Painting of the day:
The Lictors Bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons ~ 1789
Greg Johnson on the Holocaust:
1. White Nationalists need to deal with the Holocaust just as we need to deal with the Jewish Question in general.
It is futile to focus on White advocacy alone and ignore the Jews. Quite simply, the Jews will not return the favor. You might not pick Jews as the enemy, but they will pick you. You might wish to see Jews as Whites, but Jews see themselves as a distinct people. Thus they see any nationalism but their own as a threat.
2. It is futile for White Nationalists to ignore the Holocaust, for the Holocaust is one of the principal tools by which Jews seek to stigmatize White ethnic pride and self-assertion. As soon as a White person expresses the barest inkling of nationalism or racial consciousness, he will be asked “What about the Holocaust? You’re not defending genocide, are you?”
The Holocaust is specifically a weapon of moral intimidation. It is routinely put forward as the worst thing that has ever happened, the world’s supreme evil. Anybody who would defend it, or anything connected to it, is therefore evil by association. The Holocaust is evoked to cast uppity Whites into the world’s deepest moral pit, from which they will have to extricate themselves before they can say another word. And that word had better be an apology. To borrow a turn of phrase from Jonathan Bowden, the Holocaust is a moral “cloud” over the heads of Whites.
So how can White Nationalists dispel that cloud? We need an answer to the Holocaust question. As a New Rightist, the short answer is simply this: the New Right stands for ethnonationalism for all peoples—what Frank Salter terms “universal nationalism.” We believe that this idea can become hegemonic through the transformation of culture and consciousness. We believe that it can be achieved by peaceful territorial divisions and population transfers. Thus we retain the values, aims, and intellectual framework of the Old Right. Where we differ is that we reject Old Right party politics, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide.
The idea of ethnonationalism is true and good, regardless of the real and imagined crimes, mistakes, and misfortunes of the Old Right. Thus we feel no need to “deny,” minimize, or revise the Holocaust, just as the New Left felt no need to tie its projects to “Gulag revisionism.”
However, I must take issue with Johnson’s “We believe that it can be achieved by peaceful territorial divisions and population transfers.” Besides the fact that lots of Jews were very probably murdered in the Second World War the following is what, like the ostriches, most nationalists are still unwilling to see:
1. The dollar will crash soon
2. With all probability the crash will cause high-rocketing unemployment, riots, looting and eventually famine in some places
3. Unlike New Orleans after Katrina, the tension won’t be solved soon after the crash. On the contrary: racial tension in the most ethnically “enriched” cities will escalate throughout the US
4. To boot, in due time the racial clash will converge with a peak oil crisis that, by the end of the century, has a chance of killing the surplus of worldwide population created as a result of quixotic Christian ethics (“Billions Will Die—We Will Win!”)
The reason I believe that most nationalists’ reactionary, non-revolutionary stance hides the head in the sand is because in the coming tribulation very few will care about “totalitarianism, imperialism or genocide” as the bourgeoisie of today care. With all probability, during the convergence of catastrophes nationalists will be ruthless survivors committed to the 14 words and no more to Christian ethics. As I put it elsewhere, “the future is for the bloodthirsty, not for the Alt Righters.”
Granted: Johnson’s piece is otherwise excellent, a must-read for conservative nationalists who are still struggling with guilt and anti-white sentiments inculcated by the tribe. But unlike Johnson and the other ostriches I agree with Mark that the situation for our people is so dire that, with the help of Mother Nature, only a scorched-Earth policy has any chance of success. This is why these days I am reproducing, and will continue to reproduce, the articles of William Pierce: the only intellectual who has dared to write openly and unabashedly about exterminationist pro-whitism—exterminationism with or without the help of Nature.
Even those nationalists who very strongly disagree with us on moral grounds ought to open their minds. They have closed minds because they still have to live for decades in a city plagued with non-white swarms and almost no whites (as I have). You must open your minds about the coming collapse of the dollar and the subsequent peak-oil crisis. Please take your heads off the sand! After all, any of this could potentially unleash a racial crisis of truly biblical proportions even considered as an independent factor. I believe Guillaume Faye will be proven right: the convergence of catastrophes will mark “the metamorphic rebirth of Europe or its disappearance and transformation into a cosmopolitan and sterile Luna Park.”
Johnson and the rest of nationalists who are unwilling to see the storm that is coming are like the tender-hearted women who lie weeping and mourning, awaiting the results of the coming fighting in Jacques-Louis David’s Oath of the Horatii:
We on the other hand are like the three brothers expressing loyalty and solidarity with Rome before battle, wholly supported by the father and willing to sacrifice our lives (and millions, if not billions of other lives) for the good of our people.
Will be a century of iron and storms. It will not resemble those harmonious futures predicted up to the 1970s. It will not be the global village prophesied by Marshall MacLuhan in 1966, or Bill Gates’ planetary network, or Francis Fukuyama’s end of history: a liberal global civilization directed by a universal state.
The Third Age of European Civilization commences, in a tragic acceleration of the historical process, with the Treaty of Versailles and end of the civil war of 1914-18: the catastrophic twentieth century. Four generations were enough to undo the labor of more than forty. Europe fell victim to its own tragic Prometheanism, its own opening to the world and universalism, oblivious of all ethnic solidarity.
The Fourth Age of European civilization begins today. It will be the Age of rebirth or perdition. The twenty-first century will be for this civilization, the fateful century, the century of life or death.
Let us cultivate the pessimistic optimism of Nietzsche. “There is no more order to conserve; it is necessary to create a new one.” Will the beginning of the twenty-first century be difficult? Are all the indicators in the red? So much the better. They predicted the end of history after the collapse of the USSR? We wish to speed its return: thunderous, bellicose, and archaic. Islam resumes its wars of conquest. China and India wish to become superpowers. And so forth. The twenty-first century will be placed under the double sign of Mars, the god of war, and of Hephaestus, the god who forges swords, the master of technology and the chthonic fires. This century will be that of the metamorphic rebirth of Europe, like the Phoenix, or of its disappearance as a historical civilization and its transformation into a cosmopolitan and sterile Luna Park.
The beginning of twenty-first century will be the despairing midnight of the world of which Hölderlin spoke. But it is always darkest before the dawn. Let us prepare our children for war. Let us educate our youth, be it only a minority, as a new aristocracy.
Today we need more than morality. We need hypermorality, the Nietzschean ethics of difficult times. When one defends one’s people, i.e., one’s own children, one defends the essential. Then one follows the rule of Agamemnon and Leonidas but also of Charles Martel: what prevails is the law of the sword, whose bronze or steel reflects the glare of the sun.
“…because you would have acted to assure your worthiness even if none of them are actually your children.”
A comment by Greg Johnson in the latest C-C thread of Roger Devlin’s splendid series of articles against feminism encapsulates my hard-ethos recipe of what frustrated young males ought to do in face of the degenerated marketplace for women:
Here is my suggestion: Stop worrying about happiness and start thinking in terms of duty. Work to make the world a better place. That makes you worthy of happiness, even though you might not have the external conditions to actually be happy.
But — and here we verge on something that tempts us to “metaphysical” explanations — when I stopped worrying about happiness and started focusing on duty, I found that I ended up being happier anyway, while I was unhappier when I was more worried about being happy.
One explanation for this is the fact that happiness requires external conditions that are not under our control, including the cooperation of others, whereas doing the right thing is more under our control. Thus people who focus on happiness tend to be stressed out trying to control people and contingencies that are outside their control, and they usually do it at the expense of their own worthiness to be happy, because results oriented people tend to be unscrupulous, which corrupts their characters.
People who focus more on their character make themselves worthy of happiness and also more capable of seizing it when events align in their favor, because good character, virtue, is a form of strength, of capacity to act.
Here is another consideration: What Evola calls Uranian masculinity, true spiritual virility, is a matter of commitment to higher ideals, including the perfection of one’s character. Being concerned with happiness all the time — one’s feelings — is self-defeating and unmanly.
Now, there are women who respond to true Uranian masculinity. Men who do not seem to need women, who think there is something higher and more important in life, are actually more attractive to women than men who are womanizers. Most women despise other women (sexual competition). And they despise any man who puts too great a store in other women.
Savitri Devi said she could not love a man who loved her more than he loved his ideals. And I know other women like this in the WN world today — women who are also young, attractive, and unmarried — and committed to the same goals they would like their men to pursue.
In my piece about the Woman Question, my recommendation is that the movement as a whole (which is now predominantly male) should focus on our ideals and goals, and when the movement begins to make progress, women will join it.
The same goes for individual men: focus on your higher goals and ideals first, and the right kind of woman might very well take an interest. And if she does not come along, well, in the sex department you would be no worse off than if you swore off dating simply out of the frustrated pursuit of happiness.
And morally speaking, you would be far better off, because you would have acted to assure your worthiness of being happy and to fulfill the highest masculine duty, which is to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children, even if none of them are actually your children.