“Liberalism, [Anthony Ludovici] avers, by exhausting itself on the least able and weakest, by elevating pity to a virtue out of envy for the able, had saddled the economy with a welfare state that encourages the proliferation of criminals and idle imbeciles…”
Source: The Occidental Observer
Further to my previous post.
Since The Occidental Observer (TOO) has just closed all comments in all threads, the idea has occurred to me that, starting tomorrow, I might repost the coming TOO articles in the Addendum to the West’s Darkest Hour.
Reposting those articles there would work like a relief valve for those willing to compliment, or take issue, with TOO’s authors.
Of course: when TOO accepts comments again I will stop reposting.
Thoughts?
Or:
The stolen soul back to the Aryan body
The Occidental Observer (TOO) has just closed what seems to be the last thread where people were still commenting after Dr. Kevin MacDonald decided to close comments, presumably because he has no time to monitor all the threads. I could not even reply to a question raised by the article’s author herself (but I would be glad to respond here, in the comments section).
Since my last posts at WDH dealt with German people carrying an enormous weight of guilt—a false sense of guilt insofar as the system hid from them both the First and the Third Acts of WW2 opera, to use the metaphor of one of my recent posts—, it seems pertinent to quote some inspiring words that Heike, a German woman, posted just before the comments were closed:
Du sollst an Deutschlands Zukunft glauben,
An deines Volkes Auferstehen.
Lass diesen Glauben dir nicht rauben,
Trotz allem, allem was geschehen.
English translation:
You must believe in the future of Germany,
In your people’s resurrection.
Let this faith you do not rob,
Despite everything, everything done.
—Albert Matthäi
The following was my last comment at TOO. Addressing Heike I wrote (the italicized paragraph are her words):
Thank you for your kind words.
Those that hate being German and try to destroy everything German are in a coma. You know, people in a coma have a chance of waking up—though uncommon, especially after such a long time of being in one.
Like the Romantics of Woodsworth’s age, I spend lots of time in long walks. One of the things that I have told me over and over during those walks is that the Aryan people are like Sirius Black in the Harry Potter film when Black was unconscious after being attacked by the Dementors. [“Dementors” = the Second Act of the WW2 “opera”—Holocaustianity] Before Harry sees a distant figure cast a powerful Patronus, Black is having his soul sucked out his mouth in the form of a small, glowing, white dot. Following medieval imagery, after the Patronus charm the white dot returns inside Black’s mouth.
[YouTube clip: here]
Harry’s invocation of the Patronus later on the film is the climax of this movie for kids. And it is exactly what the Germanic peoples need: a powerful spell to bring their stolen souls back to their bodies.
I believe this can be done by conveying the Holodomor and Hellstorm message through the spoken word…
“Mental AIDS” is the collapse of a people’s immune system in the face of their enemies. Practically all whites throughout the West suffer from mental AIDS insofar as they are not defending their sacred lands against an invasion of millions of non-whites. However, some white nationalists get mad when hearing the expression “suicide” as a value judgment about the pathological passivity among present-day whites. Most nationalists speak, instead, of “homicide”: the Jews being the primary infection that infected the white soul.
But what if they are a secondary infection? After all, the white people contracted Christianity (HIV) in the 4th century, which after a long incubation period eventually developed into liberalism (AIDS) during the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Liberalism, or Neochristianity as I like to call it, weakened the West’s immune system. After Napoleon, Neochristians opened the door to the subversive tribe throughout continental Europe—Jews—: a “mental AIDS”-related opportunistic infection, such as pneumonia is an infection of the somatic equivalent of AIDS.
See the HIV link above. If Christianity and its secular offshoots are massively involved in the West’s darkest hour, and I cannot conceive a biggest blunder than emancipating the Jew, why not start diagnosing the situation as “assisted suicide,” with the Jew only being too happy to comply the deranged Neochristian’s will to bring about his own death?
I am not alone in this apparently wild opinion. Below, my abridgment of Tom Sunic’s “Race and Religion: Awkward Friends of the White Man,” published in three parts at The Occidental Observer:
♣
Regardless how much empirical artillery one can muster in defence of the uniqueness of the White gene pool, and regardless of how many facts one can enumerate that point to diverse intellectual achievements of different races, no such evidence will elicit social or academic approval. In fact, if loudly uttered, the evidence may be considered a felony in some Western countries. In our so-called free and secular society, new religions, such as the religion of racial promiscuity and the theology of the free market have replaced the old Christian belief system. Only when these new secular dogmas or political theologies start crumbling down—which may soon be the case—alternative views about race and the meaning of the sacred may appear.
The historical irony is that it was not the Other, i.e. the non-White, who invented the arsenal of bashing the White man. It was the White man himself—both with his Christian atonement and now with his liberal expiation of the feelings of guilt.
Alain de Benoist writes that liberalism has been a racist system par excellence. In the late 19th century, it preached exclusive racism. Now, in the 21st century it preaches inclusive racism. By herding non European races from all over the world into a rootless a-racial and a-historical agnostic consumer society and by preaching ecumenical miscegenation, the West nonetheless holds its undisputed role of a truth maker—of course, this time around under the auspices of the self-hating, self-flagellating White male.
It must be stated that it was not the Colored, but the White man who had crafted the ideology of self-denial and the concomitant ideology of universal human rights, as well as the ideas of interracial promiscuity. Therefore, any modest scholarly argument suggesting proofs of racial inequality is untenable today. How can one persuasively argue about the existence of different races if the modern system lexically, conceptually, scientifically, ideologically, theologically, and last, but not least, judicially, forbids the slightest idea of race segregation—except when it evokes skin-deep exotic escapades into musical and culinary prowess of non-European races?
Most American White nationalists use Thomas Jefferson as their patron saint, frequently associating his name with “good old times” of the American Declaration of Independence. Those were the times when the White man was indeed in command of his destiny. The White founding fathers stated:
“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.”
Yet the abstract words “all men” combined with the invocation of a deistic and distant “creator” had a specific significance in the mind of Enlightenment-groomed Jefferson. Two hundred years later, however, his words ring a different bell in the ears of a real Muslim Somali or a Catholic Cholo planning to move to the United States.
Wailing and whining that “Jefferson did not mean this; he meant that”—is a waste of time. The American Declaration bears witness to the classical cleavage between the former signifier and the modern signified which has become the subject of its own semantic sliding—with ominous consequences for Whites worldwide.
Contemporary geneticists and biologists are no less vulnerable than philosophers and sociologists to dominant political theologies. What was considered scientific during the first part of the 20th century in Europe and the United States by many prominent scholars writing about race is viewed today as preposterous and criminal. The dominant dogma idea of egalitarianism must give its final blessing in explaining or explaining away any scientific discovery.
Although the field of the former Soviet social sciences is considered today as quackery, its egalitarian, Marxist residue of omnipotent inheritance of acquired characteristics is religiously pursued by the post-Christian, neoliberal capitalist West. In layman’s terms, this means that the floodgates for mass immigration of non-Europeans must be kept wide open. Racial promiscuity and miscegenation must be enforced. It is science! It is the law!
As in the ex-Soviet Union, the dominant theology of egalitarianism and TV shows incessantly role-modeling interracial sex only accelerate the culture of mediocrity and the culture of death.
European and American history has been full of highly intelligent individuals endorsing abnormal religious and political beliefs. This is particularly true for many temporary White European and American left-leaning academics who, although showing high IQ, are narrow-minded, spineless individuals of no integrity, or race traitors of dubious character. Low IQ Cholos or affirmative action Blacks are just happy pawns in their conspiratorial and suicidal game.
[White suicide]
The pristine, pastoral and puerile picture of the White race, so dearly longed for by modern White nationalists, is daily belied by permanent religious bickering, jealousy and character smearing within the White rank and file. Add to that murderous intra-White wars that have rocked Europe and America for centuries, one wonders whether the proverbial and much vaunted Aryan, Promethean, and Faustian man, is worthy of a better future.
Surely, the White man saved Greco-Roman Europe from the Levantine Hannibal’s incursion, which nearly resulted in a catastrophe in 216 b.c. at Cannae, in southern Italy. The White man also stopped Attila’s Hunic hordes on the Catalaunian Fields in France in 451 a.d. The grandfather of Charlemagne, Charles Martel, defeated Arab predators near Tours, in France in 732. One thousand years later in 1717, a short and slim Italo-French Catholic hero, Prince Eugene of Savoy, finally removed the Islamic threat from the Balkans.
But… the power of the newly discovered universal religion and the expectancy of the “end of history,” later to be followed by bizarre beliefs in “global democracy,” often eclipsed racial awareness among Whites. As a rule, when White princes ran out of Muslim or Jewish infidels—they began whacking each other in the name of their Semitic deities or latter day democracies. The 6’4” tall Charlemagne, in the name of his anticipated Christian bliss, went on the killing spree against his fellow pagan Germans. In 782 a.d. he decapitated several thousand of the finest crop of Nordic Saxons, thereby earning himself a saintly name of the “butcher of the Saxons” (Sachsenschlächter).
[I wish that Sunic had mentioned how Julius Caesar ordered the massacre of the 40,000 inhabitants of Avaricum during the Gaul wars; how this monster destroyed 800 towns and enslaved millions of Celts; how “hundreds of thousands of blond, blue-eyed Celtic girls were marched south to be pawed by Semitic flesh merchants” in Rome’s slave markets. Also, in 408 a.d. the Romans, in all the Italian cities, butchered the wives and children of their German allies—60,000 of them.]
And on and on the story goes with true Christian or true democracy believers. No Jews, no Arabs, no communists have done so much damage to the White gene pool as Whites themselves. The Thirty Years War (1617–1647) fought amidst European Christians with utmost savagery, wiped out two thirds of the finest German racial stock, over 6 million people. The crazed papist Croatian mercenaries, under Wallenstein’s command, considered it a Royal and Catholic duty to kill off Lutherans, a dark period so well described by the great German poet and dramatist Friedrich Schiller. Even today in Europe the words “Croat years” (Kroatenjahre) are associated with the years of hunger and pestilence.
Nor did Oliver Cromwell’s troops—his Ironsides—during the English civil war, fare much better. Surely, as brave Puritans they did not drink, they did not whore, they did not gamble—they only specialized in skinning Irish Catholic peasants alive. Not only did their chief, the Nordic looking fanatic Cromwell consider himself more Jewish than the Jews—he actually brought them back from continental Europe, with far-reaching consequence both for England and America.
A slim, intelligent, Nordic looking, yet emotionally unstable manic depressive, William Sherman, burnt down Atlanta in 1864—probably in the hopes of fostering a better brand of democracy for the South. We may also probe some day into the paleocortex of the Nordic skull of an airborne Midwest Christian ex-choir boy, who joyfully dropped firebombs on German civilians during WWII.
The faith or the sacred?
No subject is so dangerous to address among White nationalists as the Christian religion. It is commendable to lambast Muslims, who are on the respectable hit-parade of the Axis of Evil. Jews also come in handy in a wholesale package of evil, which needs to be expiated—at least occasionally. But any critical examination of Judeo-Christian intolerance is viewed with suspicion and usually attributed to distinct groups of White people, such as agnostics or modern day self-proclaimed pagans.
Why did the White man accept the Semitic spiritual baggage of Christianity even though it did not quite fit with his racial-spiritual endowments? The unavoidable racialist thinker Hans Günther—a man of staggering erudition and knowledgeable not only of the laws of heredity, but also of comparative religions—reminds us that the submissive and slavish relation of man to God is especially characteristic of Semitic peoples. In his important little book, The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans, he teaches us about the main aspects of racial psychology of old Europeans. We also learn that Yahweh is a merciless totalitarian god who must be revered—and feared.
The messianic, chiliastic, or “communistic” mindset was unknown among ancient Europeans. They could not care less which gods other races, other tribes or other peoples believed in. Wars that they fought against the adversary were bloody, but they did not have the goal of converting the adversary and imposing on him the beliefs contrary to his racial heritage. Homer’s epic The Iliad is the best example. The self-serving, yet truly racist liberal-communistic endeavour, to wage “final and just war” in order to “make the world safe for democracy,” was something inconceivable for ancient Europeans.
A German-British racialist author of the early 20th century, Houston Stewart Chamberlain in his The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century writes that “a final judgment shows the intellectual renaissance to be the work of Race in opposition to the universal Church which knows no Race” (p. 326). Unlike Christianity, which preaches individual salvation, for ancient Europeans life can only have a meaning within the in-group—their tribe, their polis, or their civitas. Outside those social structures, life means nothing.
In the 1st century, words of far-reaching consequence for all Whites were pronounced by a Jewish heretic, the Apostle St. Paul, to the people of Galatia, an area in Asia Minor once populated by the Gauls (i.e., Celts). Galatia was then well underway to become a case study of multicultural debauchery—similar to today’s Los Angeles:
“You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28).
Christianity became thus a Universalist religion with a special mission to transform the Other into the Same. The seeds of egalitarianism—albeit on the religious, not yet on the secular level—were sown.
Although Christian Churches never publicly endorsed racial miscegenation, they did not endorse racial segregation either. This was true for the Catholic Church and its flock, as observed by the early French sociologist and racialist Gustave Le Bon. Consequently, Catholic Spaniards of White racial stock in Latin America could not halt decadence and debauchery in their new homelands as WASPs in North America did.
Later, in 1938, in light of eugenic and racial laws adopted not only in Germany and Italy, but also in other European countries and many states in America, Pope Pius IX made his famous statement: “It is forgotten that mankind is one large and overwhelming Catholic race.” This statement was to become part of his planned encyclical under the name The Unity of the Human Race.
“The unity of the human race”, as noble as these words may sound, is a highly abstract concept. On a secular level communist and liberal intellectuals constantly toy with it—in order to suppress real tribes, real nations, real peoples and their real racial uniqueness.
The folly of the compound noun: “anti-Semitism”
Civil religions also have their holy shrines, their holy relics, their pontiffs, their canons, their promises and their menaces. Failure to believe in them—or failure to at least pretend to believe in them—results, as a legal scholar of Catholic persuasion, Carl Schmitt wrote, in a heretic’s removal from the category of human beings. Among new civil religions one could enumerate the religion of multiculturalism, the religion of antifascism, the religion of the Holocaust, and the religion of economic progress.
Many Whites make a fundamental mistake when they portray new civil religions as part of an organized conspiracy of a small number of wicked people. In essence, civil religions are just secular transpositions of the Judeo-Christian monotheist mindset which, when combined with an inborn sense of tolerance and congenial naïveté of the White people, makes them susceptible to their enchanting effects.
As a result of semantic sliding of political concepts, the Jewish-born thinker and the father of the secular religion of communism, Karl Marx, would likely be charged today with “anti-Semitism” or the “incitement to racial hatred.” Leftist scholars usually do not wish to subject his little booklet, On the Jewish Question (1844) to critical analysis. Consider the following:
The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.
Of particular significance is Marx’ last sentence “insofar as the Christians have become Jews.” In fact the White man has “jewified” himself by embracing the fundaments of the Jewish belief system, which, paradoxically, he uses now in criticizing Jews.
Christian anti-Semitism can be described, therefore, as a peculiar form of neurosis. Christian anti-Semites resent the Jews while mimicking the framework of resentment borrowed from Jews. Accordingly, even the Jewish god Yahweh was destined to become the anti-Semitic God of White Christians! In the name of this God, persecutions against Jews were conducted by White non-Jews. Simply put, the White non-Jew has been denying for centuries to the Jew his self-appointed “otherness” i.e. his uniqueness and his self-chosenness, while desperately striving to re-appropriate that same Jewish otherness and that same uniqueness, be it in the acceptance of Biblical tales, be it the espousal of the concept of linear time, be it in the belief of the end of history.
To face up to the purported bad sides of Judaism by using Christian tools, is futile. This is the argument of the German philosopher Eugen Dühring, who notes that “Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism” and “a Christian, when he rightfully comprehends himself as such, cannot be a serious and complete anti-Semite.” (Die Judenfrage als Frage des Rassencharakters, 1901). Dühring was a prominent German socialist philosopher, contemporary, but also a foe of Marx. Like most German socialist thinkers of the late 19th century he was an anti-Semite, in so far as he saw in the Jewry the incarnation of capitalism. Dühring notes that “historical Christianity, when observed in its true spirit, and all things considered, has been a backlash within and against Judaism, but it has also emerged from it and to some extent in its fashion.” (p. 25-26).
What German geneticists and anthropologists, such as Fritz Lenz, Hans Günther, Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer and thousands of other scholars wrote about Jews had already been written and discussed—albeit from a philosophical, artistic and literary point of view—by thousands of European writers, poets and artists. From the ancient Roman thinker Tacitus to the English writer William Shakespeare, from the ancient Roman thinker Seneca, to the French novelist and satirist, L. Ferdinand Céline, one encounters in the prose of countless European authors occasional and not so occasional critical remarks about the Jewish character—remarks that could easily be called today anti-Semitic. Should these “anti-Semitic” authors, novelists, or poets be called insane? If so, then the entire European cultural heritage must be banned and labeled insane.
Excluding the Jew, while using his theological and ideological concepts is a form of latent phobia among Whites, of which Jews are very well aware of. Criticizing a strong Jewish influence in Western societies on the one hand, while embracing Jewish religious and secular prophets on the other, will lead to further tensions and only enhance the Jewish sense of self-chosenness and their timeless victimhood. In turn, this will only give rise to more anti-Jewish hatred with tragic consequences for all. The prime culprits are not Jews or Whites, but rather a civil religion of egalitarianism with its postmodern offshoots of universalism and multiculturalism.
The issue that needs to be addressed is why Whites, for two thousand years, have adhered to an alien, out-group, non-European conceptualization of the world.
Excerpted from Tom Sunic’s
recent article at The Occidental Observer:
We often confuse the causes of non-European immigration with its effects. We hunt after a wrong scapegoat. Let us try to clarify it…
The blame for non-European immigration and the decomposition of the European peoples must not be solely borne by the immigrants. It is in the interest of the local capitalists to get a million-strong reserve army of cheap labor to Europe and to the U.S.; in turn, they can lower the wages of their domestic workers. Furthermore, non-European immigrants have little social consciousness, a weak sense of the trade union adherence and practically no sense for the European destiny. Therefore, they can be better manipulated by the local capitalists. One should consider therefore the globalists, the plutocrats and the financial “superclass” as the main enemy of the European peoples. A German stockbroker, or a Croatian or a Russian ex-communist speculator turned now into a capitalist shark, does not care where his nation is—as long as he can rake in big money.
We are all witnessing a reemergence of the silent holy alliance today—an alliance between the ex-Commissar and the Merchant, i.e. the marriage between the left-winger and big business. The European Left is in favor of mass immigration, given that the exotic picture of the non-European immigrant represents for it now the ersatz symbol of its long gone proletariat. For the capitalist, it is beneficial to bring people from the Third World into Europe, because they can best serve the interests of anonymous capital. The capitalist strives towards the removal of his people, because his people are too expensive for his business transactions. A leftist “antifa” wants to erase his people because it will always remind him of the rising “fascist beast.”
But the Church also bears a heavy responsibility for the decomposing situation of the European nations, especially with its ecumenical parlance of “help thy neighbor.” Americans, Europeans and White Christians are nowadays more concerned about the welfare of non-European peoples than the welfare of their own. A rich Qatari, or an oil sheik from Saudi Arabia could not care less are about the young unemployed and destitute masses in Moldova, or the working poor in France of Spain. He does not feel much inclined to help his own kind in Palestine in the first place, let alone give a thought to the suffering of the millions of the unemployed in Europe. The influential American Cardinal, Timothy Dolan, also known “as the American Pope” openly preaches in the American media the necessity of the open borders and openly advocates the protection of illegal immigrants in the USA.
Therefore it is wrong to blame only stateless plutocrats, ethnic lobbies, or starry eyed leftists in their decomposition endeavors of the European peoples. Regarding the destructive equality doctrine by Christian savants, I’ will not discuss it here. I’ll refer you to my papers and books.
♣
From Hunter Wallace’s September 28, 2012 “OD’s Indictment”
In preparation for writing OD’s [Occidental Dissent] first book, Shattering The Golden Circle: The Failure of Free Society in Dixie, Haiti, and the Caribbean, I have spent months intensely researching the rise and fall of slavery in the Caribbean and American South.
I’ve been trying to understand why slavery was destroyed and why approximately four million free negroes were turned loose on our society.
I don’t have to tell you that the consequences of the abolition of slavery have haunted us to the present day. I’m getting to the stage where I am starting to draw some firm conclusions about how and why this happened:
(1) First, New World slavery was overthrown during “the long nineteenth century” from 1770 to 1890.
(2) Second, the decline of the West is not due to a Jewish conspiracy, although Jews have thrived as an effect of the moral decay, especially in the twentieth century. It is not due to any inherent biological predisposition on the part of Whites to embrace racial and cultural suicide either.
(3) Third, I am convinced that the decisive years in pushing the West down the present road to suicide are 1750 to 1850.
(4) Fourth, the culprit is a moral, religious, and ideological revolution in worldview during this period that led to the creation of secular and religious versions of humanitarianism that have progressively undermined the foundations of our civilization.
(5) Finally, 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.
This is the ultimate source of the “black cloud” that hangs over our civilization. Discuss.
Note: I will also speculate that industrial capitalism created a middle class that was peculiarly receptive to this worldview – the perfect triumphalist bourgeois ideology – and that the spread of liberal democracy gradually empowered this class in the West which used its newfound power to “progressively” act out its utopian fantasies.
Why did the South and the Caribbean deviate so strongly from this general direction in the nineteenth century? In the South and the Caribbean there was a third cultural pole, race-based plantation slavery, which created a stronger cultural immune system.
By this time the single Jewish causers ought to have taken note that even well-known pro-white bloggers, who are either Christians or married to Christians, are openly saying that the root causes of our predicament are to be found in our most cherished traditions: religion and the ideals of secular liberalism.
The following are a couple of passages from “Death to Modernity—American Perspectives.” Alex Kurtagic responds to what some angry Christian commenters had said (in italics):
1.-
Saying that Christianity started liberalism is like saying the existence of truth is to blame for the distortion thereof.
Tracing the roots of an ideology to a religion’s metaphysics is not the same as blaming the ideology on the religion, or saying that the religion ‘started’ the ideology. The American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (Introduction and Preamble) also have roots in Christianity, yet no one would reasonably ‘blame’ the American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence on Christianity or claim that Christianity ‘started’ them. Though known for their pagan outlook and critiques of Christianity, in the Manifesto the ENR merely points out the irony of Christian metaphysics’ having supplied—without that having been the intention—liberal theorists with the means to ‘liberate’ the individual from Christianity (along with anything transcendent or external to the individual).
2.-
What a crock!—blaming the evils of liberalism and the Leftist destruction of the U.S.A. on true Christianity. Liberalism sprang from secularism and both are ‘Jewish’ in origin.
Prior to emancipation, Jews were confined to ghettos and lived under civic and legal restrictions in Europe. By the time Jewish emancipation began in the 1790s, the Enlightenment (associated with secularism) was already in decline and giving way to Romanticism and the Counter-Enlightenment. In most places of Europe, Jews were not emancipated until the mid-1800s. On the other hand, Liberalism, like the Enlightenment, dates back to the 1600s. John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government was published in 1689, over a century before the first Jewish emancipation. Of the thinkers we associate with classical liberalism or the Enlightenment—John Locke, René Descartes, Isaac Newton, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, David Hume, Jeremy Bentham, Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo, and Baruch Spinoza—only Ricardo and Spinoza were Jews, but both were disowned. The rest were Christians.
What we can say is that many Jews since emancipation have seen the obvious benefit to Jews generally of their host societies being as secular as possible, and have accordingly campaigned in various ways to accelerate and maximise a process of secularisation that had already been begun by lapsed, indifferent, or apostate Christians. The idea of separation of Church and state is not Jewish, but, as Henry Ford describes in The International Jew, Jewish activists—who, obviously, were either preoccupied with real or perceived anti-Semitism or who wished to advance the interests of their ethnic group—used this idea to further their aim of removing Christianity from the public square.
Liberalism does not reject Christianity or religion tout court; indeed, the Founding Fathers of the United States, though liberals to a man, were Christians—not anti-Christian atheists, like the Marxists who subsequently critiqued liberalism—and conceived the United States as a Christian country intended for Christians. What liberalism attempts to do is to ‘liberate’ the individual from anything transcendent or outside of the individual. The existence and the will of God is then ascertained by rational means, and the process of ascertaining is left to the individual, who becomes the measure of all things. Dogmatic belief and subservience to tradition and authority are abandoned.
One must not conflate anti-Western Jewish intellectual movements with liberalism just because the former marshalled liberal ideas to serve Jewish ethnic aims. The abovementioned Jewish movements were of a liberal character because they originated in a liberal context. Had they originated in a non-liberal context, we would have seen Jewish movements of a very different kind. That these movements remain influential highlights the dominance of liberalism and the need to dismantle it, for, once dismantled, these movements will become unthinkable. And depending on what replaces liberalism, ethnic subversion, Jewish or otherwise, may or may not become more difficult. Ultimately, it depends on how we reshape the intellectual landscape—nothing is predetermined or guaranteed.
♣
And this is Hunter Wallace’s latest entry at
Occidental Dissent, “Derb on Ethnomasochism”:
Derb is trying to understand the roots of White ethnomasochism at VDARE and Takimag.
Seeing as how this is a historical inquiry and intersects our particular fixation on the American South, we can unequivocally say that evangelical Christianity and Enlightenment ideology are the roots of this phenomena, and that the anti-slavery movement was its first major flowering.
It doesn’t take much time wandering through what Europeans were doing in the Caribbean in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to figure out that they were operating in another moral universe.
By the late eighteenth century/early nineteenth century, you have your Abbé Raynals and John Browns who are fine specimens of this deranged type.
If I had artistic skills, I would draw a cartoon of a tree labeled “anti-slavery” with fruit hanging from its branches labeled “anti-racism” and “civil rights” and “feminism” and “free love” and “white guilt” and “communism” and “decolonization” and “white genocide.”
Or:
“No Jews, no Arabs, no communists
have done so much damage
to the White gene pool
as Whites themselves”
The above is a quotation from Tom Sunic’s 2010 essay, “Race and Religion: Awkward Friends of the White Man” published in three parts at The Occidental Observer (here, here and here) where he also analyzes the Jewish Question from a viewpoint so alien for TOO readers that zero comments appeared in those three instalments (perhaps the admins closed the comments to prevent flaming discussions).
Below I reproduce the whole article in a single entry because it throws some light on an ongoing discussion at Counter-Currents with me about whether or not common sense dictates that the Jews “are our deadliest single enemy.”
There is a widespread idea among White nationalists worldwide that Whites need to resurrect their Christian heritage in order to be better able to retrieve their racial, religious and cultural identity. Another proposal common among White nationalists is that the liberal system needs to put an end to non-White, non-Christian immigration, which would then pave the way for polishing up the vanishing White gene pool. Another far-flung idea is that the influence of Jews must be curtailed if not stopped altogether, so that all social ills can be cured. Last but not least, the liberal system needs to be replaced by a nationalist, nativist, populist, “right wing”, White government.
However credible these proposals sound, they are naive in their formulations, superficial in scope, and dangerous in their possible implementation. They deal with the political consequences of the problem rather than probing into its philosophical and historical causes. Even if miraculously all non-White, non-Christian residents were to disappear from America and the European Union and even if all liberal policies were to be abandoned, it is unlikely that the White man would solve deep-rooted problems of his own racial and religious identity.
Science and quackery
Before even attempting to offer some salutary suggestions, one must be aware of the oppressive weight of the dominant ideas and their “scientific”—a.k.a. “politically correct”—ambience in the modern liberal system. Our postmodern epoch is profoundly saturated by egalitarian and economistic dogmas. Regardless how much empirical artillery one can muster in defence of the uniqueness of the White gene pool, and regardless of how many facts one can enumerate that point to diverse intellectual achievements of different races, no such evidence will elicit social or academic approval. In fact, if loudly uttered, the evidence may be considered a felony in some Western countries. In our so-called free and secular society, new religions, such as the religion of racial promiscuity and the theology of the free market have replaced the old Christian belief system. Only when these new secular dogmas or political theologies start crumbling down—which may soon be the case—alternative views about race and the meaning of the sacred may appear.
The historical irony is that it was not the Other, i.e. the non-White, who invented the arsenal of bashing the White man. It was the White man himself—both with his Christian atonement and now with his liberal expiation of the feelings of guilt. Therefore, any arguments offered in defence of racial separation will inevitably be perceived by the Other, i.e. by a non-White (and his guilt-ridden White masters) as racist. Not wanting to contravene the moral imperatives that they invented, Western man must once again posture as an example of global justice that needs to be copied by all races—albeit this time around as a negative role model.
Alain de Benoist writes that liberalism has been a racist system par excellence. In the late 19th century, it preached exclusive racism. Now, in the 21st century it preaches inclusive racism. By herding non European races from all over the world into a rootless a-racial and a-historical agnostic consumer society and by preaching ecumenical miscegenation, the West nonetheless holds its undisputed role of a truth maker—of course, this time around under the auspices of the self-hating, self-flagellating White male.
It must be stated that it was not the Colored, but the White man who had crafted the ideology of self-denial and the concomitant ideology of universal human rights, as well as the ideas of interracial promiscuity. Therefore, any modest scholarly argument suggesting proofs of racial inequality is untenable today. How can one persuasively argue about the existence of different races if the modern system lexically, conceptually, scientifically, ideologically, theologically, and last, but not least, judicially, forbids the slightest idea of race segregation—except when it evokes skin-deep exotic escapades into musical and culinary prowess of non-European races?
Most American White nationalists use Thomas Jefferson as their patron saint, frequently associating his name with “good old times” of the American Declaration of Independence. Those were the times when the White man was indeed in command of his destiny. The White founding fathers stated: “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.” Yet the abstract words “all men” combined with the invocation of a deistic and distant “creator” had a specific significance in the mind of Enlightenment-groomed Jefferson. Two hundred years later, however, his words ring a different bell in the ears of a real Muslim Somali or a Catholic Cholo planning to move to the United States.
Who can, therefore deny to masses of non-European non-Christian immigrants from all parts of the world to freely extrapolate, for their own racial benefit, Jefferson’s words that “all men are created equal”? The self-perception of Jefferson and his Enlightenment-influenced compatriots of 18th-century Europe and America were light miles away from the perception of his words by today’s non-Whites in search of “the American dream.” Wailing and whining that “Jefferson did not mean this; he meant that”—is a waste of time. Similar to many historical documents claiming “scientific “ or “self-evident” nature, be they of the religious, historical or judicial provenance, the American Declaration bears witness to the classical cleavage between the former signifier and the modern signified which has become the subject of its own semantic sliding—with ominous consequences for Whites worldwide.
A witty Southern antebellum lawyer, a racialist writer, with a good sense of the language, John Fitzhugh, calls Jefferson’s words “abstractions”.
The verbal tricks such as “we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal”, are bottomless pits out of which torrents of modern new demands keep arising: It is, we believe, conceded on all hands, that men are not born physically, morally or intellectually equal—some are males, some females, some from birth large, strong, and healthy, others weak, small and sickly—some are naturally amiable, others prone to all kinds of wickedness—some brave others timid. (George Fitzhugh, Sociology for the South, or the Failure of Free Society 1854, pp. 177-178).
Contemporary geneticists and biologists are no less vulnerable than philosophers and sociologists to dominant political theologies. What was considered scientific during the first part of the 20th century in Europe and the United States by many prominent scholars writing about race is viewed today as preposterous and criminal. The dominant dogma idea of egalitarianism must give its final blessing in explaining or explaining away any scientific discovery.
This is particularly true regarding the endless debate about “nature vs. nurture” (heredity vs. environment). If one accepts the dominant idea that the factor of environment (“nurture”) is crucial in shaping the destiny of different races—then it is useless to talk about differences among races. If all individuals, all races, are equal, they are expandable and replaceable at will!
The dogma of the inheritance of acquired characteristics is a matter of life or death for Marxism. This was recognized with precision by the Soviet rulers… As [Fritz] Lenz, one of the most important eugenicists [“racial hygienists”] pointed out, the Soviet rulers must for one obvious reason cling on to the doctrine of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. They need this doctrine for calming their conscience. If everything really depends on the environment, this means that the slaughtering carried out by Bolshevism of so many carriers of valuable hereditary endowment, is not an irreparable loss, but rather a state-regulated change of the environment. (Gustav Franke, Vererbung und Rasse [Heredity and Race], 1938, 1943, pp. 113-114, my trans.)
Needless to say, Franke, Lenz and thousands of German and other European anthropologists, geneticians and biologists disappeared from the reading list, after being denounced either as “bad Nazis” or “atheists”. Although the field of the former Soviet social sciences is considered today as quackery, its egalitarian, Marxist residue of omnipotent inheritance of acquired characteristics is religiously pursued by the post-Christian, neoliberal capitalist West. In layman’s terms, this means that the floodgates for mass immigration of non-Europeans must be kept wide open. Racial promiscuity and miscegenation must be enforced. It is science! It is the law!
Racial promiscuity in the age of high IQ morons
“Dorks”, “idiots”, “morons”, “halfwits”, “dimwits”, are words used daily in the portrayal of our pesky interlocutors. But what if some of our intelligent interlocutors are indeed stupid? It is a historical truism that most world explorers, famous statesmen, most scientists, most Nobel prize winners, have been White people with predominantly Nordic stature and dolichocephalic skull. It is a truism that most prisoners in America and Europe are crossbreeds of non-European out-groups, with the remnants of Whites, whose criminal record can be traced to inborn genetic disorders in their family tree. A long time ago William Sadler, a forgotten eugenicist from the Chicago Medical School, wrote a book about “the aristocracy of the unfit” that cannot be improved by any amount of do-good sermonizing: “Mental defectiveness (moronism) is hereditary and constitutional, and consequently not amenable to our preachings, asylums, hospitals, reformatories, penitentiaries, etc. We must ever bear in mind that each year a new quota of defectives is born with statistical regularity.” (Race Decadence, 1922, p. 254).
The modern media-induced dumbing down process, combined with inborn mental deficiencies of an ever growing number of White people is being accelerated by massive inflow of low IQ immigrants, already conditioned to capitalize on post-Christian and liberal guilt feelings of the White man. As in the ex-Soviet Union, the dominant theology of egalitarianism and TV shows incessantly role-modeling interracial sex only accelerate the culture of mediocrity and the culture of death.
People get arrested for financial fraud or homicide. Yet professors in humanities in America and Europe, when propagating Lamarckian science-fiction and egalitarian pipe dreams get promoted. A physiologist and a Nobel Prize winner, the late French racialist Charles Richet, in his book “The Stupid Man” (L’homme stupide, 1919), understood that high IQ is not a trademark of intellectual disinterestedness or a sign of value-free judgments. Stupid, abnormal decisions are often made by high IQ people, who are driven by utopian belief systems.
High IQ among Whites, if not accompanied of good character, psychological introspection, nobility of spirit and a sense of honor—is worthless. The architects of the largest serial genocides in the history of mankind, writes Rudolf Kommos (Juden hinter Stalin, 1938, 1944), were intelligent Bolsheviks, mostly of Jewish origin, whose inborn millenarian, eschatological and chiliastic mindset, had led them to believe that dozens of millions of Russian civilians needed be wiped out.
Stupidity does not mean that a person has not understood something; rather it means that he behaves as if he did not understand anything. When a person moves headlong toward disaster in order to satisfy his prejudices, his errors, his defective and false reasoning—this is inexcusable. It is far better to be deprived of intelligence than to make poor use of it… Judging by our acts we become more stupid as we become less ignorant. (Charles Richet, L’homme stupide, 1919, p 15, my trans.)
European and American history has been full of highly intelligent individuals endorsing abnormal religious and political beliefs. This is particularly true for many temporary White European and American left-leaning academics who, although showing high IQ, are narrow-minded, spineless individuals of no integrity, or race traitors of dubious character. Low IQ Cholos or affirmative action Blacks are just happy pawns in their conspiratorial and suicidal game. The father of European racialism and a man whose work left an important impact on the study of race in the early 20th century, Georges Vacher de Lapouge, summarized how cultivated men, when driven by theological or ideological passions, commit deadly mistakes:
It is virtually impossible to change by means of education the intellectual type of an individual, however intelligent he may be. Any education will be impotent to provide him with audacity and initiative. It is heredity that decides on his gifts. I was often surprised by the intensity of gregarious spirit amidst the most instructed men… Each minor manifestation of an independent idea hurts them; they reject a priori everything as pernicious errors that has not been taught to them by their masters. (Georges Vacher de Lapouge, Les sélections sociales, 1896, p.104; my trans.)
Is this not a proof that the worst enemy of the White man can often be his fellow White man?
♣
A non-White immigrant residing in Europe or America must be bewildered, bedeviled and bemused by the spectacle offered by his White hosts. On the one hand he must be scared to death of those unpredictable, self-assured, conceited White males and their attractive White women who are capable of walking on the moon and curing plague in his jungle or his desert. On the other, he gleefully rejoices when he hears stories of endless religious and ideological conflicts amidst his White hosts. The pristine, pastoral and puerile picture of the White race, so dearly longed for by modern White nationalists, is daily belied by permanent religious bickering, jealousy and character smearing within the White rank and file. Add to that murderous intra-White wars that have rocked Europe and America for centuries, one wonders whether the proverbial and much vaunted Aryan, Promethean, and Faustian man, is worthy of a better future.
For the greater glory of God
Surely, the White man saved Greco-Roman Europe from the Levantine Hannibal’s incursion, which nearly resulted in a catastrophe in 216 b.c. at Cannae, in southern Italy. The White man also stopped Attila’s Hunic hordes on the Catalaunian Fields in France in 451 a.d. The grandfather of Charlemagne, Charles Martel, defeated Arab predators near Tours, in France in 732. One thousand years later in 1717, a short and slim Italo-French Catholic hero, Prince Eugene of Savoy, finally removed the Islamic threat from the Balkans.
But the unparalleled White will to power, couched later on in Christian millenarianism, had also prompted large crusades against “infidels.” Their commander in chief, the pious Godfrey de Bouillon, did not have pangs of consciousness after his knights had put to the sword thousands of Muslim civilians in captured Jerusalem in 1099 a.d. All was well meant for the greater glory of Yahweh!
The power of the newly discovered universal religion and the expectancy of the “end of history,” later to be followed by bizarre beliefs in “global democracy,” often eclipsed racial awareness among Whites. As a rule, when White princes ran out of Muslim or Jewish infidels—they began whacking each other in the name of their Semitic deities or latter day democracies. The 6’4” tall Charlemagne, in the name of his anticipated Christian bliss, went on the killing spree against his fellow pagan Germans. In 782 a.d. he decapitated several thousand of the finest crop of Nordic Saxons, thereby earning himself a saintly name of the “butcher of the Saxons” (Sachsenschlächter).
And on and on the story goes with true Christian or true democracy believers. No Jews, no Arabs, no communists have done so much damage to the White gene pool as Whites themselves. The Thirty Years War (1617–1647) fought amidst European Christians with utmost savagery, wiped out two thirds of the finest German racial stock, over 6 million people. The crazed papist Croatian mercenaries, under Wallenstein’s command, considered it a Royal and Catholic duty to kill off Lutherans, a dark period so well described by the great German poet and dramatist Friedrich Schiller. Even today in Europe the words “Croat years” (Kroatenjahre) are associated with the years of hunger and pestilence.
Nor did Oliver Cromwell’s troops—his Ironsides—during the English civil war, fare much better. Surely, as brave Puritans they did not drink, they did not whore, they did not gamble—they only specialized in skinning Irish Catholic peasants alive. Not only did their chief, the Nordic looking fanatic Cromwell consider himself more Jewish than the Jews—he actually brought them back from continental Europe, with far-reaching consequence both for England and America.
A slim, intelligent, Nordic looking, yet emotionally unstable manic depressive, William Sherman, burnt down Atlanta in 1864—probably in the hopes of fostering a better brand of democracy for the South. We may also probe some day into the paleocortex of the Nordic skull of an airborne Midwest Christian ex-choir boy, who joyfully dropped firebombs on German civilians during WWII. The results may not be too difficult to detect considering that the same Biblical mindset was re-enacted in 2002 in Iraq by G. W. Bush and his advisors enraptured by Talmudic tales of “weapons of mass destruction.” Biblical or liberal-democratic crimes, when couched in political choseness and theological messianism are perfect tools for a perfectly good consciousness.
Many European White nationalists are dazed at good looking Nordic men and women from the Bible Belt raving, ranting and dancing on TV in trance to Christian-Zionist tunes. Equally stunned are American White nationalists when they observe blood-stained victimhood quarrels pitting Irish against English nationalists, Serb against Croat nationalists, Ukrainian against Russian nationalists, Walloon against Flemish nationalists, Polish against German nationalists, and so on and on.
The faith or the sacred?
No subject is so dangerous to address among White nationalists as the Christian religion. It is commendable to lambast Muslims, who are on the respectable hit-parade of the Axis of Evil. Jews also come in handy in a wholesale package of evil, which needs to be expiated—at least occasionally. But any critical examination of Judeo-Christian intolerance is viewed with suspicion and usually attributed to distinct groups of White people, such as agnostics or modern day self-proclaimed pagans.
Why did the White man accept the Semitic spiritual baggage of Christianity even though it did not quite fit with his racial-spiritual endowments? The unavoidable racialist thinker Hans Günther—a man of staggering erudition and knowledgeable not only of the laws of heredity, but also of comparative religions—reminds us that the submissive and slavish relation of man to God is especially characteristic of Semitic peoples. In his important little book, The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans, he teaches us about the main aspects of racial psychology of old Europeans. We also learn that Yahweh is a merciless totalitarian god who must be revered—and feared.
Ancient Europeans did not believe in any kind of salvation. They believed in inexorable destiny. Gods were their friends and enemies, as seen in ancient Greece and Rome. Among old Europeans the notion of polarity between Heaven and Earth, between soul and body, i.e., dualism of any kind, was nonexistent. Man was part of an organic whole, embedded in his tribe and race, and tolerant of others’ religious ideas:
Mutual tolerance of religious forms is a distinctive feature of the Indo-European. The memorial stones in the Roman-Teutonic frontier region reveal through their inscriptions that the Roman frontier troops and settlers not only honoured their own Gods, but also respected the local deity of the Teutons, the genius huius loci. (p. 36)
The messianic, chiliastic, or “communistic” mindset was unknown among ancient Europeans. They could not care less which gods other races, other tribes or other peoples believed in. Wars that they fought against the adversary were bloody, but they did not have the goal of converting the adversary and imposing on him the beliefs contrary to his racial heritage. Homer’s epic The Iliad is the best example. The self-serving, yet truly racist liberal-communistic endeavour, to wage “final and just war” in order to “make the world safe for democracy,” was something inconceivable for ancient Europeans.
Zeal to convert and intolerance have always remained alien to every aspect of Indo-European religiosity. In this is revealed the Nordic sense of distance between one man and another, modesty which proscribes intrusion upon the spiritual domains of other men. One cannot imagine a true Hellene preaching his religious ideas to a non-Hellene. (p.36)
A German-British racialist author of the early 20th century, Houston Stewart Chamberlain in his The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century writes that “a final judgment shows the intellectual renaissance to be the work of Race in opposition to the universal Church which knows no Race (p. 326). Unlike Christianity, which preaches individual salvation, for ancient Europeans life can only have a meaning within the in-group—their tribe, their polis, or their civitas. Outside those social structures, life means nothing.
In the 1st century, words of far-reaching consequence for all Whites were pronounced by a Jewish heretic, the Apostle St. Paul, to the people of Galatia, an area in Asia Minor once populated by the Gauls (i.e., Celts). Galatia was then well underway to become a case study of multicultural debauchery—similar to today’s Los Angeles: “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28).
Christianity became thus a Universalist religion with a special mission to transform the Other into the Same. The seeds of egalitarianism—albeit on the religious, not yet on the secular level—were sown. The pagan notion of the mystical sacred was gradually being displaced by the dogmatic notion of one omnipotent faith:
Yahweh in the Bible is not just the only and unique god who wields power. He is only and unique in the sense of his Absolute Otherness. He is only and unique in his own kind—that is to say he is the Absolute Other away from this world. The essence of biblical monotheism is its constitutive dualism… Where paganism establishes bridges and links, the monotheism of the Bible creates fractures, ruptures, and forbids anybody to span them. Yahweh forbids mixtures between Heaven and Earth, between Man and the Divine, between humans and other living beings, between Israel and the “nations.” (Alain de Benoist, “Sacré païen et désacralisation judéo-chrétienne” in Quelle religion pour l’Europe? [Which Religion for Europe?] 1990, pp 30-31, my trans.)
Although Christian Churches never publicly endorsed racial miscegenation, they did not endorse racial segregation either. This was true for the Catholic Church and its flock, as observed by the early French sociologist and racialist Gustave Le Bon. Consequently, Catholic Spaniards of White racial stock in Latin America could not halt decadence and debauchery in their new homelands as WASPs in North America did—at least prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Naturally, it is not only in politics that decadence of the Latin race, which inhabits the south of America, manifests itself. It is in all elements of its civilization. If they were reduced to themselves, these unhappy republics would return to barbarism. All industry, all commerce is in the hands of foreigners, English, Americans and Germans. Valparaiso has become an English town. Nothing would remain of Chile if its foreigners were removed (p. 86). (Gustave Le Bon, Lois psychologiques de l’évolution des peuples, 1895, my trans.).
Later, in 1938, in light of eugenic and racial laws adopted not only in Germany and Italy, but also in other European countries and many states in America, Pope Pius IX made his famous statement: “It is forgotten that mankind is one large and overwhelming Catholic race.” This statement was to become part of his planned encyclical under the name The unity of the human race.
“The unity of the human race”, as noble as these words may sound, is a highly abstract concept. On a secular level communist and liberal intellectuals constantly toy with it—in order to suppress real tribes, real nations, real peoples and their real racial uniqueness. Even if this white race, constantly defamed as “wicked”, “racist” , “bigoted” and “fascist,” disappeared from the face of the earth, non-White immigrants know that they would soon have to climb back onto their native tree or return to their despotic cave.
♣
Each religion is exclusive and exclusionary, which inevitably results in downplaying or, even worse, in denial of other religions. By definition, all Christian denominations, in order to strengthen their theological credibility, have historically resorted to this type of “negative legitimacy.” Yet, despite devastating wars among Whites of different Christian persuasions, Christianity, as a whole, has retained its transcendental value, which has made life more or less liveable.
No longer is this the case with postmodern “civil religions” that ignore the sacred. Their nature of exclusion is already resulting in intellectual terror—that may soon be followed by real state-sponsored physical terror.
Civil religions also have their holy shrines, their holy relics, their pontiffs, their canons, their promises and their menaces. Failure to believe in them—or failure to at least pretend to believe in them—results, as a legal scholar of Catholic persuasion, Carl Schmitt wrote, in a heretic’s removal from the category of human beings. Among new civil religions one could enumerate the religion of multiculturalism, the religion of antifascism, the religion of the Holocaust, and the religion of economic progress.
Many Whites make a fundamental mistake when they portray new civil religions as part of an organized conspiracy of a small number of wicked people. In essence, civil religions are just secular transpositions of the Judeo-Christian monotheist mindset which, when combined with an inborn sense of tolerance and congenial naïveté of the White people, makes them susceptible to their enchanting effects.
The folly of the compound noun: “anti-Semitism”
As a result of semantic sliding of political concepts, the Jewish-born thinker and the father of the secular religion of communism, Karl Marx, would likely be charged today with “anti-Semitism” or the “incitement to racial hatred.” Leftist scholars usually do not wish to subject his little booklet, On the Jewish Question (1844) to critical analysis. Consider the following:
The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.
Of particular significance is Marx’ last sentence “insofar as the Christians have become Jews.” In fact the White man has “jewified” himself by embracing the fundaments of the Jewish belief system, which, paradoxically, he uses now in criticizing Jews. Christian anti-Semitism can be described, therefore, as a peculiar form of neurosis. Christian anti-Semites resent the Jews while mimicking the framework of resentment borrowed from Jews. Accordingly, even the Jewish god Yahweh was destined to become the anti-Semitic God of White Christians! In the name of this God, persecutions against Jews were conducted by White non-Jews. Simply put, the White non-Jew has been denying for centuries to the Jew his self-appointed “otherness” i.e. his uniqueness and his self-chosenness, while desperately striving to re-appropriate that same Jewish otherness and that same uniqueness, be it in the acceptance of Biblical tales, be it the espousal of the concept of linear time, be it in the belief of the end of history.
To face up to the purported bad sides of Judaism by using Christian tools, is futile. This is the argument of the German philosopher Eugen Dühring, who notes that “Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism” and “a Christian, when he rightfully comprehends himself as such, cannot be a serious and complete anti-Semite.” (Die Judenfrage als Frage des Rassencharakters, 1901). Dühring was a prominent German socialist philosopher, contemporary, but also a foe of Marx. Like most German socialist thinkers of the late 19th century he was an anti-Semite, in so far as he saw in the Jewry the incarnation of capitalism. Dühring notes that “historical Christianity, when observed in its true spirit, and all things considered, has been a backlash within and against Judaism, but it has also emerged from it and to some extent in its fashion.” (p. 25-26).
Gradually, the so-called intellectual anti-Semitism, based on economic and sociological factors, was replaced by racial anti-Semitism. As was to be expected, thousands of German scholars who had delved into the critical description of the racial traits of Jews disappeared after WWII from the radar screen, and their books went up in flames. As a rule, when they are quoted today in American or European academia by half-knowledgeable, tenure-scared professors, they are pathologized as “monsters” or proverbial “Nazis”, or their words are taken out of context.
A German legal scholar and a local government leader of the NSDAP of the city of Magdeburg, Professor Helmut Nicolai, writes that
Germanic loyalty (‘Treue’) is contrary to the Oriental concept of obedience (‘Gehorsam’). A loyal person operates within the spirit of a person to whom he shows loyalty. Loyalty always presupposes inner mutual understanding. By contrast, obedience refers to the achievement of an order, to the implementation of a letter of the word… Laws cannot create a better legal framework for the rule of law; rather it is a better people who can achieve that. (Die Rassengesetzliche Rechtslehre) (“Racial Provisions of Law in Jurisprudence,” 1933. p. 44)
Naturally, the question that comes to mind today is the meaning of natural law with the dogma that all people are equal. Is it possible to have the same constitutional rights for different peoples of different gene pools and different cultures? A Palestinian fellah views his rights differently from a New York-born Jewish kibbutznik on the West bank; an Aborigine from New Zealand has a different concept of justice than a White farmer; a Christian Orthodox Serb has a different concept of historical justice from his neighbour, a Muslim Albanian.
Anti-anti-Semitism
As a response to the world-wide communist and liberal attacks against the passage of the Nuremberg racial laws in 1935 in National Socialist Germany, Professor Walter Gross, Head of the Bureau of Racial Politics of the NSDAP, wrote:
The opinion has been kicked around the globe that Germany had invented sterilisation and that it has afterward medically and scientifically dressed it up exclusively in an effort to get rid of its opponents. This is complete insanity! If we really had an intention to make a political opponent harmless we would certainly not sterilize him as he would continue to live as happily ever after for the next 60 years at our expenses”… “The fact that we consider communism a hereditary disease that needs to be combated, the fact that procreation of the progeny must be prevented—while allowing communists to roam around freely—this is really a suggestion that in no way does justice to the opinion of the German people and its state. (Walter Gross, Der deutsche Rassengedanke und die Welt, 1939, p. 17–18)
Gross pleads for racial harmony of diverse nations and describes favourably racial and cultural endowments of the Japanese, while rejecting the accusation of German racial superiority over other races. He notes, however, that “no agreement is possible with theoretical systems of the international kind… because they are based on incredible lie, i.e. the lie of the equality of all people” (p. 30).
Another highly placed legal scholar in National Socialist Germany, professor at the Friedrich Wilhelm University in Berlin, Falk Ruttke, writes that
we will never solve the Jewish question through fanatical “anti-Semitism,” as the history of Judaism, not only in Germany, but the history from all over the world teaches us. The solution of the Jewish question is only possible through racial awareness (“Rassengedanke”) that is fair to each race. We shall never implement that unless we distinguish between nation and race. “National Socialism is not anti-Semitic, it is a-Semitic” (Falk Ruttke, Rasse, Recht und Volk, from Jugend und Recht, p. 30, 1937, italics in the original).
In his famous book about racial psychology of Jews, teeming with quotes by Orientalists, linguists, psychiatrists and other scholars, Hans Günther writes how Christianity, in adopting the Jewish god Yahweh, has ended up endorsing the concept of the “chosen people,” thereby greatly helping with the jewification (“Verjudung”) of the Western society. (p. 313)
Christian doctrines, historically speaking, paralyze the spirit of the West in its conventional and lasting dispute with the spirit of the Orient and in particularly with that of Judaism. Through its control of the press and intelligence service it is not at all difficult today for Jewry to give the Zeitgeist [spirit of the time] each time the direction that is most appropriate for Jews, while diverting the spiritual life of non-Jewish peoples away from their inborn spiritual values, always leading them to those spiritual values that appear as the most authoritative to Judaism. (p. 314)
In his numerous books the geneticist and biologist Fritz Lenz, who was held in high esteem by the scientific establishment in National Socialist Germany, examines the genetically conditioned proclivities among Jews, such as their extraordinary skill for moralistic pathos, the sense for empathy, mimicry, and the capability of provoking sentimental outbursts about painful injustice (“Schmerzenszug”) among deprived masses.
In revolutionary movements hysteric prone Jews play a big role because they can project themselves in utopian imaginations and therefore they can make convincing promises with far-reaching inner veracity… Not only Marx and Lasalle were Jews, but also in the recent times Eisner, Rosa Luxembourg. Leviné, Toller, Landauer, Trotsky and among others… Kahn, who praises the Jewish revolutionaries as the saviors of mankind and sees in them “a specific Jewish manner of the world-view and historical activity.” Lenz, Menschliche Erblehre (A Lesson about Human Heredity), 1936, p. 752–753
What German geneticists and anthropologists, such as Fritz Lenz, Hans Günther, Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer and thousands of other scholars wrote about Jews had already been written and discussed—albeit from a philosophical, artistic and literary point of view—by thousands of European writers, poets and artists. From the ancient Roman thinker Tacitus to the English writer William Shakespeare, from the ancient Roman thinker Seneca, to the French novelist and satirist, L. Ferdinand Céline, one encounters in the prose of countless European authors occasional and not so occasional critical remarks about the Jewish character—remarks that could easily be called today anti-Semitic. Should these “anti-Semitic” authors, novelists, or poets be called insane? If so, then the entire European cultural heritage must be banned and labeled insane.
Excluding the Jew, while using his theological and ideological concepts is a form of latent phobia among Whites, of which Jews are very well aware of. Criticizing a strong Jewish influence in Western societies on the one hand, while embracing Jewish religious and secular prophets on the other, will lead to further tensions and only enhance the Jewish sense of self-chosenness and their timeless victimhood. In turn, this will only give rise to more anti-Jewish hatred with tragic consequences for all. The prime culprits are not Jews or Whites, but rather a civil religion of egalitarianism with its postmodern offshoots of universalism and multiculturalism.
In postmodern “liquid” times words and concepts obtain liquid meanings. One of these words is the compound noun “anti-Semitism.” Anti-Semitism is also a new civil religion that can be used at will for smearing free thinkers. The point is not whether Jesus Christ looked like a proud White Galilean Aryan with a dolichocephalic skull and blond hair—as he is portrayed all over the world—or whether he needs to be pictured with hither-Asian, Semitic features similar to those of Bob Dylan and Bin Laden combined. The issue that needs to be addressed is why Whites, for two thousand years, have adhered to an alien, out-group, non-European conceptualization of the world.
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).
The controversy at The Occidental Observer about the Holocaust has continued since my last entries in this blog mentioning it. It has now reached 700+ comments at TOO and it might reach 800.
Below I reproduce two opposite book-reviews from Amazon Books about Thomas Dalton’s Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides.
Attorney speaks:
As a skeptic of both sides of the Holocaust debate I’ve long hoped for a book that would shed light where there was only heat. Debating the Holocaust comes as close as I can hope for, and it is a remarkable accomplishment.
Rather than writing a review longer than the book itself, I’ll just first note that with Thomas Dalton’s book, the biggest single problem has finally been addressed: that it has been impossible to grasp the big picture of the holocaust because of the incoherence of the story.
The goals of Nazi policy, the means by which it was ordered and carried out, major events and where they happened (nobody really knows where the burial and cremation grounds of Chelmno are), the technical challenges that would come with a mass extermination effort, even something as basic as the death totals; nothing about the Holocaust story is consistent from one source to another. Over the decades figures, testimonies and documents have been exaggerated, reduced, misrepresented, changed or even disappeared, and in many cases with the obvious goal of keeping certain details a mystery so that awkward questions don’t come up (Saul Friedländer: I’m talking to you!). When Dalton writes that he found “a Holocaust story in tatters” he simply states the truth, and it is easy to see why two important historians, Michel De Bouard and Jean-Claude Pressac, remarked that the historical record of the Holocaust is “rotten”.
To deal with this, Dalton introduces a remarkable (and easy!) analytic tool which he calls the death matrix, a technique that combines various tables into a single analytic field that clearly demonstrates the properties of any account of the six alleged extermination camps. It can be done by anybody who has a spreadsheet option on his or her computer. Not unique to Dalton, it’s a common tool in several technical fields, and you have to wonder why anti-revisionist John Zimmerman, who is a professor of accounting and has to use similar tools in transaction analysis, never used it in his various refutations.
For the reader, this means a book where you have to take pen to paper and do some homework of your own, but that is a refreshing change to Holocaust books which don’t just ask but demand that you swallow whatever they say without question.
Dalton’s results when he applies his death matrix are clear, transparent and easily understood, but Dalton clearly states that certain data rests on questionable assumptions and that his use of the tool is preliminary and needs refinement (I could already suggest a revision where Dalton credits Krema II at Auschwitz with cremating 11,000 bodies at a time when it was out of service, the six weeks from the beginning of May through June 12 of 1943). It’s a terrific tool, something that becomes clear when the tables reveal that the combined work of exhumations and cremations at Belzec had no choice but to run at a rate of 92,000 per month. That’s better than 3,000 per day, 125 per hour, a corpse dug out of the ground and thawed and burned to fragments and ground to powder every 30 seconds; and on wooden pyres in the dead of a Polish winter when weather conditions would have frozen the ground rock-solid and rendered many days impossible for work.
That account is ridiculous; whatever the truth is, it’s something else. Why didn’t somebody think of this technique before?
Avoiding the dreary name-calling, Dalton divides the two camps into “traditionalists” and “revisionists”, and then divides the revisionists into the “agitators” and “academics”. Another good idea where ideas are sorely needed; when it comes to the revisionists Dalton intelligently ignores the “agitators” and concentrates on the solid arguments of the academics. Revisionists who have made it some sort of holy crusade to challenge the Holocaust will not be happy with this book. Dalton clearly states that the Holocaust cannot be dismissed as a hoax, a fraud or a conspiracy (the financial exploitation of it and the loathsome criminalization of challenging it are another matter). Something awful happened, but exactly what it was, and how it fits into the even bigger picture of the Second World War is impossible to determine with the history that we have.
As accessible as a book that addresses technical issues can be, Debating the Holocaust would make an excellent high school textbook, teaching young people about the story while challenging them to accept nothing until they’ve applied their own brains to it. Certainly a better choice than The Diary of Anne Frank, a book which has nothing in it about the Holocaust but nevertheless is required (forced?) reading on the subject.
While my review lists five stars, I’m actually giving it four and a half, with half a star taken off for listing a large percentage of the deaths at Majdanek as “natural causes” in one of the tables. This is insensitive to say the least. In their 2003 book on the camp (one of only two studies ever made!) revisionists Carlo Mattogno and Jurgen Graf, no defenders of the Holocaust, are themselves aghast at the way some 40,000 people died slow deaths of exposure standing in the open, sewage soaked fields. These are not “natural causes”. As a police worker I know that “Official Indifference” is a crime that American police, fire and rescue workers can be charged with, so even if the Nazis didn’t intend to kill these people they are responsible, at the very least, for mass manslaughter.
With that unfortunate beauty mark addressed, I can finish with a preview of Dalton’s epilogue, which is depressing. Dalton points out that there is an appreciable amount of common ground between traditionalists and revisionists; no academic revisionist has ever denied that tragic atrocities happened, and the best (and bravest) traditionalists have themselves noted that there is something terribly wrong with the history, which suggests that a combined effort between the two camps holds an excellent possibility of finally bringing to light a clear and coherent picture of what the events of the 1940′s really were.
But it ain’t gonna happen. As B’nai Brith director Ian Kadegan ominously crows, “The memory of the Holocaust is central to The New World Order”, and goes on to obscenely call it “Western Civilization’s greatest failure” (that would actually be the Congo Corvée, something that only die-hard Mark Twain fans have heard about). The traditional story of the Holocaust is a multi-billion dollar cash cow that enriches some of the most corrupt institutions on Earth, and has truly become an idolatrous religion that too many people are staked in. If the traditional story falls, not only reputations and livelihoods but power will be lost, for the traditional Holocaust story is used as a club to dictate what morality is by people who have no authority to do so, and to intimidate them not to question that authority.
Which means reading this book may actually qualify as a revolutionary act. The enemies of free speech can exact a price, but they can’t stop you. That’s why the right is called unalienable. Not even God can take it away. Thanks for the book Thomas.
Prosecutor speaks:
While this book definitely raises a few interesting points, the problem with it starts right on the cover. Thomas Dalton does not exist, and thus, has no verifiable Ph.D. or teaching record in any university.
In fact, the evidence suggests that Michael Santomauro, the editorial director of Thesis and Dissertations Press, is probably the author (and he has no Ph.D, meaning the entire description of Thomas Dalton’s “career” is a fabrication). Thesis and Dissertations Press is owned by Castle Hill Publishers, which was founded by a long time Holocaust opponent, Germar Rudolf. So in the interest of full disclosure, when you buy this book, 1/3 of the profits go to Germar Rudolf, whose full-time agenda is to refute the holocaust by any means necessary (an “agitator” in the parlance of this book).No one can read the things Michael Santomauro has written and believe for a minute that he is a neutral observer simply examining all side of the issue. Mr. Santomauro is the publisher, and probably the author, of this book, and yet, if you go to the last page of reviews, you will find him reviewing his own book without disclosing any of this information (under the title “Banned in 15 countries”). This, at the very least, is intellectual dishonesty, and should cast serious doubt on the “neutral analysis” claim of the book.
So be forewarned, a book with this much deception on the cover is not going to present all sides of the issue fairly. In my opinion, this is a very carefully constructed attack on the holocaust which presents carefully constructed arguments for the holocaust, then skillfully, craftily and systematically takes them apart. The problem is that it does not present all of the evidence for the holocaust, it carefully slants claims about the holocaust, leaves out critical bits of information (such as the fact that over three million of the “six million” Jews who died in World War II concentration camps have been identified by name, and more names are being tracked down and verified each year), and builds very careful straw men (Hitler issued a written order to exterminate the Jews), then knocks them down (can’t find the written order), all while ignoring evidence from mouths of Hitler’s own men that such a program, with or without written orders from Hitler, did exist.
Another example of the “neutrality” of this book: Zyklon B is a pesticide used to kill lice, not to exterminate people. True, but then what are we to make of the statements of Rudolf Hoss, the director of Auschwitz, when he told how they used the Zyklon B to kill people, paraphrased here:
There were 2 bunkers, and between them they held about 2000 people. The doors were screwed shut and solid pellets of Zyklon B were dropped into the chambers through vents, releasing the Zyklon B gas. About one third of the victims died immediately (presumably those closest to the vents), and everyone within was dead in about 20 minutes.
If Zyklon B was not used to kill people, then why did the director of Auschwitz give a very detailed account of how they did use it to kill people? Was he also conspiring to promote the “myth” of the holocaust?
It is true that there are some problems with some of the things said about the holocaust, but the problems are not as glaring as this book makes out. It is possible, for example that only 4 or 5 million Jews died, not 6 million (as 3 million are already documented), but would that really make this less of a holocaust if Hitler and his regime only succeeded in hunting down and murdering 4 or 5 million? While there may be some over-estimates on the part of the Holocaust survivors (not actually proven, by the way), there is extreme under-estimates taking place in this book.
Just beware, as this book is not even remotely as fair and balanced as the 5 star reviews here would lead us to believe. Only those who don’t actually know the facts of the holocaust will be swayed by this book. To those aware of the independent research, filmed and photographic evidence, and the true historical record found in hundreds, maybe thousands of well-researched reports, this comes off as nothing more than one of the most carefully crafted attacks on the holocaust ever to make it into print.
Although I’m not sure this book deserves it, it will be interesting to see if anyone takes the time to do a thorough rebuttal. I, for one, would love to see that, if only to eliminate, once and for all, the idea that this book is even remotely neutral, balanced or fair.
My comment:
In the Amazon Books site a scholarly controversy continued in the comment section of this particular review.
Incidentally, I won’t discuss the details in the comment section of this blog. I am no expert on the topic and have not even read Dalton’s book.
Taking into account my courtroom analogy in my aggregations at The Occidental Observer, my sole purpose here is to show what would be an actual “listening” of the evidence or lack thereof on both sides of the debate. (The debate at TOO is replete of personal attacks and even ad hominems.)
Those who want to debate the details of Holocaust claims and counter-claims may be interested to visit the Amazon reviews of the book and post their opinions there. Here my only point is to show how difficult it is for the layman to side either the “attorney” or the “prosecutor” without actual listening to their whole, technical presentation in a “courtroom” (something that could take months as in the O.J. Simpson trial and even that is no assurance of a fair verdict).
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!
 | Herr Deutsch on The Don Juan of the intellectu… |
 | Snake on Heimbach still has to see the… |
 | Chechar on The Don Juan of the intellectu… |
| Mister Deutsch on The Don Juan of the intellectu… |
| Mister Deutsch on The US in a nutshell |
 | rollingwriter on March of the Titans |
| Chechar on Heimbach still has to see the… |
 | ben on Heimbach still has to see the… |
 | baaltanit on Heimbach still has to see the… |
| rollingwriter on Discipline |
| rollingwriter on Heimbach still has to see the… |
 | Stubbs on Heimbach still has to see the… |
| Stubbs on A response to Armor |
| Chechar on A response to Armor |
| Stubbs on A response to Armor |
