his site, where I have tried to make it a couple times, so about all I can do is post here.” (For a more complete retort to Johnson’s “porcelain” manifesto see here.)

In my previous post I quoted Nietzsche’s Zarathustra having in mind Johnson’s feminized Nietzscheanism. But what would a genuine Zarathustran voice sound like? Simply put it, someone who advocates the transvaluation of some values back to the pre-Christian mores in the West. I say some and not all as Nietzsche said because, unlike the anti-Christians at VNN Forum I see some important positives in Christian axiology, like trying to abolish the infanticidal exposure of healthy babies in the ancient world.

This said, what stands between Moses’ Old Tables and Zarathustra’s new, half-written Tables—the new ethical code that, ideally, will rule white behavior in a coming thousand-year Reich? At Radio Free Mississippi, Linder recently blamed Christian scruples by means of an example. My paraphrases: What would be our first felling when watching an adult, African-American male in a park replete with blond, unprotected toddlers? Pulling the trigger on the intruding nigger of course! Linder then asked rhetorically what on Earth is functioning as a virus for the white mind that impedes all of us from following our primitive, natural instincts? His answer: “It’s Christianity,” in the sense of our basic moral grammar or “axiology”—not in the sense of doctrine or creed—: a sort of hypertrophy of our sense of decency from a strictly survivalist point of view.

I think that Linder is basically right as to where the virus of the mind comes from, especially now that even Brad Griffin, a self-proclaimed Christian known with his penname “Hunter Wallace” has been unearthing citations of the Yankee mentality in antebellum America. Griffin’s conclusion is that abolitionism was caused by “a moral, religious, and ideological revolution in worldview,” and that “the twin doctrines that are to blame for our decline, which brought about this critical shift in moral outlook, are the Enlightenment’s ideology of liberal republicanism and the spread of evangelical Christianity,” i.e., Neochristianity and Christianity. In my own words, the ingrained meta-ethics within our psyches that place limits to the fourteen words comes from our parents’ religion. Of course, presently this unconscious axiology, that strongly reminds me Asimov’s First Law in I Robot, comes from Christianity’s secular offshoot, liberalism or as I like to say, “Neochristianity.”

Billions will die, We will win

Are you a Nietzschean or a Christian / secular Neochristian? The following is my litmus test to gauge who, despite claims to the contrary, is still internalizing the meta-ethics of our parents’ religion instead of doing a quantum leap into full-blown Nietzscheanism.

In the coming racial wars of the twenty-first century that will come under the apocalyptic sign of Mars and Hephaestus, how many racial enemies do you think will have to be slain to fulfill the fourteen words?

This is my direct answer: If I have to kill five people to fulfill our most cherished words I kill five people. If I have to kill five billion I kill five billion.

Unlike the reactionary writers and pseudo-apostates of Christianity in the movement I consider myself a genuine son of Zarathustra who finds himself sitting and waiting—old Mosaic, broken tables around me and also new, half-written tables—, wondering when cometh mine hour. Present-day Christians and liberals on the other hand are still infected with a virus of the mind that compels them to place limits after the first few thousand killings.

The current paradigm that enslaves almost all whites is like a Red Giant star that has already exhausted its hydrogen core (Christianity). To boot, after the French Revolution the enormous inertia of Christian ethics engendered a meta-ethical monster, now producing carbon from helium. This giant, secular, red shell of liberalism is but the sign of an approaching death in all stars of that size. Though inflated and tenuous, the red shell is still very hot and makes the star’s radius immense. Presently liberalism is covering, and slowly engulfing and burning, the entire West.

As explained in the previous link, if the Red Giant is the present, secularized form of a Christianity that has exhausted its creed, in this moribund stage Christian axiology is paradoxically reinforced in liberal society at the expense of traditional religious doctrine.

Conversely, Nietzscheanism, or genuine white nationalism (all nations are born out of war, iron and blood), is not even one of our firmament’s stars. Like a tiny gaseous sphere already leaving the cradle of the nebulae, white nationalism is accumulating more and more mass that is forming a center of higher density to form a protostar. When enough pressure in the interior rises—when a considerable mass of Nordish Aryans wake up and fight in the real world (like the Golden Dawn)—, it will increase the density and temperature until the gas turns to plasma. Only then a nuclear fusion will be initiated at the core and a new, baby star will be visible in the canopy of heaven.

What prevents nationalists from attracting, by the sheer force of their gravitas, increasingly more spiraling mass to make nuclear reaction possible? Simple. Most whites, including nationalists, still gravitate around the dying Red Giant that, by the next century, will become a mere white dwarf. They’re not really gravitating around the nebulae that’s forming the new star even when Christianity is dying and will certainly be death in the next century. My goal at The West’s Darkest Hour is to point out at the firmament the new constellation of ethics (axiology) that is being formed before any serious discussion can even take place on how to fulfill the fourteen words, our half-written Tables.


The Star Child

One of the earliest reviewers of 2001: A Space Odyssey wrote in 1968 that it was the first Nietzschean movie in history, and it is too bad that Arthur C. Clarke’s literary agent, Scott Meredith, showed Clarke the green bill in the early 1980s to tempt the author into betraying his philosophy and original movie script by writing cretin sequels to his magnum opus. Anyway, before the sequel prostitution took place, in the epilogue to The Lost Worlds of 2001 Clarke wrote:

What lies beyond the end of 2001, when the Star Child waits, “marshaling his thoughts and brooding over his still untested powers,” I do not know. Many readers have interpreted the final paragraph to mean that he destroyed the Earth, perhaps in order to create a new Heaven. This idea never occurred to me; it seems clear that he triggered the orbiting nuclear bombs harmlessly…

But now, I am not so sure. When Odysseus returned to Ithaca, and identified himself in the banquet hall by stringing the great arrow bow that he alone could wield, he slew the parasitical suitors who for years had been wasting his estate.

Why should we expect any mercy from a returning Star Child? Few indeed of us would have a better answer, if we had to face judgment from the stars. And such a Dies Irae may be closer than we dream…

In the climatic scenes of the film Kubrick’s use of Also Sprach Zarathustra, Richard Strauss’ tone-poem after Nietzsche includes the returning, placental child.

♣

If something has any resemblance to science-fiction’s cathedral it is what in my daemonic soliloquies I call “Neanderthal extermination,” exemplified by Pierce in both the novel The Turner Diaries and in all seriousness in a few passages of Who We Are. Der Juden saw it all right with their Book of Joshua: only ethnic cleansing protects the race from the interbreeding that invariably occurs with time, and the moral I gather from Kevin MacDonald’s second trilogy book is that whites should imitate the tribe by adopting an endogamous form of collectivism in our naïve, individualist societies.

In a recent radio debate on exterminationist anti-Semitism Griffin told Linder that we must describe the Jewish problem like MacDonald does: never hinting to final solutions for fear of being called evil Nazis. But even MacDonald hints to a solution not only to the Jewish problem, but to the many other racial problems that are afflicting the race—though he shall never formulate it openly for fear of losing his tenure:

The Greek and Roman pattern of conquest and empire-building, unlike that of the Israelites described in the Tanakh [Pentateuch], did not involve genocide followed by the creation of an ethnically exclusivist state… [A People that Shall Dwell Alone, page 368]

In his trilogy MacDonald also says that National Socialism mirrored Judaism insofar as providing a symmetrical, albeit antithetical, evolutionary strategy for Aryans and that National Socialism has been “the most dangerous enemy that Judaism has confronted in its entire existence.” What MacDonald refrains from telling Pierce already said in Who We Are (see my ongoing, step-by-step abridgement of Pierce’s last book here).

But let’s elaborate my litmus test even further where I left it (“wondering when cometh mine hour…”).

A thought-experiment

When driving your car in the routine journey to your job imagine you are given a one-week, Star Child powers over planet Earth like the one described by Arthur Clarke above and indulge yourself a little in a thought-experiment: that you are the metamorphosed astronaut Dave Bowman that returns to your home planet after a journey beyond the stars. What would you do…?

Monday. After your second coming to Earth, this time above the clouds and with great power and glory, the first thing that comes to your mind are the traitors in charge of the white nations, so firmly decided to exterminate your people through genocidal levels of immigration, and a feminism run amok that condemns white males to perennial bachelorhood. You condemn to death 5 heads of Western states. At any event, there’s no human power that matches yours…

Tuesday. But is this enough to secure the existence of your people and the future of white children?, enough to be sure that they will survive the West’s darkest hour after your one-week, Overlord power is over? What about terminating 50 of the most notorious, powerful enemies of whites, especially those in charge of the civil, anti-white associations that have been poisoning the well for so long?

Wednesday. “But that’s still too short” you wake up and say to yourself in anguish during these nights of virtual insomnia. After all, you want to be sure that the fourteen words are not threatened by ulterior human behavior in the centuries to come. What about eliminating 500—you say to yourself in the morning—or, still better, 5000 you conclude in the afternoon, of the most notorious leftist academics: those who have been trying to deconstruct the West and have corrupted the minds of the young?

Thursday. Alas for the earthlings!: You’re still confronted by the voice of your consciousness! This day you have to be bold enough and get rid of 50,000 of the media staff that have been demonizing whites and your culture through the world’s mainstream media and Hollywood.

Done… In the end, they had been probably whites’ most serious enemy.

Friday. But aren’t you still too short on numbers?, your inner daemon asks. What about those who believe that the best of the goyim must be destroyed, i.e., the white Aryans? They’re still breathing… What about calling home 500,000 non-gentiles or even, more conclusively, 5,000,000; —oh no!—, better fifteen million for a final solution of the non-gentile problem, you conclude in the evening.

Saturday. Alas. You find out that you’re still too short to be a hundred percent sure that our most sacred words will be fulfilled after your power evaporates by tomorrow midnight. You just remembered that the Red Giant is still covering the whole West with the suicidal flames of Neochristianity. And you are not a monocausalist after all… Wiping out the subversive tribe was not enough, not barely enough you are starting to suspect, in a world where most whites have been turned into body-snatched pods. In this weekend that your powers will vanish you must confront the view that the Zeitgeist that has been destroying your people since the Second World War is ultimately based on Christian ethics, and that this hypertrophy of the white super-ego has virtually infected all whites. You don’t want to take any chances unless and until they have been cured from their suicidal, malignant lunacy—which won’t happen by itself within your weekend of Overlord power. Why not calling home once and for all 500 million of the infected whites, the deranged, out-group altruists?

Sunday, The Day of The Lord. Not enough! (sob…). Your dwindling powers are not enough to see the future and be certain that the conservative whites whose lives you just spared will have the nerve to deport those millions of non-whites who have been breeding like rats throughout your lands. So you take a fateful, ultimate decision. You will make of this final day a scorched-Earth moment, a wrathful and vindictive day since only full revenge has the power to heal a wounded soul… Only thus you will make it sure that the racial aliens won’t be invited again by the potential altruists who, unbeknownst to you, escaped from your wrath yesterday and may fall into their old habits in the far future. After all, doesn’t the mental disease of whites, universal moralism, predates Christianity? And after Christianity started to expand a thousandfold into Neochristianity, didn’t your people’s sense of fairness and pity towards non-whites became infinitely more threatening for your goal than the depredations of the (now defunct) tribe? Presently you remember the last chapter of the Zarathustra, “The Sign,” when Zarathustra rises in the morning and finds a lion outside his cave, which he takes to be a sign that the Overman is finally coming. This new Zarathustra—you—rises triumphantly, realizing you have overcome your final sin: pity. And so you don’t want to take any chances with the surviving Neanderthals—not in this big day of yours! You go for the only figure that really solves the problem in a single stroke. You play God. You take the lives of 5 billion or a little more of non-whites experiencing the same remorse that you experienced when you took the first 5 lives almost a week ago…

A favor

How far would you go chasing over Dave’s 14 words—white children for the endless ages to come before the Sun really turns into a Red Giant? I ask you this favor: Indulge yourself in the above thought-experiment when you go to work and suffer the sight of those non-Aryan faces that the system socially-engineered for you (but please first watch 2001 in one of your days off so that you may grasp the film’s religious message unmolested by any external noise).

Don’t respond here which number of deaths, or until which day of the week, you imaginary chose to intervene in mankind’s destiny. My Gedankenexperiment only gauges your internal morals for you.

César Tort

Mexico City

On exterminationist anti-Semitism

Or:

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.

Sounds pretty Linderite to me! Himmler and his SS henchmen would be proud of Greg’s words at the esoteric meetings celebrating the summer and winter solstice in Nuremberg.

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

Greg Johnson

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

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.

Kevin MacDonald

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!

Johnson and O’Meara are just wrong

A formal response to Greg Johnson (editor) and James O’Meara (author) about the latter’s new book defending homosexuality appears now in the new Appendix to The West’s Darkest Hour.

My article is entitled “On classic pederasty,” or “Pace Johnson and O’Meara, the Greco-Roman ‘lover-beloved’ institution was not ‘gay’ in the modern sense of the word.”

The Führer’s way is the only way

Or:

Niflson responds to Linder

Last month during the second hour of Carolyn Yeager’s radio show, Severus Niflson convincingly rebutted Alex Linder’s libertarian stance against fascism and, although Niflson didn’t mention it, I believe his critique also applies to Greg Johnson’s “New Right” philosophy.

I cannot write shorthand, so forgive me the errors in the following transcriptions of the interview. Specifically addressing what Linder wrote, Niflson said that he, Niflson, is a militarist; and that we cannot have a State without centralization “because it won’t function.”

After a peroration on political sciences, Niflson rephrased Max Weber’s definition of the State: “The State is simply a territory with the monopoly of power,” that is to say, the monopoly of the use of force. Yes, the government runs the State but is not the State.

After Niflson mentioned Bakunin’s critique of Marx he responded to Yeager’s question about clarifying his previous statement that he was a militarist:

“I believe in the esthetics, and I believe in the morality, and I believe in the functionality of military power and of a militarized State. And of course: our ancestors did it historically. Even the modest tribes had basically a war chief, the monopoly of force. The culture of the tribe would be militarized [emphasis in Niflson’s voice]. Everything was focused on making spears, making knives, making swords.”

Using the words “structure” and “hierarchy,” he added that “a glorious thing to do is a militarized society,” and that every State worth of something was militarized; even Bismarck who was not a military guy dressed like one. We never made statues to laypeople but of knights on horses because that’s the only way a nation can defend itself. And there’s the rub:

“Militarism requires strong centralization in the sense that you require the government to focus militaristically on values of marshal heroism.”

That’s why, Niflson added, we are attracted to the military esthetics of National Socialism. After an input by Carolyn, Niflson claimed that libertarians wanted:

“A civilian society of consumers and basic chronic relaxation—in other words: America.”

This, even though the US used to be far more stoic in the past. It is making now a transition toward a bourgeoisie civil society where:

“Civilians make every decision; civilians think everything; civilians decide everything and militarism is related to fighting wars that civilians decide should be fought.”

And it’s far worse today since not even civilian Anglo-Saxons but Jews are ultimately deciding which war must be fought. Nevertheless, Niflson added:

“You cannot have a society without the mechanism of war. Libertarians tend to forget that without militarist ideology you cannot survive—especially us [nationalists after the ethno-state is formed] who will be attacked by everyone.”

And he added that in an ethno-state even the engineers and the architects would wear militarized uniforms because “everything they do they do for military objectives” —i.e., we will have to fight to survive for a long time.

“Every male would have to be ready to pick up a rifle and fight. Because I am a militarist I cannot agree with this naïve libertarianism, which is somehow Utopian—this idea that without a centralized State we can survive.

I have always said that the dynamics of power require structures of power, and the structures of power are militarism. Successful nations are militarized; that’s the truth.”

Keep in mind Egypt, Mesopotamia, Athens, Sparta and Rome. An hypothetical nation of anarchists would easily lose before an organized nation of fascists in a war between the two nations. After Carolyn wrought the subject of Linder’s views again, Niflson added:

“It’s because he is thinking in a non-military context. He is thinking like a civilian. Most of these libertarians believe in pluralism, because we live in a pluralistic society. But at least in the first hundred years we won’t have the luxury of being pluralistic at all.”

Which reminds me of course what the Führer said so clearly during his intimate table talks. Niflson continues:

“We will have to be single-minded, highly structured, hierarchical—and militarized—to be able to survive. We can’t be pluralistic. We can’t have multiple groups bargaining for power in your own nation state…”

This evokes Johnson’s plain antipathy toward NS-like totalitarianism as a template for the coming ethno-state.

“…because the State is the monopoly of the use of force. And that means that others will have to submit.”

After another comment of Carolyn, Niflson added:

“This country [the US] is a civilian democracy of lazy welfare queens. It is a nation of consumers—fat consumers that all they want is to be entertained and satisfied…”

That’s why they don’t want to live in a dictatorship, but be free:

“…inject themselves with garbage; get drunk, etc. These are the types of liberties that are desired.”

After some minutes Carolyn brought back the subject of Linder again. Niflson answered:

“The only effective way is to grow and centralize Federal power; grow and centralize, grow and centralize.”

I guess he said this to confront Linder’s idea of mere “White mania” after whites win their right to an ethno-state, insofar the State would go:

“…after your children, put in them a rifle and say you’ll fight today.”

Linder’s idea—and I’d add Johnson’s stance against genocide as well—is a fantasy because in a new civilization everything is about war; in a federal world these libertarians (or New Righters) won’t have any say on it, no participation in the power of the State. Niflson then satirizes these ideologies:

“I won the war [the creation of an ethno-state] but I’ll make myself weaker. I’ll go for communes and people will run these communes; they will have chickens there.”

Carolyn then made the insightful remark that in the US everyone is afraid of collectivism, that they are even afraid of the word “collective.” But in the past of the US the people had a collectivist vision. Not today adds Niflson, because:

“…people are retreating into their homes, retreating into their fantasies and they don’t want to come out.”

If we are in a middle of a war and a successful nation has been built, the whole point is not “to be a Man” (to use Linder’s term) but simply to win, and that just cannot happen in a pluralistic society insofar as every child will have to be indoctrinated.

Niflson echoing Michael O’Meara:

“Every nation has a myth. The population will grow with this myth and this myth will become reality.”

Though we can speculate about the coming myth, no one knows it because it is a myth that will develop in a given moment. In one of his last thoughts about libertarianism, Niflson added that the majority of us are libertarians, but that it is a delusion because we are all living:

“…under an invisible tyranny: the tyranny of entertainment and consumption, because we are basically forced into our homes; we didn’t want to get out.”

And that fantasy-world is precisely the tyranny, the Matrix that controls us: a fear of the real world.

Are we doing it to ourselves?

The following are excerpted comments from:

Alex Linder said…

The problem is no one has ever demonstrated Whites feel guilt for no reason.

Lew said…

True enough. When the injustice aligns with Jewish interests, it gets different treatment in the media, and those are the injustices Whites do not seem to feel guilty about.

I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve clashed with White anti-Whites who cited Indians, slavery, Jim Crow, colonialism or the holocaust as reasons White should feel guilty. I’ve never had anyone bring up the Iraqi or Afghan civilian dead. I’ve never had anyone cite as reasons for guilt the cruel mistreatment of White indentured servants, or child laborers, or any other subset of the White population that has unfairly suffered.

If you go back a bit further, it also seems to be true that prior to the Jewish media takeover, Whites felt no unearned guilt at all about any event. Like every race/ethnic group, Whites have committed their fair share of actions that one could argue were injustices. But, prior to WW2, I know of no evidence Whites were collectively languishing with unearned guilt over Indians, slavery, and colonialism in the 1910s-1920s.

If you go back even further, I know of no major historical commentators who ever suggested Euro peoples like to claim unearned guilt. Who talked about this? Herodotus? Aristotle? Luther? Hume? Machiavelli? I don’t know that any of them ever did. If Whites have a guilt flaw, unless they discussed it and I missed it (possible), it seems that some of the most powerful minds to ever walk the Earth didn’t notice it.

So what we’re left with is this:

• Before the Jewish media takeover, unearned guilt seems to be non-existent among Whites.

• After the Jewish media takeover, unearned guilt has become pervasive among Whites. The exception is when events that you would expect to trigger guilt are aligned with Jewish interests.

So yeah, on reflection, I think you’re right: this inherent race-guilt argument quickly crumbles upon scrutiny. Not only is there no evidence Whites feel guilty for no reason, there is evidence the guilt perfectly aligns with Jewish media presentation, and Jewish presentation is the only explanation that makes sense.

Greg Johnson said…

Lew, Alex’s argument is specious. Of course Jews are manipulating white guilt to serve their interests. But that does not imply that white guilt is an entirely Jewish invention, that whites are merely passive and innocent victims of Jewish mental aggression. All the Jewish propaganda in the world couldn’t sell white guilt if white people were not willing to buy it. And as far as I know, whites are the only race weak and foolish enough to buy it.

Have you ever heard of Jesus? The core of Christianity is the doctrine that Jesus, who was without sin, took the sins of man upon himself and suffered our punishment for us, to square things with God. The whole doctrine is premised on the most primitive and absurd notion of justice, namely that justice can be done by punishing an innocent party in the place of the guilty party (which in turn is premised on the idea that punishment is first and foremost just a matter of animal sadism: the wounded animal lashes out in anger, and whether he lashes out at the innocent or the guilty does not really matter, because it feels the same to him). It is moral savagery wrapped up in religious sanctimony.

Modern white guilt is just a secularized version of Christian vicarious atonement: whites derive psychological gratification and social status from Jews, Christians, and liberals by assuming the unearned guilt of other whites and suffering for it. Or, better yet, making other whites who are not so enlightened suffer for it, by giving our countries away to non-whites and Jews.

Alex Linder said…

Encouraging whites to blame themselves isn’t fighting the enemy: it’s helping the enemy.

Greg Johnson said…

Revisionists don’t reject it head-on. They simply try to dispute the facts, as if our race really would have no right to exist if our people had committed various historical atrocities. Try that kind of reasoning on any other race. Do the Asians feel guilty about Genghis Khan? How about the Muslims about their conquests? Whites have become a morally sick, rotten race because of our acceptance of Christian morality and its secular offshoots, although it is an open question if whites have some deeper, biological propensity to accept such ideas. It would also be interesting to see biological studies that address the issue of whether other races have equal propensities. Based on anecdotal evidence and history, I think not.

Alex Linder said…

Do the Asians feel guilty about Genghis Khan? How about the Muslims about their conquests?

They would if they were being told to by authority 24 hours a day. Why do you think jews buy up media? And bribe polls? And train teachers? Does all that suddenly have no effect?…

I notice also this topic came up at OD [Occidental Dissent], and most agree with me that the “white guilt” thesis is a crock, although Brad Griffin does not.

At Occidental Dissent Brad Griffin (“Hunter Wallace”) said:

Alex Linder writes:

The problem is no one has ever demonstrated Whites feel guilt for no reason. Johnson and Taylor and others pushing this line ignore the media factor. White guilt, as with other attitudes, is simply a function of jews controlling the media and telling them how to feel. It’s no more complex than that.

No, it is a lot more complex than that.

Europeans have a long history of self-hatred and debasing themselves over their sinfulness to appease the Almighty. [White guilt] is a byproduct of certain formulations of Christianity and liberal republican ideology.

Everyone here knows that Yankee White guilt was a huge problem long before the Jews became powerful in America. [Cf.] Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, John Brown, William Lloyd Garrison, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Read Lincoln’s speeches about drenching battlefields in Southern blood to atone for the sins of slavery. Yankees were worshipping free negroes like Frederick Douglass before the WBTS [War Between the States]. Henry David Thoreau protested Indian Removal and the Mexican War. Lincoln also opposed the Mexican War.

Britain and France abolished slavery over White guilt. In France, the Jacobins in the French Revolution even went so far as to make blacks into citizens with equal rights, and dispatched troops to the Caribbean with guillotines to kill the White planters. Blacks were lionized as the saviors of the colonies and the only true republicans in the West Indies. King Leopold II was portrayed as a monster in Britain and was forced to turn over the Congo Free State to Belgium.

Jews are aggravating a preexisting problem for their own selfish purposes. If every Jew in America vanished tomorrow, there would be a lot less White guilt and our situation would markedly improve, but we would still be left with the self righteous hypocritical Yankee holier-than-thous in Congress. [The fact that] Jews control the media isn’t a sufficient explanation: the South opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only the North and West were for it.

While I agree that Jews promote White guilt through the mass media and universities, I disagree that White guilt would disappear if every Jew in America disappeared tomorrow. White guilt has deep roots in Christianity and liberal republican ideology. It goes back to the myth of the noble savage. Again, look up Uncle Tom’s Cabin. See also The Society of the Friends of the Blacks during the French Revolution.


[Back to:]

Alex Linder said…

I think Kevin MacDonald knows [that Holocaust] revisionism is basically right, and he respects the horrors the fact-finders have endured for their pains, but he doesn’t want any more notoriety for himself, so he’s avoiding the matter. And Jeeves Johnson is just following along behind him.

My interpolated comment for this blog:

I think Linder and other commenters at VNN are deceiving themselves on this issue. They simply cannot conceive that a new generation of nationalists might have good reasons for not taking revisionism seriously.

Lew said…

Quite frankly, I am troubled by the extent to which these “white guilt,” “we’re doing it to ourselves,” “Whites are the problem” memes have wormed their way into our conversations.

It’s not as if spreading this poisonous, noxious, ludicrously false idea is without consequences. New people are coming and going to our sites all the time. New people are hitting our sites all the time. The worse things get, the more people will look for answers. A percentage of them will find our communities.

It’s painful to think that new people are coming to our sites, breaking from the mainstream, only to “learn” we’re doing it to ourselves rather than the truth, that none of our problems can be solved because we’re under constant attack by the organized Jewish community.

I discovered Kevin MacDonald’s work because I ran across white nationalists discussing it in the comments on now some defunct forum 11-12 years ago. Today, people are likely to find comments about how we did it to ourselves due to guilt, Christianity, the Enlightenment, altruistic self-punishment, economic greed, comfort, consumerism, apathy or whatever. These people are taking a common sense idea—there are many reasons we are in this situation—and bending, warping and twisting it into an excuse to exonerate Jews, downplay the role of Jews, and put the primary blame on ourselves.

My comment:

Like Linder, Lew is misreading our minds. I for one have absolutely zero wish to “excuse” or “exonerate” the fucking tribe. My motivation is sheer curiosity of the rather complex etiology—a witches’ brew!—of the West’s darkest hour.

Recently I tried to engage Lew outside VNN, at Counter-Currents. Slightly edited, this is what I told him there:

Lew,

Are you aware that the Middle East, Egypt (with blond Pharaohs) and India once harbored considerable Indo-European (“Aryan”) populations; that Greece, Macedonia and Rome were infinitely more Nordish than today (especially Sparta); that the One Ring of greed and power (economics over race) made these Nordics and Mediterraneans misecgenate and eventually mongrelize their progeny with Semitic people, Numbians and other non-whites?

Are you aware that even Portugal was far more homogeneous (“Gothic” i.e. Scandinavian) than the racial mess we see today, with laws that forbade mixing marriages of the “blue blooded” blonds and that, after the Christian ethos took over, they finally mixed their blood with black slaves? Or that we cannot blame jews in a New Spain exclusively ruled by pure whites for the simplest reason that through three centuries jews were ruthlessly persecuted, and even burned at the stake, and that by their own volition the Spaniards—sans jews—ruined their genetic pool with the Indians in this part of America?

You say that “the primary blame” of our current predicament should be “uncontroversial” (the Jewish tribe). Really? It looks like most nationalists have not read Arthur Kemp’s 686-page history of the white race.

When [in a previous comment] I said that deracinated whites have been our worst enemy, I also had in mind the history of how they empowered the Jews in the first place, when dominion of the press by Jews was not complete. It is a textbook case of what William Pierce says:

The “White guilt” syndrome exploited so assiduously by America’s non-White minorities is a product of Christian teachings, as is the perverse reverence for “God’s chosen people” which has paralyzed so many Christians’ wills to resist Jewish depredations.

What bothered me the most while studying 19th century European history of Jewery is the timidity of white Europeans to see the threat that the Jews represented. Nineteenth century whites seemed psychically paralyzed by the new ideas of emancipation and the equality of men that resulted from the Revolution in the previous century.

So these deracinated whites have been Whites’ worst enemy in modern times (not to mention what happened since the Ancient World as I said above). You only have to look at the Constitution of the United States, directly inspired from French “Enlightenment” ideas, to see the damned thing in full light: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And for this egalitarian goals “Governments are instituted” in the pursue of “happiness”: exactly why the tribe has been empowered in modern times by deracinated whites, especially in the United States.

By the way, did you miss our little discussion on this topic at The Occidental Observer a couple of months ago (cf. these chosen comments)? If you click on that link you will see that Franklin Ryckaert summarized my current views better than what I could do at the time.

Fuck America!

“America”—the propositional “nation,” i.e., the egalitarian capitalist system—is the most evil enterprise in human history if it can take a person one generation removed from a proud and healthy people with a strong identity and turn him into a deracinated nihilist like this.

—Greg Johnson

I look forward…

If there’s a moral of the story on the recent debate at The Occidental Observer about the so-called “Holocaust,” that can only be that most white nationalists are cognitively immature. I find it scandalous that I was the only one who linked Greg Johnson’s piece as an important article, as can be ascertained at the bottom of the TOO article (5 trackbacks to “Dealing with the Holocaust”): four trackbacks to this blog and the other one to my nationalist blog in Spanish.

One example of such immaturity is Carolyn Yeager’s recent podcast “Should White Nationalists leave the Holocaust alone?,” where the possibility that millions of Jews could indeed have died as a result of the harsh treatment they received in the Third Reich is not even considered as a remote possibility.

Just contrast most of the nationalists’ dogmatic stance on the “Holocaust” with the intellectual trajectory of David Irving, who a few years ago acknowledged that at least more than two millions of Jews died in the camps (source, National Alliance News):

According to an article in the extremist leftist Guardian newspaper in Britain, historian David Irving has backtracked on his earlier views about the Holocaust myth and now accepts that the Nazis engaged in mass extermination of Jews in certain camps.

Irving says that his views on the Holocaust have crystallized rather than changed. He says that he believes the Jews were responsible for what happened to them during the Second World War and that the “Jewish problem” was responsible for nearly all the wars of the past 100 years: “The Jews are the architects of their own misfortune, but that is the short version A-Z. Between A-Z there are then 24 other characters in intervening steps.”

He says that a document, which he is 80% sure is genuine, suggests that 2.4 million Jews were killed in Poland, but goes on to claim that the gas chamber at Auschwitz was fake. “It was not the centre of the killing operations—it has only become a focus because it is the site that is best preserved. Much of what is shown [to] the tourists there is faked postwar—watchtowers, even the famous gas chamber.”

He added: “In my opinion now the real killing operations took place at the Reinhardt camps west of the Bug river. In the three camps here [Sobibor, Belzec, and Treblinka] Heinrich Himmler’s men (mostly Ukrainian mercenaries) killed possibly as many as 2.4 million in the two years up to October 1943. There is now nothing to be seen of the Reinhardt camps, neither stick nor stone, so few tourists go there. I have visited all four sites earlier this year.”

Pressed as to whether this change undermined his previous stance, Irving replied: “It is a crystallization of my view.” Asked if he now accepts there had been a Holocaust against the Jewish people he said he was “not going to use their trade name.”

He added: “I do accept that the Nazis quite definitely, that Heinrich Himmler, organized and directed a program, a clandestine program, for the liquidation of European Jews… and that in 1942-43 alone over 2.5 million Jews were killed in those three camps.” He added that Hitler was “completely in the dark” about the program.

This of course doesn’t mean that Irving is guilt-tripping whites for what happened in Poland. Like me he’s only concerned with facts and honesty.

I find it pathetic that this Holocaust guilt could have been overcome decades ago by simply pointing to the fact that the Jewish Bolsheviks started the genocide by killing more White civilians than what Himmler did with the Jews as a prophylactic response. If the astronomic amount of time spent by nationalists and non-nationalists in researching paranoid conspiracy theories would have been spent researching real historical facts, like what happened in the Gulag under Stalin’s willing executioners, the tide could have been turned in our favor long ago.

I look forward for a new generation of nationalists who leave behind “Holocaust” denialism, 9/11 and JFK conspiracy theories, monocausalism and even their infatuation with rock music and degenerate, Jew-controlled Hollywood films (yes, this includes Nolan’s silly Batman trilogy that presently is being hysterically praised in some nationalist blogs).

Time to use the spear, not the shield!

The recent exchange between Greg Johnson and Hadding Scott on the Holocaust is proof that at least some revisionists are deceiving themselves. Take a look at this:

A rational person who has agreed to the common understanding of what the word Holocaust means, and has given a little thought to the matter, would have to concede that Anne Frank was a victim [of] a wartime disease epidemic. The same kind of disease epidemic has occurred in many European wars… [—Hadding, way below]

So Hadding is saying that Anne Frank died of a natural cause, typhus epidemics, omitting to say that her body defenses were weakened as a result of being interned at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp!

Enjoy the whole exchange and pay special attention to Hadding’s semantic flim-flam (no ellipsis added between unquoted comments):

♣

Hadding said…

Holocaust revisionism primarily challenges the facts of the Holocaust narrative, usually focusing on death totals and techniques of extermination.

I am not aware of any important revisionist focused, as Greg Johnson says, on quibbling about death-totals. Jews always would like to say that revisionists are just quibbling about numbers, but serious revisionism has a much more radical criticism than that.

Second, Holocaust death totals are never going to be revised to zero.

The position of Professor Robert Faurisson is precisely that the Holocaust death-toll is zero. He is able to say this because he begins by defining the word Holocaust: an alleged program of the German government to kill all of Europe’s Jews. There is no evidence for such a program.

The question of how Jews died is crucial. Jews that died of typhus, like Ann Frank, are not legitimately counted as Holocaust victims, because in their deaths they were not intended victims of any program.

How is the German government supposed to have killed Jews in this program? Usually at least 4 million are claimed to have been killed in gas-chambers, either with HCN gas (Auschwitz-Birkenau) or diesel exhaust (Aktion Reinhardt). The other methods by which Jews are alleged to have been killed, hanging and shooting, cannot be unambiguously represented as part of a program to kill all Jews: when the Einsatzgruppen shot Jews on the Eastern Front in retaliation for guerrilla actions, or Jews in camps were hanged for sabotage, it did not have to be interpreted as the expression of an intention to kill all Jews. The gas-chamber story however is unambiguous. The gas-chamber story therefore is the Holocaust.

Because the gas-chamber story is the Holocaust, we can say that the death-toll of the Holocaust is precisely zero.

You can say that a lot of Jews died during the war (although Mark Weber becomes very irresponsible when he concedes that “millions” lost their lives) but there is not one that can be demonstrated to have been gassed. More to the point: there is no alleged homicidal gas-chamber that withstands forensic scrutiny.

When a criminal accusation has no evidence to support it, when key evidence ostensibly supporting the accusation turns out to be fraudulent, we take the position that the accusation is false.

Greg Johnson said…

Hadding, I deal with your points in section 5 above [Greg refers to his recent featured article at The Occidental Observer], in the third point of the bulleted list. Claiming that the Holocaust did not happen on the basis of a strict definition of the term (the plan to kill all Jews) strikes ordinary people as morally obtuse quibbling about definitions, which ignores the facts that (1) Jews were singled out for especially harsh treatment by the Germans, and (2) countless innocent Jews lost their lives because of that policy. In the end, that is all one need claim to say that the Jews suffered their greatest tragedy at the hands of the Third Reich during World War II. Even if the genocidal intent, the gas chambers, etc. go the way of human soap and lampshades, that fact is never going to disappear, so it is indeed fortunate that the fortunes of White Nationalism do not depend on Holocaust revisionism.

Hadding said…

The principle that a clear discussion has to begin with a clear definition of what is being discussed derives from Socrates and Plato. Staying in the realm of mushy, malleable terms, one can never really resolve anything.

Anybody who thinks that establishing what is to be proven is “morally obtuse quibbling” needs to be excluded from the discussion of adults.

I don’t care that most people’s thought-processes are mush. I am not going to compromise for them. You can’t really win those people anyway, until you control their TV shows. I am interested in the people that are able to think.

And there are White Nationalists who are not Holocaust revisionists. Indeed, there are some who hope that the revisionists are wrong.

I wonder who those people could be? The few such individuals that I have encountered over the years were very crude. To think this way would seem to require the combination of unusual degrees of thoughtlessness and callousness. I imagine such a person to be a low-grade criminal-type.

Is this a type of person whose opinion we should value?

Greg Johnson said…

Hadding, I should have said “normal” people rather than “ordinary” people. Normal people think that reducing the Holocaust death total to zero merely by stipulating a particular definition of the Holocaust is morally obtuse quibbling about definitions.

I think it is morally obtuse quibbling about definitions, which is something different than dealing with historical facts, namely the facts that the Germans singled the Jews out for harsh treatment and that many innocent Jews died because of these policies. That is the worst thing that ever happened to the Jews, and it will continue to be a millstone around our people’s neck until we deal with the real sources of Jewish power and white weakness.

Hadding said…

My view is that H-revisionism is not part of an intellectually sound defense of WN, whatever soundness H-revisionism might possess as a field of historical research.

You’re going to be dragged into that issue whether you want it or not. To respond that it has no relevance because you’ve drawn an imaginary chalk-line that puts Hitler (“Old Right”) on one side and Greg Johnson (“New Right”) on the other is not going to convince anybody, for one thing because nobody, so far as I know, has ever used the term Old Right that way before. Everybody is going to see you as trying to dodge the issue.

Hadding, I should have said “normal” people rather than “ordinary” people. Normal people think that reducing the Holocaust death total to zero merely by stipulating a particular definition of the Holocaust is morally obtuse quibbling about definitions.

Okay so I am abnormal because I demand clarity?

You said what you meant the first time. Ordinary people means people who don’t do much thinking. The Holocaust story has been able to survive largely because people don’t want to think about it. They would rather agree to give the Jews some money to take away the gory pictures than to investigate whether what is being said is valid or not. It is reprehensible that our thinking class has allowed the Jews to get away with this.

Any intelligent discussion of the matter must begin with a definition of what is being discussed. The fact that a typhus casualty like Anne Frank can be passed off as a famous “victim of the Holocaust” shows that failure to think through what is meant by the word Holocaust, i.e. failure to define the term, is a large part of the problem.

If you reject the proposition that terms have to be defined before a rational discussion can occur then I have to ask from what kind of sorry institution you got your doctorate, because, while you are manifestly able to churn out large quantities of verbiage as needed to meet word-counts and term-paper due-dates, the foundation of clear discourse has somehow been neglected.

Greg Johnson said…

RE “not dealing with the Holocaust” or “running away from the Holocaust”: you are begging the question, since I take pains to argue that WNs do need to deal with the Holocaust, but Holocaust revisionism is not the way to do it.

Hadding said…

since I take pains to argue that WNs do need to deal with the Holocaust, but Holocaust revisionism is not the way to do it.

You advocate a lame conservative response, which means not challenging the assumptions, even when you know that they are false. Idealistic people will have only contempt for this.

Greg Johnson said…

Hadding, you need to deal with my arguments rather than simply try to stick negative labels on them.

Hadding said…

Since I explained what I meant by conservative rhetoric (not challenging the enemy’s assumptions) it should be pretty much self-evident that this is an accurate description.

Greg Johnson said…

Hadding, I argued at great length what you label “challenging the enemy’s assumptions” (i.e., Holocaust revisionism) is not a winning hand for white nationalism. You don’t challenge that argument. You just try to hang a negative label on it. Well, if this be conservatism, then I’ll make the most of it, since my argument still stands unchallenged. Really, I am disappointed that you can’t come up with something better than this.

1. The distinction between the New Right and the Old Right is real, not imaginary, so it really does not matter what people who are ignorant or indifferent to truth say about it.

2. Google: Anne Frank Holocaust victim.

About 630,000 results come up. Yet you claim that she was not a Holocaust victim because she did not die in a gas chamber, or because the Germans were not trying to kill every Jew on the planet. Sensible people look at that kind of argument and conclude that they are being flim-flammed.

Hadding said…

Back in 2001, a very well-informed gentleman sat me down to explain Holocaust revisionism. The first words out of his mouth were, “No serious revisionist denies that a very large number of innocent Jews died as a result of the Third Reich’s policy of deporting Jews to concentration camps.” I said, “Stop right there. That’s all I need to hear. I didn’t need to hear any more…

That’s pretty stupid Greg. Now for some “morally obtuse quibbling.”

What is a large number of Jews? What is the relationship between the fact that they were deported and the fact that they died? Was it deliberate or accidental? Is what happened to the Jews in this situation a unique event that deserves a special name like “Holocaust” or was it similar to events that befell various other populations in modern times?

I will also say that the omission of the name of the “very well-informed gentleman” is interesting. Who was that man?

Honestly, Greg, I think you are overly sensitive to Jewish suffering. A man tries to tell you what happened and you say, “Stop right there! That’s all I need to hear!”

You need to “step over” that squeamishness and deal with the fact that what happened to Jews in WWII was not unique or special. It was not an attempt to kill all the Jews. Get your head on straight. Then when somebody mentions the Holocaust you can say with serene confidence, “There was no Holocaust.”

Greg Johnson said…

A “serene confidence” won through self-induced imbecility. I’ll pass.

Hadding said…

What you’ve passed on is putting thought ahead of sentimentality. You’ve passed on thinking like a man.

You pretend to be some kind of ideological kin to Jonathan Bowden but you really didn’t grasp what Bowden meant by “stepping over.” Here’s the passage from his speech, Nietzschean Ideas: it’s a short dialog to demonstrate how one ought to respond to moralizing, followed by a statement about what people usually do instead:

You just say, “Liberalism is moral syphilis, and I’m stepping over it.”
“Well I don’t like the sound of that! You sound like a bit of a Fascist to me!” And I’d say, “There’s nothing wrong with Fascism. Nothing wrong with Fascism at all.”

Everyone now adopts a reverse semiotic and runs against what they actually think in order to convince people that don’t agree with them anyway.

You, Greg Johnson, are doing and advocating the opposite of what Jonathan Bowden advocated, even while copying his phrase and pretending to be influenced by him.

Bowden is “stepping over” liberalism as “moral syphilis,” while you embrace and hang on to your squeamishness and even moralize to others that they should be squeamish too.

Bowden asserts that there is “nothing wrong with Fascism,” while you abuse his expression “stepping over” as a rhetorical excuse for distancing yourself from Fascism because you lack the fortitude to side with Bowden. You lack the fortitude to say that there is nothing wrong with Fascism.

You even engage in the “reverse semiotic,” as Bowden calls it, [for] trying to make our enemies’ rhetoric work for us. If Bowden were here, I think he’d be none too pleased with the pretense that you are implementing his ideas.

Greg Johnson said…

I cite one point by Jonathan Bowden that I agree with, and you pop up citing other points where we disagree, and pretend it is somehow a problem with my position. It really is childish.

I agree with Jonathan on the idea that the primary problem of the Holocaust is moral.

I disagree with him RE Fascism: there’s plenty wrong with historical Fascism. We should maintain what is good in it, but we can do better.

No, I am not running a “reverse semiotic”: I am saying what I really believe. So stop bobbing and weaving and making things up and start dealing with the actual argument.

Hadding said…

You and Bowden are utterly opposite. Bowden puts a high value on thinking and masculinity. You represent dodging issues while using some specious excuse.

You are using a reverse semiotic, for example, when you justify your use of the term Holocaust with Google hits. That is not a result of any thinking on your part. You are not authentic, you are not thinking; instead you are trying to operate within the enemy’s rhetoric and assumptions. That is a reverse semiotic.

Greg Johnson said…

Hadding, I accept your confession of bad faith and inability to deal with my arguments.

Hadding said…

Backhanded insults from Greggy:

1. Hadding is not normal.
2. Hadding is morally obtuse.
3. Hadding has “self-induced imbecility.”
4. Hadding speaks in “bad faith.”
5. Hadding is unable to deal with Greggy’s arguments.

I think I’ve dealt very concisely with your slop. Forgive me for not providing excess verbiage for you to nitpick so that you can distract attention from my core points.

Greg Johnson said…

The Google search is a good tool to determine public opinion. If you ask any of our brainwashed brothers and sisters to name one person who died in the Holocaust, I guarantee Anne Frank would top the list. Since these are the people whose minds Holocaust Revisionists presumable wish to liberate, one needs to know what they think.

Now, imagine what kind of figure Hadding cuts when he says, huffily, that Anne Frank did not die in the Holocaust, because (a) she did not die in a gas chamber and the Holocaust is defined as killing Jews in gas chamber, or (b) there was no Holocaust, because the Holocaust means the attempt to kill all Jews, and the Nazis did not do that.

I submit that anyone who took that sort of tack would be seen, correctly, as a flim-flam man. But let me ask some of the other commentators here: what do you think of Hadding’s tactic? Does it free our people of the burden of Holocaust guilt, or does it make revisionists look bad?

Or do you all just ignore him?

Greg Johnson said…

White guilt and self-punishment induced by the Holocaust is a serious impediment to white survival.

So we have to attack this problem. There are basically two ways to do it.

First, one can attack the Holocaust itself via revisionism.

Second, one can attack the psychological and moral roots of the guilt and self-punishment.

The problem with revisionism is that it cannot revise away the fact that the Germans singled Jews out for harsh treatment and a lot of Jews died as a result. The only thing that can be revised away are the lies and myths told about these events after the fact. But no serious revisionist denies these facts, and those facts are Holocaust enough for Jews to be guilt tripping us until the sun burns out.

Does anybody need any clarification of this argument so far? So we need to attack our susceptibility to the guilt-tripping.

Exposing the nefarious lies told about these facts does not deal with the problem, because the victims did not tell the lies. The survivors did. And the victims will still be pitied, even if the survivors are revealed to be contemptible liars and swindlers.

So again, we need to focus on immunizing ourselves to susceptibility to the guilt-tripping.

Arguing that the word “Holocaust” does not apply to the innocent Jewish casualties of the Third Reich is merely a semantic flim-flam, since all those poor dead Jews are still there tugging at our heart-strings, no matter what we call it, or how they were killed, or the motives for the killings, or the stories told about the killings long after the war—which are the subjects of revisionism.

Even if not a single hair on an innocent Jewish head were harmed in the Third Reich, whites would be guilt-tripping and self-flagellating over slavery, the American Indians, and the passenger pigeon.

So again, we need to deal with the moral and psychological roots of the problem.

Hadding said…

Since this is a swipe specifically directed at me, let me just see if I can give a clearer response than I’ve given already.

Arguing that the word “Holocaust” does not apply to the innocent Jewish casualties of the Third Reich is merely a semantic flim-flam, since all those poor dead Jews are still there tugging at our heart-strings, no matter what we call it…

It’s not about what word is to be used. You’re not grasping at all what is accomplished by defining the word Holocaust before we discuss it. If we define our terms, we gain the possibility of clear discussion. From clear discussion you can get clarification of thoughts, so that people may end up with a radically different understanding of a matter as a result of discussing it.

Most people think that “Holocaust” means the attempt by the German government to kill all the Jews. In particular, they understand this to mean killing with gas-chambers. That definition has implications. We can reasonably ask whether various aspects of what passes for the Holocaust make sense under that definition.

How does a typhus epidemic make sense as part of a government’s attempt to kill all the Jews, when the epidemic could not be limited to Jews? A rational person who has agreed to the common understanding of what the word Holocaust means, and has given a little thought to the matter, would have to concede that Anne Frank was a victim a wartime disease epidemic. The same kind of disease epidemic has occurred in many European wars, as far back as the Great Plague of Athens in the Peloponnesian War. But death in a disease-epidemic is really not what we mean we say “the Holocaust.”

What has been more powerful than any other piece of “evidence” in securing popular belief in the Holocaust have been the films and images of emaciated people, dead and alive, from concentration camps captured by the Western Allies. Then you find out that the places where those films were made are no longer claimed to have been killing centers, and that what the images show is the effect of a typhus epidemic. So, since we have defined the term Holocaust as a deliberate attempt to kill all the Jews, we suddenly find that what has convinced most people that the Holocaust occurred is really not evidence for it at all. Those images have been used as spurious evidence to convince the public that the Holocaust story, specifically the gas-chamber story, was true, when a little bit of information and rational consideration reveals that they prove no such thing.

A reasonable person at this point may understand that he has seen essentially no evidence for this claim called “the Holocaust” that he always accepted as true.

Definition of terms is the prerequisite for clear discourse. Sometimes when you clarify the meaning of a word and compare the meaning to specific examples, you find out that what the word was supposed to signify doesn’t exist. This is not “flim-flam”: this is philosophy.

Greg Johnson said…

[responding to another commenter]

1. Yes, I argue that “Whites should concede that Jews suffered during World War II.” It is true, and no serious revisionist denies it, and that is all Jews need to keep playing violins and tugging at the heartstrings of morbidly conscientious whites until we cease to exist.

2. You then state:

“then you go on to believe that this warrants the continued application of ‘The Holocaust’, as if there was something exceptional about Jewish suffering and as if among all of the peoples that suffered in that war, they are so clearly individuated as a people as to warrant the dignity of a separate name and distinct narrative for their experience.”

I think there is a major confusion here.

First, I will charitably assume that, unlike Hadding, you are not merely objecting to the term “the Holocaust” and pretending that such autistic semantic quibbles matter.

Second, the major point of my article is that Whites need to stop caring so much about dead Jews. We need to stop thinking like Jews (i.e., in a Judeo-centric way) and come up with a white-centered perspective on genocide, because whites are being destroyed right now by soft, cold genocide. Moreover, Jews are the major architects of that genocide. Jews have (and continue) to subject whites to genocide on a far larger scale than anything that happened to the Jews in WW II. Once we start thinking that way, we are immune to the Holocaust guilt trip.

Third, everything is unique metaphysically speaking. But everything is also comparable to everything else. Jews insist that the Holocaust is both unique (which is trivially true) and incommensurable (which is false). That is just a projection of Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism, which the rest of humanity needs to identify and reject. Jews can sell this absurdity because they have the power and money to do so. We need to immunize our people so they stop buying it.

3. You are misrepresenting my views on Israel. Philosophically speaking, if ethnonationalism is true and good, it applies to Jews too. I think we need to be consistent and principled on that point.

But that does not imply any sort of political support of Israel: no aid, no alliances, nothing. Of course it doesn’t exclude them either. For it is conceivable that a WN state might find such things to be in their interests (really in their interests).

As for any relations between WNs today and Jews: I make it very clear that the European nationalists who suck up to Jews are fools who are being played. Jews are the most powerful people on the planet. White nationalists have no power at all. Nobody makes alliances with the powerless. So when Jews try to establish friendly ties with White Nationalists, there can be only one agenda: the subversion of White Nationalism.

Hadding said…

First, I will charitably assume that, unlike Hadding, you are not merely objecting to the term “the Holocaust”…

I have explained very clearly that this is not what I am about. I define terms so that they can be discussed intelligently.

This accusation of merely trying to change what things are called as a kind of “flim-flam” is really projection on your part.

♣

Read the 500+ responses to Greg Johnson’s piece at TOO here.

As to whether or not millions of Jews died as a result of the “harsh treatment” they received in the Third Reich, this is my strategy: Stop using revisionism as a shield against the Jews’ accusations (“I didn’t do it!”). Use your spear instead (“You started the massive killing of white civilians, fucking kikes!”). As explained in my response to Greg in the above-linked thread:

So we need to rethink the issue and find a new way. [—Greg Johnson]

The “new way” is so obvious. Forget revising the Holocaust story. Focus on what the Jews actually did: Yagoda killed more innocent people than those attributed to Himmler.

As someone who used to comment at TOO [Wandrin] has said: Hitler didn’t win an electoral majority. He won most seats and was given the Chancellorship by the German elite in 1933: the year after the Jewish Bolsheviks deliberately starved six million Ukrainians to death. Can there be any real doubt that the threat of the Bolshevik terror influenced both the German voters and the decision to give Hitler the Chancellorship? Why isn’t this taught in the schools?

Tens of millions killed in the first industrial scale mass murder in history from 1917 onwards—the Red Terror and War Communism under Lenin and Trotsky’s leadership long before Stalin—culminating in the deliberate starvation of six million Ukrainians in 1932 as revenge for past anti-Jewish pogroms. Why isn’t this taught in the schools?

Trillions of dollars and millions of man-hours have gone into creating a global memorial to the Holocaust—films, books, indoctrination of millions of school children, countless museums—and absolutely nothing to commemerate the tens of millions murdered by the Jewish Bolsheviks? Not only a Holocaust in its own right but the primary cause of the subsequent Fascist reaction they say came out of inherent evil of the Aryan nature: a position that would be impossible to sustain if Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik holocaust was more widely known.

So, compare and contrast the collective memorial to the Jewish dead with the collective non-memorial to the non-Jewish dead and you have Talmudic morality caught in the headlights.

Every single penny they spent on building Holocaustianity then works for us. Every film, every book, every museum highlights their denial of the Bolshevik holocaust and the value they place on non-Jewish dead: Zero.

Use this to destroy their moral authority first and then their power to enforce taboos…

Time to use the spear, not the shield!

Greg Johnson & Andrew Hamilton on William Pierce

William Pierce died ten years ago today. Pierce was an immensely influential and intensely polarizing figure. But ten years should be long enough for passions to cool and reflections to ripen. Thus to commemorate his passing we are publishing several articles this week which, we hope, will encourage a greater appreciation of his contributions to White Nationalism.

I also wish to draw your attention to some of Pierce’s best writings which I have reprinted on this website:

1.- “Conservatism or Radicalism?”

2.- “Dostoyevsky on the Jews”

3.- “Elites vs. Masses”

4.- “Rudyard Kipling: The White Man’s Poet”

5.- “The Measure of Greatness”

6.- “Miscegenation: The Morality of Death”

7.- “On Christianity”

8.- “On Liberty”

9.- “Our Cause”

10.- “Racethink”

11.- “Rockwell: A National Socialist Life”

12.- “The Roots of Civilization”

13.- “What is Racism?”

14.- “Why Conservatives Can’t Win”

15.- “Why the West Will Go Under”

Personal Reflections 

I first encountered William Pierce’s writings in 2000. I believe that I first heard his name in March in connection to Savitri Devi: As editor of National Socialist World, Pierce created an abridgement of The Lightning and the Sun for the first issue. In later issues, he published excerpts from Gold in the Furnace and Defiance.

Some time later, on April 22, 2000, I purchased The Turner Diaries and Hunter from Dent Myers at his Wildman’s Shop in Kennesaw, Georgia. Frankly, I found them repulsive, The Turner Diaries in particular. Pierce may have been inspired by National Socialism, but his model of revolution was pure Lenin and his model of government pure Stalin. If he had the power, he would have killed more people than Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot combined. He epitomizes everything about the Old Right model that I reject: one party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide. At the time, I remarked that as a novelist and political theorist Pierce was a first rate physicist.

I regarded him as a monster…

Read it all!

♣

William Pierce, the founder and head of the National Alliance, was a singularly important ideologist, organizer, and leader in the white nationalist movement.

His energy, commitment, drive, intelligence, and—given the sinister forces arrayed against us—accomplishments, are truly remarkable. Like George Lincoln Rockwell, David Duke, and a few others, he was a Superman. It is difficult to comprehend the powerful life force and capabilities such men incarnate.

Pierce was a prolific author. A collected edition of his writings, including personal correspondence and speeches, would run to many, many volumes.

Most of his enormous output was not in the form of books, however, but rather essays, articles, organizational guides, membership bulletins, speeches, correspondence, and weekly American Dissident Voices radio/Internet broadcasts.

His written work is thus highly fragmented, scattered, and not easily accessible in one or a few books. His enormous contribution to the cause of white survival will suffer greatly as a result, disappearing down the memory hole in relatively short order.

It is crucial that we build upon the past accomplishments of our best thinkers rather than continuously striving to reinvent the wheel every generation as people die, are murdered, jailed, or otherwise silenced.

There are five extended works by Pierce, two (or perhaps three) of which are effectively unavailable.

His two novels, The Turner Diaries (1978) and Hunter (1989).

A historical overview of the white race called Who We Are, originally published as a series of articles in National Vanguard tabloid (May 1978-May 1982) before it switched to magazine format.

This series has never been published in book form. Several years ago the National Alliance announced plans to issue such a volume, but it did not materialize. The series can be found in electronic format on a handful of websites. (See, e.g., the 225-page PDF version here and an HTML version here.)

As a consequence, Who We Are has probably been read by only a handful of people who followed every installment in the tabloid thirty years ago, and a few enterprising contemporaries inclined to read online books in an inconvenient electronic format. Of course, potential readers also need to know the book exists, and possess a desire to read it.

To these volumes must be added the underappreciated anthology The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard Tabloid, 1970-1982 (1984) compiled by former National Alliance member Kevin Alfred Strom. It is a fascinating, indispensable book that is historically significant and substantively engaging. Virtually the entire contents were written by Pierce, with the exception of a few major articles by Ted O’Keefe and others.

Unfortunately, the volume is out of print. A new copy currently sells for $258 on Amazon. Four used copies are more reasonably priced, ranging from $66-$133. A PDF copy of the book is available online, but the file is very large and difficult to read.

Finally, there is the National Alliance Membership Handbook, which is not publicly available.

Other than these works, Pierce’s vast output, which, though multifaceted, is nevertheless highly coherent, exists only in fragmented form. It is impossible to grasp holistically unless the reader is already thoroughly familiar with the man and his work—which, of course, most people are not.

These facts, coupled with Jewish and government obsession with the two novels, particularly The Turner Diaries, tend to give Pierce’s fiction a larger place in his oeuvre than it objectively warrants.

The Novels

Had I discovered his novels first, I doubt that I would ever have explored the main body of his work. Still, the novels are instructive.

First, they constitute an important element of Pierce’s overall production and are perhaps more widely known, possibly even more widely read, than the bulk of his work.

I do believe that the most important people who have been intellectually influenced by Pierce were primarily drawn to his other writings. The novels, however, were especially influential among radical activists.

Second, I was greatly surprised to discover soon after I read them how popular the books were. I would never have guessed that. Whites are psychologically very heterogeneous compared to Jews, who have been likened to a hive or, more flatteringly, a “herd of independent minds”—emphasis on herd.

Third, and most importantly, the novels provide a window into Pierce’s true psychology and values that cannot be obtained from his nonfiction, no matter how angry or violent the rhetoric sometimes is.

My initial reaction to the novels was puzzlement as to why the Jews and government wanted to censor them, or even close normal channels of marketing and distribution to them.

To me, the books were self-refuting. I naively assumed other readers would feel the same way. I thought the author had shot himself, and his cause, in the foot, so to speak.

I was certainly wrong about that. So that was a valuable lesson to learn as well.

Not everyone thinks alike…

Read it all!