On paleologic white nationalism

I find it a little pathetic that some regulars are trying to post pro-conspiracy comments in my recent post on John F. Kennedy’s assassination after I said that I’d shun all debate if they had not done their homework. I made an exception with a commenter from Germany because I believe that Germans, who have been thoroughly brainwashed by the Americans after the Second World War, deserve a little more patience. But it is inexcusable that native English-speakers are reluctant to read Vincent Bugliosi’s monumental refutation of every single JFK conspiracy theory in a work that took him twenty years to complete.

I must say something about what I have been repeating over and over again:

High-IQ people don’t believe in conspiracy theories: whether it’s JFK, 9/11, the US Moon landing “hoax” of 1969, Satanic Ritual Abuse or the UFO “landing” in New Mexico in 1947.

Silly white nationalists believe that the London decapitation incident was a Jewish hoax. Some of them not only blame the Jews, instead of the Muslims, for that single incident: they blame the Jews for the Boston bombings too; the killings of Adam Lanza, the Breivik incident at Norway, and some conspiracy theorists have developed crank theories about the 2005 London bombings too.

In Spain these idiots also believe that the Jihad attack of 2004 at Madrid was also staged. Here in Mexico the brown Untermenschen also believe that the assassination of a PRI candidate and a Catholic cardinal were orchestrated political murders. Lone wolf assassins cannot exist in the minds of those who lack an in-built parsimony principle (Occam’s razor or economy principle) in their little skulls.

People under the grip of what in my book I call “paleologic thinking” always elaborate hypothesis that preposterously multiply the entities.

I overstated. Some who score very high on IQ studies are every bit as paranoid as the common Neanderthal we see on the streets. Since in my previous post on JFK I mentioned Magnus Carlsen, who won the crown of chess a couple of days ago, I must add that one of the heroes in my teens, World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer, was as paranoid as the previous American champion, Paul Morphy. The grim fact is that you may have the highest IQ and still be the victim of mental disorders. (For those who read Spanish, take a look at my mini-book En Pos de un Rey Metafórico about the pathetic lives of the chess champions.)

ArietiI have quite a concrete idea of why humans (and white nationalists are human; all-too human) have a propensity to fall into what American psychiatrist Silvano Arieti (pic on the left) used to call paleologic thinking. Unfortunately, this can only be properly explained by reading my book, Hojas Susurrantes, on the archeology of the human psyche (for a sample of a translated chapter click here).

In a single blog entry it is impossible to transmit a complex theory, where, besides Arieti, I use the work of Lloyd deMause, Colin Ross, Alice Miller, Julian Jaynes and the critics of psychiatry. Suffice it to say that I believe that the human psyche can be read like the stratigraphy in archeology, with the most primitive—and maddening—infanticidal forms of childrearing (cf. my Metapedia article on the subject) in the lowest stratum and the comparatively most benign forms of parental-filial relations at the top.

My favorite quotation in Arieti’s monumental Interpretation of Schizophrenia is that a hypothetical visitor from Mars would detect many instances of schizoid strata even among the modern Western man. DeMause would agree and would add that among the most primitive cultures, so immersed in magical thinking, psychological dissociation was much worse. In his famous The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind Jaynes even claimed “Before the second millennium B.C., everyone was schizophrenic,” in the sense that humans were immersed in magical thinking (non-paleologic, Aristotelian forms of logic would come later, with the Greeks).

I don’t expect those who have not read at least the translated chapters of my book to understand what all this has to do with lesser forms of paranoia, like those conspiracy theories I cited in my self-quote above, which includes the white nationalists’ paranoia of blaming 9/11 on everything except the actual Islamist perpetrators. But for those who already have a good grasp of what I say in Hojas Susurrantes, let me remind them these words: “The paleologician confuses the physical world with the psychological one. Instead of finding a physical explanation for an event, he looks for a personal motivation or an intention as the cause of an event.”

Just as the primitive man, in a definitive breakdown of the saner forms of cognition, for the disturbed individual the world turns itself animist; each external event having a profound meaning. There are no coincidences for those who inhabit the world of magical thinking. Both the primitive animist and the modern schizophrenic live in distinct dimensions compared to the rational man. The conceptualization of external happenings as impersonal physical forces requires a much more advanced level of cognition than seeing them as personal agents.

If the Greeks are afflicted by epidemics, it is because Phoebus wants to punish Agamemnon. Paranoiacs and paranoids interpret almost everything as manifesting a psychological intention or meaning. In many cases practically everything that occurs is interpreted as willed by the persecutors of the patient.

Along the lines of the reminiscences of paleologic process of thought of other ages, when everybody was immersed in magical thinking, if something as big as the assassination of JFK or the September 11 attacks ever happened, to the modern paleologician prosaic motivational explanations won’t be enough. He would search for a more transcendental, “meaningful” explanation of the human tragedy, as Phoebus punishing Agamemnon when the Homeric Greeks still had to develop more scientific and causal forms of thinking (replace “Phoebus” for “US government” to see my point).

If Jaynes is right, and I believe he is, it is understandable that the human psyche, especially among the most primitive specimens, will still show reminiscences of paleologic thinking in the modern age. All conspiracy theories are ultimately archetypical regressions, although “schizoid,” not “schizophrenic”—still not of the grotesque, acting-out kind that the psychiatrists encounter in their young patients.

Let’s pick the July 8, 1947 Roswell UFO incident from my above list. The paleologicians ask us to abandon both our in-built Occam’s razor and Aristotelic logic and believe that the incident elicited a massive, governmental cover up for an actual extraterrestrial visitation—a cover up involving several republican and democratic presidencies, from Truman to Obama!

This of course strains our credulity well beyond its breaking point, since it assumes that all those administrations, which had been at loggerheads with each other, suddenly fully agreed on the absolute need to hide from the public “the July 8 Truth.”

Prominent skeptic author Joe Nickell, whom I met in a 1994 conference of skeptics at Seattle, identified the myth-making process of the Truthers, which he called the “Roswellian Syndrome.” With another colleague Nickell used the Roswell event as an example, but pointed out that the same syndrome is readily observable in other conspiracy theories. Nickell and his colleagues identified five distinct stages of development of an urban myth:

Incident: The initial incident and reporting on July 8, 1947.

Debunking: Soon after the initial reports, the mysterious object was identified as a weather balloon, later confirmed to be a balloon array from Project Mogul which had gone missing in flight.

Submergence: The news story ended with the identification of the weather balloon. However, the event lingered on in the “fading and recreative memories of some of those involved.” Rumor and speculation simmered just below the surface in Roswell and became part of the culture at large. In time, UFOlogists arrived, asked leading questions and helped to spin a tale of crashed flying saucers and a government conspiracy to cover-up the true nature of the event.

Mythologizing: After the story submerged, and, over time, reemerged, it developed into an ever-expanding and elaborate myth. The mythologizing process included exaggeration, faulty memory, folklore and deliberate hoaxing. The deliberate hoaxing, usually self-serving for personal gain or promotion—for example, the promotion of the 1950 sci-fi movie The Flying Saucer—, in turn fed the urban folklore (“prolefeed for the proles”).

Reemergence and media bandwagon effect: Publication of books such as The Roswell Incident by Berlitz and Moore in 1980, television shows and other media coverage perpetuated the UFO crash story and cover-up conspiracy beliefs. Conspiracy beliefs typically mirror public sentiments towards the US government (the modern “Phoebus”) and oscillate along with those attitudes.

These stages are repeated almost in identical form in other conspiracy theories that don’t involve UFOs, like the ones referred to above in my self-quote. In my opinion, all of them are the product of a flaw in the human psyche. Big events must have big meaningful causes, not prosaic ones (Ancient Greece epidemics caused by Phoebus; JFK and 9/11 by Phoebus-substitute agents).

Reclaiming_History_Bugliosi_1st-ed-2007_WWNorton

But I don’t like posting this entry. Without an actual knowledge of the original synthesis I do of the published material of the mentioned authors (Arieti et al), the thrust of my argument is lost. I’d prefer that English-speaking visitors forget for the moment my theories and make instead an effort to listen, for the first time in their lives, the prosecutor who blamed Oswald and Oswald alone.

Don’t leave the courtroom without giving a fair hearing to the prosecutor, especially if you already have spent dozens of hours listening to the attorney.

A response to Kurwenal

Or:

Why am I reproducing excerpts of Zweig’s book?



In the other thread Kurwenal asked me:

Would it not be more enriching to find out why Rosenberg considered Nietzsche to be one of us rather than to discuss which Jewish author gives a more or less faithful account of Nietzsche’s life and theories.

I see your point, and let me say that this blog has paid due homage to Nietzsche in that sense. See these entries:

“Atheist scum”

“Quotable quote”

“Nietzsche on the Aryan race”

“Nietzsche on the institution of marriage”

Kurwenal again:

By the way, if you can spare one hour of your time, I have tried to summarize the importance of Wagner and Nietzsche for our cause [links to Counter-Currents added].

I am a huge fan of Richard Wagner too. A couple of days ago for example I had to do some driving in Mexico City and the only way I could protect my mind from the nasty surroundings was precisely by listening the complete Second Act of Parsifal. It worked! I didn’t feel so depressed even when navigating in a sea of non-white troglodytes.

But there’s something more as to why I am excerpting Zweig, and it is so important that I will promote this response as a separate blog entry.

The reason that many years ago I read Zweig’s book and Ross’ and Janz’s biographies of Nietzsche has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread. It has to do with my quest about why Nietzsche, and many other people, lost their minds.

Before arriving to the nationalist camp my field of interest was advancing a counter-hypothesis to the medical model of mental disorders, insofar as I believe that biological psychiatry is a pseudoscience. That’s what, originally, moved me to read thick volumes originally written in German about Nietzsche’s life.

One of my dreams is that, if an ethno-state is formed in North America, their architects will do tabula rasa on the fraudulent professions of mental health (a “therapeutic state” as some critics of psychiatry say). White people will have to rediscover a field of research that the current System started to bury since the late 1970s, and especially in the 80s and 90s. Presently very few remember the trauma model of mental disorders (I started a Wikipedia article under that title). And my big hope is that this model, which unlike biopsychiatry is not unscientific, will be considered very seriously in the new white nation.

The gist of this model is that biographical narrative is pivotal to understand the personal tragedies that drive some people mad. That is the reason why I am adding chapter excerpts of Zweig’s The Struggle with the Daimon. It has nothing to do with a desire to pathologize Nietzsche. As you can see in my linked posts above, he obviously had great insights on important subjects. But we also got to understand why some people with perfectly healthy brains suffer permanent psychotic breakdowns.

This is a “software” problem of the human mind, not a “hardware” problem as the current System wants us to believe. (See my book Hojas Susurrantes for a full explanation of it.)

A body-snatched Spaniard

Having in mind the story of snatched Britons I recounted yesterday, today at Occidental Dissent, Lew said:

Given those facts, do you think it’s possible literal, real, metaphysical Satanic influence is guiding the British leaders?

Preposterous! More probably, snatched Britons are merely acting out their emotional issues, as I explained about an adult Spanish woman who transfers the hatred she feels toward her abusive parents toward her parents’ culture.

Below, what I wrote by the end of 2009 when analyzing her. I apologize in advance that, since most of the original entries in Spanish don’t appear below (it would triple the length of this post), my English translation appears disjointed or disconnected at some places:


Today’s suicidal ethos throughout the West is unimaginably deeper than anything that the common Western patriot, or even the most sophisticated intellectual, has ever glimpsed in his wildest dreams. While intellectuals in the white nationalist movement are good in describing the predicament that the West faces today, at the same time they are clueless about the basic etiology of the whys of the ethnic and cultural self-hatred behind some of our people. Why is this so?

I have written a book from the viewpoint of depth psychology and cannot summarize my findings in this entry. Suffice it to say that the most extreme cases of cultural and ethnic self-hatred go back to the way we were raised by our parents, and the defense mechanisms that we unconsciously built in response to the family dynamics. Although I believe this is the universal cause of extreme self-hatred, in the sense of hatred toward our parents’ culture, in this article I will use a single case-study to illustrate why a westerner that I know hates her culture to the point of desiring its destruction. I analyze her not as a personal vendetta, but in the hope that those who defend our culture and ethnicity will become aware of what Alice Miller calls the forbidden knowledge.

Below, my translation of what I wrote in Spanish in several entries elsewhere:


First entry (6 October 2009)

It’s incredible what a broke guy does to get out of poverty. After the tragedy that occurred in my family, the central subject of my series of books Hojas Susurrantes, I ended up without profession or a job. Through the internet I met a woman from Gran Canaria, Teresa, who proposed to marry me so that I may obtain work permit in Spain. Though we never married, and although there was never intimacy between us, Teresa initiated the paperwork as if she was my employer so that, with time, I could obtain the work permit. Since I originally believed that this was altruistic help I accepted in order to break away from my family’s future inheritance and, finally, be free to publish my Hojas Susurrantes about them.

This idealism moved me to embark on a trip to Gran Canaria. Neither Teresa (“Tere”) nor I suspected that the 2009 economic crisis in Spain would severely worsen during the time I stayed there. Thousands of the island’s canary citizens lost their jobs. I was not even a Canarian and under those circumstances I lived ten months in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

But thanks to the unemployment I educated myself. I used those long months to read lots of articles in the blogosphere about the islamization of Europe, and even about the extinction of the white race (if the present suicidal birth-rate trend among Caucasians continues). Since in good faith I always talk about my projects and readings, I committed the mistake of telling Tere that I was involved in the counter-jihad movement; that is, the movement in the blogosphere concerned about the islamization of the West.

What a blunder… In the following months that I lived in Tere’s flat, unable to get out because of lack of a job, Tere harassed me with phone calls, e-mails and, when she visited Canaria (she works in Madrid), even personally. But I’m getting ahead of our story.

The days in which Tere gave me a tour in her island I witnessed how she approached the employees of the shops with questions in very bad mood. When I confronted her about this sort of behavior she replied that we were too susceptible; that she was a courageous woman and that the people simply misunderstand her passion. In a couple of e-mails she told me that her moods formed part of “her always critical and questioning nature.” She also wrote:

“It’s true that I can be very intense or passionate in discussions, something that some people misinterpret as irritation or anger.”

In these entries we will see what these “misinterpretations” really were, and why I consider her case a perfect paradigm to understand the West’s suicide in general and Europe’s in particular.


Second entry (12 October 2009)

Why do I use my time in something apparently so irrelevant like writing about the hysterias of a leftist woman? Simple reason: because we lack what in The Divided Self Laing called a “science of the persons.”

After Romanticism the genre of confessional autobiography cropped up. Unfortunately, by pretending to approach the subject on the basis of abstract principles, psychoanalysis, academic psychology and psychiatry usurped the study of the inner self and approached our souls from the impossible viewpoint of objectivism. This category error permeates the academia insofar as to understand concrete people it’s necessary a subjective history of these people.

Oliver Sacks recognizes this in his area of expertise, neurology. In a recent entry in another of my blogs in Spanish I refer to Sacks’ Musicophilia. And in another of his very acclaimed books, The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, Sacks complained that in classical neurology we will find a thousand descriptions of the pathologies that correspond to the left hemisphere of the brain for a single pathology about the right hemisphere. He adds:

And yet, as Luria says, they are of the most fundamental importance. So much so that they may demand a new sort of neurology, a “personalistic,” or (as Luria liked to call it) a “romantic,” science; for the physical foundations of the persona, the self, are here revealed for our study. Luria thought a science of this kind would be best introduced by a story—a detailed case-history.

Sacks approaches the hardware problems of the despised right hemisphere of the brain, the hemisphere of the emotions; Laing and I, on the other hand, approach software problems: the cognitive distorsions through which some see the world. Sacks’ field of study is the damaged brain. Laing’s field, like my own, are the damaged minds. One studies the hardware, the other the software. In another of my blogs I have delved deeper into it.

So why do I post a long entry about a leftist that I met, a woman with no societal influence except her vote to Zapatero’s party? As I said, the reason is simple. The best way to illustrate the failures of judgment should be, according to Laing and Sacks, personalistic. But in the psychology departments I wouldn’t be allowed to enter into this type of incursion about a non-notable person.

I would like to quote Sacks again to illustrate this astronomical mistake in academic psychology. In the chapter about the man who, due to a neurological problem—his eyesight abilities were perfectly OK—mistook his wife for a hat, Sacks wrote:

Neurology and psychology, curiously, though they talk of everything else, almost never talk of “judgment.” And yet, judgment is the most important faculty we have. An animal, or a man, may get on very well without “abstract attitude” but will speedily perish if deprived of judgment. Judgment must be the first faculty of higher life or mind—yet it is ignored, or misinterpreted, by classical (computational) neurology. And if we wonder how such an absurdity can arise, we find it in the assumptions, or the evolution, of neurology itself. For classical neurology (like classical physics) has always been mechanical. Of course, the brain is a machine and a computer—everything in classical neurology is correct. But our mental processes are not just abstract and mechanical, but personal, as well—and, as such, involve not just classifying and categorizing, but continual judging and feeling also. If this is missing, we become computer-like, as Dr P. was.

“Doctor P.” was the curious patient who, due to a neurological problem that made him to forget what human faces were, mistook his wife for a hat. (In the above quotation I didn’t use ellipsis between the unquoted phrases.) What Sacks says after the above quote hits the nail:

By a sort of comic and awful analogy, our current cognitive neurology and psychology resemble nothing so much as poor Dr P.! Our cognitive sciences are themselves suffering from an agnosia essentially similar to Dr P.’s. Dr P. may therefore serve as a warning and parable—of what happens to a science which eschews the judgmental, the particular, the personal, and becomes entirely abstract and computational.

As a remedy to this hemiplegic neurology, Sacks recommends the study of the brain’s right hemisphere. Nevertheless, unlike the left hemisphere, the right one cannot be studied with IQ-like tests, but through personalized case-histories. Sacks thus illustrates the neurological dysfunctions in the diverse areas of the right hemisphere. His work showed me stuff about the mind that I hadn’t fully digested a few years ago when I read another of his books, An Anthropologist on Mars. Incidentally, all of my Sacks books were gifts by Tere! On this one I must be grateful to her…

The above are key quotations to make my point. Just as present-day neurology is hemiplegic, the humanities are hemiplegic too, including almost everything published to date about ethno-masoquism in the West. While a few psycho-biographies about the pathologies of politicians are available, it is considered improper to analyze a casual acquaintance.

I believe that this is a gigantic mistake, as my study of Tere will demonstrate. To analyze a staunch far-leftist woman is, in the “software,” the “hardware” equivalent of analyzing the brain lobe of someone who mistakes his wife for a hat.

The original post was too long. I’ve moved “entries” 3 to 12 (and part of the 14th and last entry). Below I keep what is essential to make my point:



Thirteenth entry (28 October 2009)

I’ve already said that Teresa used my economic dependency to harass me about my political views when I wanted to avoid her as if she was the plague itself. The following e-mail excerpts are examples of such harassment. Angrily she wrote:

19 August 2009

And why do you elude person-to-person confrontation? Do you know what’s the problem with you? You constantly send contradictory messages and the other person doesn’t know how to behave with you.

18 August 2009

But your obsession and visceral hatred that you exude in these [YouTube] videos cannot but confirm the idea, already stated in my previous e-mail, that the subject [my exposé of radical Islam] is no more than a scapegoat for your rages and hard feelings about your family. And it’s a pity that ultimately my efforts to help you to come here, and to spread your ideas about psychiatric coercion, have ended in the promotion of the opposite values of liberty, equality and solidarity which I’ve always struggled for. [In the moved posts omitted here I already talked about Tere’s fallacy of identifying anti-psychiatric activism with the “progressive” policies of the left.]

7:49 A.M.

Incidentally, today I was thinking about one of your videos of the “Alice Miller” series where you bitterly criticize your cousin, the filmmaker, because he didn’t dare to comment anything about your book after you gave it to him.

I don’t know if you noticed it, but you did exactly the same when I recommended you to watch the film that I so much identify with—and that had affected me so much that I wasn’t capable of watching it again with you—, titled The Secret Life of Words. Your only comment was a laconic and brief “Not too bad” and only when I questioned you about it you immediately passed on talking about banal subjects with absolute indifference. How can you demand that others do what you don’t do? [I’ll respond to this hysterical demand, that I should have played the role of Tere’s “Doctor Heart”, below.]

17 August 2009

I’ve just watched one of your videos where you say that you’d like to go to the USA and subscribe the Republican Party. HOW CAN YOU BETRAY YOURSELF AND YOUR IDEAS IN SUCH A WAY? I’d like to know what would those right-wingers of “gates of viena” [sic, a counter-jihad blogsite] say about your ideas about traditional family…

24 June 2009

I’ve glanced through, in leaps and bounds just for a change, your English blog. How obsessive!!!! [in June of 2009 most of my entries were about the islamization of Europe]. Isn’t there any other subject of your interest? And in leaps and bounds, some words catch my attention.

“The Reconquest”? It’s as clear as day that you didn’t suffer the Francoist dictatorship and all of its grandiloquent paraphernalia “for God’s empire”!! [Tere reduces ad absurdum my concern about Europe’s islamization in the 21st century with a 20th century chapter in the history of her country.]

23 June 2009

And it’s a stupidity on your part if you think that in Muslim countries the only schools that the children go are usually the Koranic madrassas. [I never said this] In Morocco, for example, the French lyceums have a great tradition and prestige. [Judge by yourselves my dear readers. In the tone she spoke to me, “stupidity on my part,” Tere demanded at the same time that I played the role of her “Doctor Heart”...]

17 June 2009

“…the social engineers that import millions of Muslims to Europe.” But what paranoid conspiracy nonsense is this? [Tere quotes what I wrote in my blog but omits the context because, as she herself acknowledged, she only “glanced through in leaps and bounds” my entries.]


Teresa ends up in the Fruit Cake Hospital

This is the most important section of my analysis [taking into account the analysis I omitted here because of the length of the original post]. It has to do with my hypothesis that an unprocessed hatred toward the abusive family transmutes into depression, as I explain in my essay “On depression.” Within this framework, suicide or suicidal ideation are perfectly comprehensible. Indeed, suicidal ideation is what at the beginnings of the new century Tere suffered when she was committed in a psychiatry ward of a public hospital of Las Palmas. This is the story:

By the end of 2002 Tere contacted my through internet for the first time. In that year I still didn’t have a webpage. But I had translated to Spanish several anti-psychiatric articles authored by Lawrence Stevens. Tere liked especially one of those articles in which, following Tom Szasz, Stevens said that suicide ought to be “a civil right.”

Tere rarely writes in English. Instead of contacting the author she contacted the translator—me—, and through a series of e-mails she revealed an interesting story that I believed from 2002 to 2009, when my trip to her native island disabused me. I confess that since we met in the internet Tere was so fascinated with my anti-psychiatric work that, for years, she paid the bill of my (now defunct) antipsych webpage.

The day that I left her island for good Tere was in her flat of Las Palmas. On her own initiative, she showed me the file of the psychiatric ward in which she was committed not long before she contacted me in 2002. Although it was written in almost illegible handwriting by the nurses and physicians of the hospital, the file demystified the story that Tere had detailed in her e-mails of 2002, as well as in 2003 when she visited Mexico.

In the idealized story, Tere was casually passing by near a bridge in her island when a policeman believed she would jump from it and called the ambulance, which unjustly took her to the hospital. A female doctor, her story goes, had her in an observation room and Tere protested that the detention was taking too long. This moved the doctor to arbitrarily commit her. Once involuntarily committed in the psychiatric ward she was drugged with Valium, again against her will. The tranquilizer produced a terrible side effect, paralyzing her muscles and Tere believed she would die. She wasn’t allowed to leave the ward for days and days… (If she was cut off the outside world it was because she didn’t want to give the doctors but a single phone number of a girlfriend, who to boot was never at home.) Once her brother took her out of the hospital, Tere was so scared that decided to move to Madrid. Even though she owns a flat in Las Palmas (where I would live years later), Tere preferred to share an expensive flat in Madrid in her obsession to get away, at all cost, from the betrayal she suffered in her native island.

This is Tere’s tale. Originally it made such an impression on me that I mentioned it in my webpage without mentioning her name, as a typical case of psychiatric commitment of a sane person. However, when Tere showed me the psychiatric file, I discovered that her tale was a fabrication.

In the diverse documents that Tere showed me, what first caught my eye was the police report. He testified that Tere told him she was measuring the bridge’s height. Tere hadn’t told me this little detail! What I remember now is that even in her idealized version Tere said she rudely talked back to the policeman when he asked her, alarmed, where exactly was she going.

And until now I start to connect the dots. Remember how Tere treated the employees of Las Palmas? The point is that such behavior provides a very different reading of the facts. The policeman knew that another person had killed himself a week before by jumping off the bridge. Now, confronted with a rude woman talking about measuring the bridge’s height in the middle of a freeway road, he called the ambulance. I remember that Tere herself confessed me that the reason she talked rudely to the policeman was because of what the police symbolized in her mind when she was much younger, especially due to the character of the Francoist police.

So we’ve got Franco once more [mentioned several times in the above-omitted entries]. It’s evident that Tere projects her teen experiences to the present, and onto completely innocent people. Nowadays the Spanish police are very different from Franco’s police, and even more in the Canary Islands. The Canary people in general, and the Spanish police in particular, are kind. However, due to her eternal retro-projections Tere didn’t see any provocation coming from her rude answer to the policeman, who only fulfilled his duty after the recent incident. On the contrary, and like other persons with an attitude problem, Tere projects her traumas onto the people in her immediate surroundings, however innocent they may be. For example, in one of her most provocative e-mails Tere wrote:

Are you sure you are not projecting toward the Islamic subject your unresolved rage and revenge thirst for the harm you got in the family during your teens????????

Tere’s head of concrete impedes her seeing that I’m not projecting but describing what’s happening in Europe. That’s not projection. Tere’s words are a projected self-portrait onto the people she happens to encounter. If there’s someone whose “rage and revenge thirst” is unresolved, it is Tere’s. It’s she the one who suffers from “family harms.”

This is not the first time when someone projects onto myself her self-portraiture. Analogously, the first event in the chain that ended up in her commitment, the policeman’s call to the ambulance, had been a diametrically-opposed incident to the story Tere had made me believe. Let’s now see what happened after that.

According to Tere’s tale, the commitment had been an arbitrary action of female the doctor in charge of the admissions. Only until I arrived to the island I learnt that Tere’s suicidal ideation had been something very real. From Tere herself I learned that she was measuring the bridge’s height to make sure she would die after jumping off! Tere told me this personally in Canaria: not even by e-mail. She had to check up the height because a couple of her acquaintances had jumped off from not sufficiently tall buildings and had, pathetically, survived. But there were even more surprises in her file…

One of the things that surprised me the most is that Tere made a few little tantrums asking to leave the hospital, confronting the nurses with the words:

“I can take my life whenever I want!”

or:

“I can take my life when I feel like doing it!”

Although I don’t have the file with me, I remember those phrases. When I read the police’s report—that Tere intended to measure the bridge’s height—, or the nurses’ report—that she made tantrums about taking her life—, amazed, I asked Tere: “But did you tell them those things?”

Candidly Tere assented and rationalized her conduct as the legitimate reaction before the commitment. There were other phrases of this kind, but I don’t remember them exactly. Since Tere only let me see the file in her presence, I couldn’t annotate what I read. But I can state that the file transmitted a very vivid image that Tere made a fool of herself in the hospital, lachrymosely demanding her right to kill herself. That had been the real cause of her commitment, not the malevolence of the Canary authorities, the version of the story that I had originally swallowed.

When Tere showed me the file it didn’t cross her mind that the revelation would radically transform the idea I had about her case. Tere showed it to me under the impression that I, who for a couple of years had done anti-psychiatric activism, would solidarize with her cause. She never perceived that by showing it to me her old tale would crumble.

A person in his right mind would have kept up a straight face, even someone who would commit suicide. There are be people in their right mind that commit suicide. Tere’s file, on the other hand, registered temper tantrum after temper tantrum in the psychiatric ward, aggravated by the side-effect of the Valium that impeded her to breath normally and even “to open the anal sphincter” when going to the toilet, as Tere confessed a Scientologist who does some activism against involuntary psychiatry. Even though Tere let me read only a fraction of the file, her acting out was so obvious that I wonder why wasn’t she punished with much stronger psychiatric drugs. As I said, the Canary people that I met were very kind; this might explain why they didn’t administer her neuroleptics.

I never told Tere a word about how her file had changed my mind. Still, each time that the file reported one of the amazing phrases attributed to Tere, I asked incredulously: “Did you say that…?” Tere continued to assent without perceiving how the new revelations would change my previous opinion.

Tere’s file refreshed my memory on another subject. When in 2002 I read the long tale that Tere had written, I gathered that in the previous days to her fateful visit to the bridge she was extremely upset about a lawsuit against her previous employer, a rather long and tiresome lawsuit process she had initiated. Tere’s frustration about it drove her to visit the bridge.

In September 11 of 2009, the day I escaped from her island, to my surprise those lawsuits were mentioned in the psychiatric file that I saw. And after watching Tere aggressively arguing in her island with innocent employees the first days we arrived to the island, a behavior she would later repeat with me for sure, the dots connected by themselves. For example, Tere told me that she had reproached, angrily, her detention addressing the female doctor in charge of the admissions in the psychiatric ward. I didn’t tell Tere what was in my mind when she confessed this little incident, but it seems pretty obvious that this resulted in a one-way ticket to the ward. Who on earth dares to talk rudely to the one in charge of admissions within the psychiatric ward itself? Only someone so overwhelmed by her emotional issues that acts out her suicidal ideation in front of the thoughtpolice!

To understand this analysis of Tere it’s useful to become familiar with my analysis of Andrew Solomon (already linked above). Just as Solomon displaced the rage he felt for his mother on one of his friends, breaking his jaw, Tere does something similar. Of course, women are not tough guys by nature. Instead, they frequently discharge their rage verbally: what Tere did at the stores; with me, with the policeman at the bridge, with the powerful psychiatrist in charge of the admissions, and I assume that with her former employers too, against whom Tere filled up angry lawsuits.

In one word: hysteria. Tere has a medical degree. She knew perfectly well the dynamics of the psychiatric institutions in her native island. She has no valid excuse about how would the authorities of her island react before her acting out her emotional issues.

During the ten months that I stayed in her flat, Tere was there about two months in her holyday days. When she told me that her parents hit her as a child, I suggested her to do a serious mourning to process the trauma: say, something like writing an autobiography like the one I had written. For Tere, that was absolutely out of the question. She told me several times that that wouldn’t do any good to her.

Tere never confronted her parents. She doesn’t talk about her family traumas with her two brothers either. Nor does she reproach anything to her silent relatives. She keeps everything to herself. It’s understandable, therefore, that the volcano of rage she carries inside explodes in other ways.

Tere’s case is typical. I have given my two sisters the bestseller of Susan Forward Toxic Parents, which incidentally I recommended to Tere a few years ago and she did purchase a translated copy of it. Forward tells her clients that graduate in her therapy to write a letter to the perpetrator, the parent who abused her clients when they were younger. Of the many people that I know that have read Forward’s book—Tere included—, no one has followed Forward’s advice. The fears of touching the parent inundate even the minds of those who, like Tere, have already half a century in this world. And in the case that the parent has passed away, as I explained in my essay on Solomon, Forward advises reading a vindictive letter in front of the parent’s grave to obtain inner peace. But Tere didn’t settle the score with any of her parents in the form of long epistles (cf. the first book of my series of five, Letter to mom Medusa).

Tere’s attitude is typical. All people whom I’ve tried to communicate with tell me that they already got over it and that writing long, reproaching letters—let alone sending them to their parents—is out of place. It’s risible that Tere answered back that she vehemently dislikes writing when she apparently didn’t dislike writing the psychodrama of her involuntary commitment, and even sending it to her intimate friends. Those who suffer from chronic bad temper are capable of anything except addressing their bitterness at the source that caused it.

In my Solomon essay I said that substitutive hate, the one directed onto scapegoats, is infinite. In the case of Tere that means nothing less that her bad tempers and brawls don’t finish just there. Tere needs, in addition to that, to hate the culture that was deaf about how she was abused in her teens. Tere herself confessed to me that she hated the society because of that betrayal, and that when she was committed her old memories of physical abuse at home assaulted her mind. According to her own words, the commitment had been a —:

“Now I know…!”

—that what was done to her as a child was true. But Tere, who has written op-eds to the newspapers complaining about psychiatry, doesn’t write a single word advocating the child’s right not to be parentally abused or about her own childhood, where her real pain lays. It’s no mystery that she transfers her rancor to parent symbols such as the authorities, as we saw with the police. But the policeman who impeded her reaching the bridge is not her father. Nor her mother. Nor her deaf relatives. It was Tere herself, not the file, who told me that when the policeman asked her where was she going, she responded adamantly:

“To the bridge!”

The hard answer detonated a chain reaction from the forces of law and order. And each time that Tere had the opportunity of repressing her bad temper and keep a straight face, she did nothing but escalate her acting out provoking even more the island’s authorities.


Final analysis

I wouldn’t have written this comparatively long analysis were it not for Teresa’s hatred for the West in general and traditional Spain in particular, and her craving for my culture’s destruction. We already saw [in the omitted entries] that she told me she really loved the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Moorish immigration that is taking away what force remains of Christendom in Spain, that she thinks that every single Western family is noxious, and that she wishes that “everything collapses.”

The sad thing about cases like Teresa’s is that there are many of them. What moves me to write this article is that in the nationalist movement there is no psychological analysis whatsoever, not even in the slightest form, of why leftist people hate their civilization. I believe that this case illustrates it. The volcano of rage that Teresa carries inside never explodes in the form of speaking out about her real aggressors. Never. She re-directs it to the culture that, in her mind, symbolizes her family: the Francoist Spain and everything related to conservatism. Teresa gives a damn about the fact that in other cultures the treatment of women is far worse that what she got as a child. That’s irrelevant. What only matters is the destruction of the culture that crucified her. Period.

Teresa and I have the same age and we both suffered in Catholic families at the same time. Comparing the two biographies it’s evident that I was a victim of more serious parental abuse than what she got.

But I don’t desire the destruction of my civilization. Before trauma, even big time trauma, there still exists individual responsibility. That someone devotes himself to speaking out about child abuse (like me), or contributing to destroy the West through voting for Zapatero and by hating those concerned with the Islamization of the Europe (like Teresa), only shows that there’s indeed something like surrendering our will to evil.

If leftist feminists were good persons, the first thing they would do is to feel compassion for the girls in Europe whose genitals have been chopped off at their parents’ request. But these women do exactly the opposite: they hate the System dissidents who pity the pubescent Muslims, as Teresa hated me in her quoted e-mails.

“A little woman chasing after her revenge would over-run fate itself” wrote Nietzsche. Teresa and the rest of the little women that feel extreme hatred toward our civilization chase after an unconscious revenge. With so many voters like her in Spain and in the Western world, so many Body-snatched Pod whites like in the 1956 film, the fate of the West looks grim indeed. Teresa’s suicidal ideation, aborted by the psychiatric institution that she loathes so much, transmutes itself into the suicide of our civilization since, alas, instead of killing themselves many other empowered women have become West haters too.

But there is something in which Teresa and I are in agreement. I believe that the policeman should have let her jump off the bridge…

MacDonald and psychiatry

Discussing in a radio show with Carolyn Yeager the horrific Connecticut killings perpetrated by Adam Lanza, Professor Kevin MacDonald, who in addition to his studies on Judaism is familiar with child psychiatry, said:

I am in favor of biological psychiatry and in the understanding of all of these mental disorders in a biological manner.

In other words, like virtually all psychology academics, MacDonald is grossly misinformed about this subject.

Biological psychiatry is a pseudo-science insofar as the etiology of mental disorders is not somatogenic but psychogenic. I wonder if MacDonald knows that there’s an entire journal by professionals in mental health, Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry that aims to debunk the claims of biological psychiatry. (For my own take on this very subject, see my paper that took years of research, “Unfalsifiability in psychiatry and licit drugging of white children”.)

In the interview MacDonald also said:

I don’t think we can really understand what is going on in his [Lanza’s] brain.

This confusion of the “mind” with the “brain” is pandemic too among the brainwashed, that is, almost all American society. MacDonald seems to ignore that the mind is not the brain, and that we can commit heinous acts, say killing children, with perfectly normal brains (though our souls must be rotten to the core).

Those psychiatrists that blame the brain for any mental disorder and try to fix it through physical means are similar to a hypothetical computer technician who claims there is no software—only hardware—, and always tries to fix the computers’ viruses of his clients by messing the mother board with his pliers. “Never use an antivirus if the software doesn’t exist.” The fact that in humans the “software” does indeed exist escapes the brainwashed individual. Again, see my paper linked above. It demonstrates that psychiatric bio-reductionism is as unscientific as the methods of this hypothetical computer technician (Greg Johnson corrected some of my syntactic inaccuracies of that paper).

MacDonald said:

His mother should have put him [Lanza] into a treatment facility… She seemed to be aware that he had severe problems. She apparently quit her job to be with him all the time… She knew that he had these demons. Well, if she had taken him into a treatment facility and if there would be good psychiatrists there they would not leave him out on the street. I do think that a lot of people have to be confined… In the old days we used to put [homeless people] in psychiatric hospitals.

There are no “good psychiatrists” in “psychiatric hospitals” for the simple reason that psychiatry is as pseudoscientific as, say, parapsychology or UFOlogy. MacDonald’s statement is also very common in his profession but is plagued with so many errors of judgment about both mental disorders and the psychiatric profession itself that I wish that my whole book was translated to English to be able to link it now!

Suffice it to say that when I lived in Marin County in California I interacted a lot with white homeless people, most of them perfectly sane. I wonder if MacDonald and his colleagues can see that living on the streets causes severe mental distress and not the other way around: that so-called schizophrenics end up homeless? Furthermore, unlike the ubiquitous Hollywood stereotype, people labeled as schizophrenics are, according to statistics and my own experience with these people, not more violent than non-schizophrenics.

In another part of the interview both Yeager and MacDonald stated that the anti-psychiatric ideas that deinstitutionalized the mental hospitals were promoted in the 1960s by the Left. While it is true that at the other side of the Atlantic typical anti-psychiatrists like Ronald Laing and David Cooper were leftists, in America the foremost critic of psychiatry, Tom Szasz, who incidentally died earlier this year, was not a leftist by any stretch of the imagination. What’s more, deinstitutionalization was in no way caused by Szasz’s views, who never had any power whatsoever in institutional psychiatry. Deinstitutionalization in America’s 1960s was a matter of social policy; of federal economic interests vs. state interests.

More to the point, Lanza’s monstrous actions are probably the result of having been victimized by an extremely abusive mother: the most heretical hypothesis in the mental health professions today (as heretical as saying in the academia that “Whites also have ethnic interests” or that “Hitler was not that bad after all”). However, I cannot explain the trauma model of mental disorders here, only link to a brief section of my book of what a psychiatrist, whom incidentally I once visited at his Dallas clinic, says about that model.

Briefly, if Lanza’s mother destroyed Adam’s mind society should have committed her, not the victim as MacDonald advised. By committing the original perpetrator, Adam Lanza would have felt socially vindicated and no pathological displacement of his rage on innocent children would have occurred.

But society assaults the victim instead. Through the mental health professions society makes a massive effort to obfuscate the fact that some parents produce the most horrible form of mental hell in a child’s mind. This blindness is precisely what drives the society, as explained in my book, to “re-victimize” a child who already was victim of maddening parental abuse. The psychiatric re-victimization is performed by means of an insulting psychiatric label together with psychotropic drugs and/or involuntary commitment: a blame-the-victim, soul-devastating action that often increases the chances of driving the child mad.

In my writings I speak of “the trauma model” to contrast it with the pseudo-scientific “medical model of mental disorders,” a medical model that MacDonald subscribes (“I am in favor of biological psychiatry and in the understanding of all these mental disorders in a biological manner”). Although the trauma model explains severe psychoses, it can also be used to explain comparatively lesser forms of mental distress, such as neuroses. Those who would like to visualize how engulfing mothers—and I am talking now of cases far less serious than Lanza’s—often drive the child into explosions of rage can see my essay-review of a silly bestseller authored by a junior whose father made a fortune in the Big Pharma.

Breivik’s closing statement

Today I read a wonderful article by Andrew Hamilton at Counter-Currents about Norwegian revolutionary nationalist Anders Behring Breivik, 33. Hamilton let us know that among Norwegians the date July 22 is like September 11 in the US, that “literally everyone knows what it means.”

Recording and broadcasting of both, opening and closing statements by Breivik (April 16, 2012 & June 22, 2012) in Oslo District Court in Norway was prohibited. Reporters had to take manual notes.

It seems that Breivik’s courtroom statements have not been published by any major media outlet in any European language outside Norway. I would recommend future revolutionaries to study closely both statements and think seriously of what a trouble trio can do once it hits the fan.



Breivik’s statement

Thank you.

I think we can all agree that on July 22 a barbaric action occurred. What happened on July 22 in the government quarter and on Utøya were barbaric acts.

And I remember that on July 21 I thought after several years of planning, “Tomorrow morning I will die” [Breivik took a deep breath and leaned forward before continuing].

I came to within 200 meters of the government quarter. Then I remember I thought, “In two minutes I will die.”

And what am I going to die for? That’s what I’m going to talk about now.

I’m not going to deliver a speech. I gave my explanation on April 17th, and it contains many of my arguments. That statement explains the most. [See Breivik's opening statement on Day 2 of the trial.]

There are still some things I did not say enough about, and that’s what I’ll take up now.

The Sanity Issue

I will start with the assessment of my sanity. As a starting point, every person under the law is presumed sane.

And of those who have evaluated me, a total of 37 highly qualified individuals, out of 37 people, 35 have not found any symptoms at all. And of the 37, two have found a multitude of symptoms.

So it’s pretty obvious what one should emphasize. The 35 people or the two people. It’s clear the prosecutors do not want to repeat here in court what I said in the interrogations. I will not go into that now.

The prosecutor said I wanted to claim mental incapacity in the beginning. That is not true.

In December or late November, when the firsaA [psychiatric] report came [concluding that Breivik was a paranoid schizophrenic], everyone was shocked

I was thinking: What to do next? I thought I would wait for the debate to die down. And I thought hard about strategy before demanding two new experts.

Also, gradually I thought: Now that I have been betrayed by two psychiatrists who do not have access to the conversations, how will I ever trust a psychiatrist again? That’s why I was considering not allowing myself to be examined again. If I get two reports against me, it’s over.

Democracy No Longer Functioning

As I’ve explained, especially on April 17 [the opening statement], the European democratic political model is not working. The arguments I presented emphasize the need for a fundamental change of leadership in Norway and Europe.

This began with World War II. In the 1960s the Labor Party decided that a large group of Pakistanis who had been refused entry into Finland, and who came to Norway on a tourist visa, should be granted residence.

And that was how the multicultural experiment in Norway began. The Labor Party decided that Norway should follow Great Britain’s example, with Asian and African mass immigration.

I have already talked a lot about the ridicule of cultural conservatives. So I will not talk much about it, except to address some high points.

The main characteristic has been political discrimination. Cultural conservative NGOs [non-governmental organizations] and youth organizations receive no funding. They are opposed. Perhaps the only cultural conservative newspaper we had in Norway, Norway Today, lost press subsidies just a few years ago.

After July 22 subsidies to HRS [Human Rights Service], a cultural conservative organization, were halved. That’s an organization that has nothing to do with me. During the past 20 or 30 years there has been public funding of extreme left organizations in Norway such as Blitz [an "antifa" communist, anarchist, and socialist youth movement permitted by the state to employ violence against the Progress Party, the Fatherland Party, the Democrats in Norway, and others] Serve the People [Serve the People—Communist League; Tjen Folket – Kommunistisk Forbund, a Maoist group] and the Norwegian Center Against Racism [Antirasistisk Senter, an anti-white NGO].

Ethnic Deconstruction

Perhaps some will remember the leader of Future In Our Hands [Fremtiden i våre hender], Steinar Lem [a Norwegian environmentalist], who died of cancer a few years ago. One of the last things he said was something that had burned within him, but he had not dared to articulate before he knew he was going to die.

It was that we fought for Tibetan rights and the Tibetan indigenous people, but in Norway it is not permitted to say that Norwegians have as much right to a homeland as the Tibetans, and that our rights are in fact equally important.

He did not dare to speak the truth before he was told by his doctor that he was going to die. Only then did he dare to say what he thought.

In part of the compendium, I’ve written a lot about [ethnic] deconstruction and the absence of morality in Norway since 1968. They are huge problems. In Norway today, ideals are upheld that are extremely harmful and will be detrimental to our future.

When it comes to sexually transmitted diseases and the sexual revolution, it’s actually something that is underreported, and has created major problems in Europe. The ideal being upheld is to have sex with as many strangers as possible. Instead of focusing on the nuclear family, the focus is on dissolving it, and all the problems which that entails.

For example, the Sex and the City ideal, where Samantha and Carrie through 100–200 episodes of the series have sex with hundreds of men. These are the ideals that are upheld today. This is a disease. It’s like sugar to the audience. These sick ideals should be censored and shielded from our community.

So people neglect their duty to family and nation. They get education, travel, and are 35 before they start having children. Women should begin having children in their 20s. Our birth rate is below replacement level.

No Free Speech

One of the most influential people in Norway, Arne Strand [a print and broadcast journalist and former member of Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland's cabinet] in Dagsavisen [the daily newspaper Strand edits, until 1999 the official organ of the Labor Party, now independent] has issued many statements about press subsidies.

He proposes that everyone on the right, to the right of Carl I. Hagen [former Vice President of the Storting (Norwegian Parliament) and ex-chairman of the Progress Party], should be censored, and excluded from the democratic process. He says straight out that government press subsidies [to the Left, denied to the right] are necessary to preserve the current political hegemony.

We must protect hegemony, we must not allow people the right to express themselves. The system of press subsidies ensures that Norway will never be a democracy, because those on the far right are excluded.

I will mention some important political actions by the Labor Party, those in power in Norway, that legitimize and may trigger violent counter-reactions.

Psychiatry and the Legacy of World War II

Svein Holden [one of Breivik's prosecutors] said that after WW II not many people in Norway were sent to psychiatric wards. He meant that only novelist Knut Hamsun and Justice Minister Sverre Riisnæs were sent to mental hospitals.

[Sverre Riisnæs served in Vidkun Quisling's Nasjonal Samling (NS, National Unity) government during the German occupation; after the war he was imprisoned in a Norwegian psychiatric hospital from 1948–1960.]

But there were several. [“Breivik sits leaning forward in his chair as he speaks. Defense attorneys Geir Lippestad and Vibeke Hein Bæra lean back and look down at the table.]

It’s no secret that after the war many cultural conservatives and nationalists were neutralized with the help of psychiatry. Many members of the Nasjonal Samling were sent to the madhouse by Labor.

Halldis Neegaard Østbye, Quisling’s secretary and NS-ideologue, among other things wrote the book Jews’ War in 1943. She eventually died at Dikemark madhouse. Her and her husband’s ski factory was taken from them by the Labor Party at war’s end.

[Halldis Neegaard Østbye, active NS leader and prolific writer. In 1938 she wrote The Jewish Problem and Its Solution under the pseudonym "Irene Sword." It was reissued in 1942 and 1943.]

And Knut Hamsun we know about.

These unconstitutional, unjust, illegal sentences should be abolished, and compensation provided to the relatives.

Non-NS’ers who were opposed to the Labor Party were also tried and declared mad.

An example is editor Toralv Fanebust [a harsh critic of Norway's post-WW II trials and persecutions]. When the attempt [to declare him insane] failed, he was given a lengthy prison sentence for having written about important Labor Party members’ actions before and after the war.

His grandson has recently released the book Krigshistorien: oppgjør med mytene [War History: Reckoning With the Myths].

Violence Against the Right

What else has the political power instigated and applauded that is likely to precipitate violent resistance?

The Fatherland Party [FLP, Fedrelandspartiet, a nationalist party in Norway between 1990 and 2008] received about 0.5 percent of the vote in 1993, the first time they ran in Parliamentary elections.

[FLP leader] Bjarne Dahl in 1993 tried to legitimize political opposition to immigration. At a market square meeting in Oslo, he had his face smashed with an iron pipe, his jaw broken, and his teeth knocked out in attacks by some Blitz members [antifas belonging to the state-funded group mentioned previously].

Party leader and professor Harald Trefall [1925–2008, experimental physicist, anti-immigration activist, and Fatherland Party founder] was also hit in the face by something that was thrown. The party chairman was bleeding from a wound in the face.

Also, others were beaten and kicked.

When a horrified spectator tipped off Dagbladet [one of the country's largest newspapers] about these violent attacks, he received the following response from Dagbladet: “Isn’t that good, then?”

This was their attitude. The same attitude shared by most of the press. The mass media made no mention of the violent and dangerous attacks against the Fatherland Party.

No Freedom of Association

On June 28, 2002, the parliamentary parties committed democratic suicide. They passed a new law saying that all parties that hadn’t received at least 5,000 votes in the last election were stricken [from the ballot].

They must collect 5,000 signatures under stringent restrictions. This means that there are very few small parties. It is almost impossible to start a new party in Norway today. In Sweden, the requirement is 1,500 signatures.

Vigrid logo

The PST [Police Security Service, Politiets sikkerhetstjeneste, internal secret police] boasts unrestrainedly about how they crushed Vigrid [link to its website]. The police called on all the young people in the organization and their parents. PST destroyed the organization through harassment of its young members.

[One day in 2004, agents from all 26 field offices paid personal visits to each of Vigrid’s members, many of whom were teenagers living with their parents. The investigators continued this tactic for several months, until about 60% of Vigrid quit the group. –Trans.]

What they have done is systematically harass political activists.

In addition, PST ran a comprehensive harassment campaign against the leader of Vigrid, Tore Tvedt. Among other things, extensive surveillance, house raids, arrests, and making sure he was repeatedly thrown out of rented houses.

At a school debate on August 28 in connection with the parliamentary elections of 2009, the party leader [Øyvind Heian] of the Norwegian Patriots [NP, NorgesPatriotene, a defunct anti-immigration party] received cuts in his forehead causing severe bleeding [during an attack by a far left anti-white mob including SOS Racism], forcing him to leave the meeting. The meeting continued as if nothing had happened. Neither the school administration nor the police did anything at all about the attack on the party leader.

Before local government elections last year the Christian Unity Party [KSP, Kristent Samlingsparti] was attacked by a person belonging to SOS Racism; they are communists.

Such things of course anger everyone with nationalist attitudes in this country.

That a counter-reaction has not occurred before July 22 amazes everyone who follows national trends. The anti-democratic forces that govern our country are obviously expecting something. This can be seen from the adoption of new surveillance measures. They have been doing exercises on scenarios like what happened [on July 22].

Yet those who govern the country say they have done nothing that could give rise to such a reaction. It is quite possible that many people connected with the power structure actually believe this.

Which means dark prospects for our country.

Communism and the Ruling Class

It is well known and documented that the Labor Party before World War II received funding from the Soviet Union. However, it is wrong to say that Labor is a full-fledged communist party. They do not support a planned economy. Hence the expressions “cultural Marxists” or “semi-communists.”

It is known that many Labor Party leaders had close relations to the Soviet Union right up to 1993. The Prime Minister’s father, [former Norwegian Foreign Minister] Thorvald Stoltenberg, had, for example, a code name in the KGB. Even Jens Stoltenberg [leader of the Labor Party and current Prime Minister of Norway] had a code name, “Steklov,” in the KGB archives.

[According to Wikipedia, until 1990 now-Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg "had regular contacts with a Soviet diplomat who later was revealed to be a KGB agent. According to Stoltenberg he immediately broke off this relationship when he came to the knowledge that his contact was a KGB agent. Several sources have confirmed that Stoltenberg's code name within the KGB was "Steklov," a name Jens Stoltenberg used as his online alias when playing computer games such as Age of Empires.]

Of two books about this, one, The Eagle Has Landed [Ørnen har landet, 2003] by Reiulf Steen I do not think has been suppressed, but I believe there’s a new book by Christopher Andrew that has been halted.

The problem with Labor is not their communist past, but that they refuse to acknowledge it.

Deconstructing the Nordic Race and European Culture

Labor Party Secretary Raymond Johansen claims they are required by international agreements to admit immigrants—instead of confessing that they want to transform Norway ethnically and culturally.

Raymond Johansen is intelligent enough to know that Japan and South Korea have experienced the same pressure from the UN to accept immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. Japan and South Korea have learned to say no. They do not want the nation to be used as a dumping ground for the birth rate of the Second or Third World.

The political model in Japan and South Korea proves that countries that say no to mass immigration in the long run will be stronger than those open to mass immigration.

We will experience huge ethnic, cultural and religious conflicts. It is such conflicts that led to July 22.

This the Labor Party and Raymond Johansen know. If they had any integrity they would admit why they want mass immigration. In other words, they have exactly the same agenda as the social democrats in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and Great Britain.

Labor wants to deconstruct Norwegian culture. They want to deconstruct the Nordic race and Norwegian and European culture.

Individuals who have manifested support for cultural conservative organizations have been systematically ridiculed, harassed and persecuted in Norway and Western Europe since World War II.

In Norway, several hundred people over the last ten years have lost their jobs and been branded as racists because they opposed immigration.

An example is Remi Huseby [the young spokesman for the Norwegian Defence League, a group affiliated with the English Defence League], who lost his job after being labeled an intolerant and vicious right-wing extremist on the ground that he was opposed to the Norwegian state ideology, multiculturalism.

As a result, his employer felt pressured to fire him. This is only one case that documents journalists and editors ridiculing and persecuting cultural conservatives from WW II to the present.

The worst thing is that this demonization is better than being ignored. Being ignored is the worst of all.

In hundreds of cases in Europe and Norway cultural conservatives, anticommunists, and nationalists have been driven to suicide by public labeling and demonization. It is the same as in the Soviet Union.

So, another point I thought of omitting: cultural self-loathing. Norwegian society is suffering from a cultural psychological disorder that manifests itself through self-contempt for Norwegian ideals. This collective cultural psychosis is caused by decades of cultural Marxism.

A good example is Norway’s contributions to the Eurovision Song Contest over the past four years.

We let a White Russian asylum seeker, probably with a Tartar background. It is indeed good that we very occasionally allow an asylum seeker to represent us. But what is going on?

A few years later we let Stella Mwangi [a black, Nairobi-born "Norwegian-Kenyan" singer] win with a bongo song. What is Norway doing, sending an asylum seeker as ambassador? Is it lack of Norwegians in Norway, or are they suffering from self-hatred?

Then we let an asylum seeker from Iran win. This is an insult to all Norwegians. The answer is simple. A great many Norwegians suffer from cultural delusions and have urgent need for “medication,” with immediate implementation of cultural protectionism and the Nordic ideal.

Regarding the definition of the term “indigenous people,” this means original or old residents. It does not mean ethnic Norwegians are not indigenous.

We know of course that the United Nations does not recognize ethnic Europeans as indigenous people. But we must observe the UN’s agenda, its creation when the Axis powers were defeated in WW II.

The UN supports the deconstruction of European states. So does the European Union [EU]. The UN does not support the idigenous European population because the UN is controlled by cultural Marxists—the same as the EU.

José Manuel Durão Barroso, who has been the EU’s supreme leader for many years, was a longtime member of the Portuguese Communist Party. This shows the kind of people that hold power in the EU and the UN.

So, to come back to the definition of the word “indigenous.” There is no definition of “indigenous peoples” that nationalists and cultural Marxists can agree upon. Europe’s nationalists and cultural conservatives use a different definition than does the EU or the UN. The correct definition is “old or original people.”

Why should one support the struggle for indigenous people in Tibet, Bolivia, and other places but not in Europe? Why do indigenous activists in other parts of the world receive support and praise, while indigenous activists in Europe are branded as racists?

The battle is identical for all indigenous activists, namely, to fight against the ethnic and cultural extinction of their people from immigration. The fact that activists elsewhere are supported while we are combated as if we were a disease is an intolerable injustice.

When it comes to ongoing ethnic deconstruction I would recommend that everyone read the essay [he mentions its title, but the reporter omits it] by David Coppell and Johan__.

Muslim Demographics

Regarding Mullah Krekar [a Kurdish Islamic refugee in Norway], the reason I wanted to call him as a witness was to shed light on orthodox Islam’s view of Europe. He calls himself a Kurdish religious leader. He is one of the few Muslim leaders who are honest about Islam’s takeover of Europe.

Krekar said:

“In Denmark they printed drawings, but the result was that support of Islam increased. I, and all Muslims, are evidence. You have not managed to change us. It is we who are changing you. Look at the changes in the population of Europe, where Muslims reproduce like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in Europe has 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries gives birth to 3.5 children.”

All the sources are in the compendium [Breivik says, looking at the judges].

I also remind you that Muammar Gadaffi, who was recently killed by NATO, said in March 2007:

“There are signs that Allah will grant us victory in Europe without use of the sword. We need no terrorists, we need no suicide bombers. The millions of Muslims in Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”

I will mention a few points about demographics. Demographic examples documenting how Islamic demographic warfare works in practice.

Kosovo is a very good example that I have not talked about. In 1900 Kosovo was 60% Christian, 40% Muslim. In 1913 the figure was 50% [Muslim], 1948 72%; in 1971 it was 79 percent Muslim. In 2008, after NATO had bombed our Serbian, Christian brothers, Kosovo was 93% Muslim. In just 100 years Kosovo has gone from being a Christian country to being a Muslim country.

Lebanon is an occupied state. In 1911 it was 21 percent Muslim. Today there are more—approximately 80 percent. This is demographic warfare. Warfare that is waged against Europe and against Norway at this moment.

And not only against against Christians, but against Hindus as well. Pakistan [carved out of India as a Moslem state in 1947] was 25 percent Hindu in 1941; in 1948, 17 percent. Today, it is less than 1 percent. This is Pakistani “tolerance” for people who think differently. Bangladesh [which declared independence from Pakistan in 1971] in 1941 was 30 per cent Hindu; today it is less than 8 percent.

Then one can look at the exploding populations in Muslim countries.

In 1951 there were 33 million people in Pakistan. Today they are nearly 200 million. From 33 million to nearly 200 million in 60 years. Officially, they report a birth rate of 3.58, but it is of course a lie.

The media like to convey the idea that most Muslims support democracy, but it is not true. A survey conducted by the University of Maryland, in which 4,000 Muslims were queried, shows that 65 percent want to unite all Muslim countries into a caliphate, and 65 percent wish to implement strict interpretation of Sharia law.

“Child Killer”

One last point. Lawyers previously called me a child murderer. But we know that the average age on the island was over 18.

Many armies in the world have 18-year-old soldiers. Many of our own soldiers in Afghanistan are 18. Does this mean that we send children to war?

The Labor Party and the AUF [Labor's youth auxiliary] are themselves guilty of mass murder of children in hospitals across the country. Thousands of children are killed every year by abortion. Muslims do not practice abortion because Sharia does not permit it. Labor is thus a culprit in mass murder, and then uses the low birth rate as an excuse for mass immigration.

Resistance Increasing

If you choose to recognize my claim of necessity, you will effectively send shock waves through all the illegitimate regimes in Europe.

The court should remember that the biased judges who worked for Hitler’s Germany were condemned by history after the war. Likewise, history will judge the judges in this case. [When Breivik said this, district court judges Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen and Arne Lyng looked directly at him.] History will tell whether they convicted a man who tried to stop the evils of our time. History shows that sometimes one must implement a barbarity to stop an even greater barbarism.

My brothers in the Norwegian and European resistance movements are sitting out there watching this case as they plan new attacks. They might be responsible for as many as 40,000 deaths. Yesterday, explosives were found at a Swedish nuclear plant, suggesting that my brothers in the Swedish resistance had something to do with it.

In the compendium I describe how to attack Swedish, German (…) [ellipses indicate missing material from the original transcript] nuclear power plants. It is intended to break the back of (…) PST knows that militant nationalists have access to weapons that can cause (…) It is my duty to warn about this because it can be prevented if the will is there.

Create an Ethnostate

In the compendium I described a solution that can prevent all future conflicts with ultra-nationalists.

The smartest thing that could be done is to give us autonomy, autonomy within a specific area of Norway for people who oppose mass immigration and multiculturalism. We are interested in having our own state within the state, reserved for the indigenous Norwegian people. In other words, national conservatives, orthodox Christians, and National Socialists.

Such a solution would be good for both parties. Marxists and liberals would not have to experience our anger and complaining about the current state. And we would not have to live in a multi-ethnic hell. I have written about this political model and will convey the proposal later.

A solution like this can be used in all European countries, and can thus prevent further escalation of the conflict between cultural conservatives and multiculturalists.

The starting point might be that they get control over an area equivalent to about 1–2 percent of the country, and the area increases proportionally with growth. If we do not succeed and flourish, the autonomous state will not be developed. This political model is similar to political solutions relating to indigenous peoples in other parts of the world. Many ultra-nationalists and others would feel positive about developing such a solution.

Fair Warning

The alternative is that we focus on the takeover of the entire country of Norway—something Marxists and liberals would be mightily displeased with.

But the current regime is not interested in dialogue with us, so we have nothing to lose and the conflict will escalate over the next few years. It might not be tactful to say this in that the prosecutor is “gunning” on with “mental incapacity,” but I must convey my peace proposal, which could save many lives in the future [Breivik raises his voice when he talks about what will happen in the future].

This trial should be about finding the truth. The documentation of my claims—are they true? If they are true, how can what I did be illegal?

Norwegian academics and journalists work together and make use of (…) methods to deconstruct Norwegian identity, Christianity, and the Norwegian nation. How can it be illegal to engage in armed resistance against this?

The prosecution wondered who gave me a mandate to do what I did. Was it the KT [Knights Templar] network? I have answered this before, but will do so again. Universal human rights, international law, and the right to self-defense provided the mandate to carry out this self-defense.

Everything has been triggered by the actions of those who consciously and unconsciously are destroying our country. Responsible Norwegians and Europeans who feel even a trace of moral obligation are not going to sit by and watch as we are made into minorities in our own lands. We are going to fight.

The attacks on July 22 were preventive attacks in defense of my ethnic group, the Norwegian indigenous people. I therefore cannot acknowledge guilt. I acted from necessity (nødrett) on behalf of my people, my religion and my country.

I therefore demand that I be acquitted.

See endnotes at Counter-Currents

Ten books that changed my mind


1. Maxfield Parrish Poster Book

2. The Sickle

3. Laing and Anti-Psychiatry

4. Childhood’s End

5. A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology

6. The Relentless Question

7. Final Analysis

8. The Gulag Archipelago

9. For Your Own Good

10. The Emotional Life of Nations

Psychotherapy: the queen of the cults

Or:

The ten books that made an impact in my life
before I became racially conscious
7.- Final Analysis
(read in 1999)

Do you know that one of the editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the official diagnostic guide of the American Psychiatric Association used by all psychiatrists, holds that for a “patient” to state that a therapist is boring is a primary sign of “the self-defeating personality disorder”? I propose the following experiment to those racially conscious individuals who believe that psychotherapy on mental issues represents a legitimate profession: Make an appointment in the nearest therapist office and express your racial concerns.

Your concern will be immediately labeled as pathological by the professional whether he or she is a psychiatrist, a psychoanalyst or a clinical psychologist.

I have devoted one of my most thoughtful papers to the subject of pseudoscience in biological psychiatry, but have not touched the subject of the non-psychiatric professions in the so-called “mental health” field. Here I would like to mention the book that has debunked psychoanalysis as ferociously as Phil Klass debunked the field of UFOlogy, or as James Randi, mentioned in my previous entry, has been exposing the “psychics” for decades. I refer to Jeffrey Masson’s Final Analysis: The Making and Unmaking of a Psychoanalyst.

Final Analysis is, by far, the most searing exposé of psychoanalysis that I am aware of. Keep in mind that Masson was a Harvard professor, a prominent psychoanalyst and that later, when he realized that his own profession was a fraud, Masson completely abandoned the very lucrative practice of therapy.

Only from the literary point of view, Final Analysis is a treat: Masson’s misadventures in the cult of psychotherapy are as readable as any entertaining novel. It is true that, as a typical liberal, Masson ignores that race matters. But the above thought-experiment that any racialist could put into practice to check for himself the legitimacy of the therapeutic profession, moves me to quote Masson’s final words of his book:

There are no experts in loving,
no scholars of living,
no doctors of the human emotions
and no gurus of the soul.

For the other nine books see here.

Published in: on June 14, 2012 at 5:13 pm  Comments (10)  

Laing and Anti-Psychiatry

Or:

The ten books that made an impact in my life
before I became racially conscious
3.- Laing and Anti-Psychiatry
(read in 1983)


Sometimes it is not an entire book what causes a deep impression in one’s values and worldview. Sometimes it is a single chapter; a single phrase.

The overwhelming majority of white nationalists are unaware of the fact that psychiatry is a false science. I mean: psychiatry is as false as, say, the Boasian anthropology that has become axiomatic throughout all anthropology departments in the West.

Before I entered the racialist arena I devoted quite a few years of my life to research this pseudoscience. The result was a massive exposé of psychiatry that benefited the Spanish-speaking people (for example, today I learnt that a blog was started with the title of one of my book chapters exposing the history of psychiatry).

The whys of the toleration of a pseudoscience within the academia and throughout the West have to do with the fact that the basic etiology of mental disorders lies in the abusive modes of parenting. But this truth has become a heresy in a world that only aims to perpetuate the status quo, including those nuclear families run by abusive parents.

When in 1983, standing in a bookstore because I was too poor to purchase the book, I read the interview of psychiatrist Theodore Lidz in Laing and Anti-Psychiatry, I corroborated what I suspected: that some parents are driving their children mad. Lidz’s words that a schizophrenogenic mother simply cannot conceive that her child sees the world with different eyes than her own made a huge impression on me to understand the dynamics in my own family.

More recently I have extensively written on this subject in Spanish, of which I have translated only a fraction to English (e.g., here and here). But all of my writing was possible only thanks to my reading this Lidz interview in a bookstore almost thirty years ago with no soft sofas. Lidz was one of the very very few psychiatrists that dismissed the medical model of mental disorders taken for granted in his own profession and proposed a trauma model instead. Abusive parents are the real and only culprits for the emotional fall of their offspring; blaming the child’s brain or the child’s genes, as his colleagues do, is a political rather that a scientific endeavor.

It is worth saying that when I lived in Houston I phoned Lidz, who was already in his nineties, and he appeared as warm and lucid as if he was in his prime. How different from Ronald Laing, the guru whose last name was chosen for the title of the book’s collection of anti-psychiatric essays. (In his later writing Laing looked like an intellectual snob rather than someone who fully sided the child against the all-out assault perpetrated at home in some extremely dysfunctional families.)

Laing and Anti-Psychiatry was published in 1971. Those who are under the impression that psychiatry has since proven the biomedical basis of mental stress and disorders would do a favor to themselves by reading the much more recent How to Become a  Schizophrenic: The Case Against Biological Psychiatry by John Modrow (whom by the way I used to correspond).

For the other nine books see here.

Popular Mechanics on 9/11

Ever since in an article of a white nationalist blogsite I was called “a Jew” and that my “behavior indicates that he’s a Jew” (by “behavior” the author meant my criticism of the truther movement), I realized that truthers suffer from huge psychological issues. For example, a commenter in that article’s thread who has the Truth Movement as a sort of litmus test for what he believes is the true nationalist, stated that the other “‘WN’ bloggers… are probably posting from Tel Aviv.”

While demonstrating that I am not a Jew is quite easy in these times of DNA tests, what I found disturbing is the notion that those who strongly disagree with truthers must be Jews, or even conspiracists themselves.

The following excerpts, taken from James B. Meigs’ foreword and afterword of Debunking 9/11 Myths corroborate that truthers are a little paranoid to say the least. Meigs is, technically, our foe—he writes as if “racism” and “anti-Semitism” were something wrong. Nonetheless, I find his arguments demystifying conspiracy theories compelling (no ellipsis added):




Foreword

Popular Mechanics set out to investigate conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks in late 2004, just as those claims were emerging from the swamps of extremist websites and radical Islamist organizations. We had no idea how much trouble we were about to stir up. Our first magazine article on the topic, which appeared in the March 2005 issue, closely examined the major scientific, military, aeronautical, and engineering-based claims commonly cited as evidence that 9/11 was, as conspiracy theorists like to say, an inside job. Our investigation found no evidence in support of the conspiracy claims.

The article unleashed a flood of criticisms and accusations from those supporting such theories. These attacks ranged from the preposterous (it was said our magazine had published this investigation on orders from a cabal of Masons and Illuminati) to alarming (death threats were referred to our security department). Clearly, we had touched a nerve. The article quickly became the most widely read story in the history of Popular Mechanics’ Web site, with over 7.5 million views. (A detailed account of the reaction to our article, and what that reaction says about the conspiracy movement, can be found in the original afterword to this book on page 121 [see below].)

A team of Popular Mechanics reporters and editors then started work on a far more detailed book-length version of the report. By the time the first edition of this book was published in the summer of 2006, the 9/11 conspiracy furor was reaching a tipping point. The flurry of books on the topic had grown into an avalanche, with certain writers, such as former Claremont School of Theology professor David Ray Griffin, building a thriving cottage industry around the topic. Conspiracy fans had, with Orwellian overtones, taken to calling themselves “the 9/11 Truth Movement,” or simply “truthers.” Extremist talk radio programs such as The Alex Jones Show pushed the issue nonstop. And a video pastiche of conspiracy theories, a quasi-documentary known as Loose Change, was becoming an Internet sensation.

Popular Mechanics’ 9/11 project represented one of the relatively few attempts by mainstream journalists to grapple seriously with the conspiracy theory claims. So it was telling that most conspiracy theorists quickly decided that Popular Mechanics too was part of the conspiracy. In their minds, all our research could therefore be rejected a priori. We had run head on into a worldview that some experts call “conspiracism.” It is a mind-set that insists on reaching a predetermined conclusion regardless of what information is presented. Any facts that don’t fit the conspiracy paradigm need to be explained away. Since 2004, leading 9/11 theorist David Ray Griffin has written seven books and edited two others on the subject of 9/11. He devoted a chapter in his book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, to explain why, in his view, the 9/11 reporting by Popular Mechanics and other mainstream journalists is invalid.

Griffin’s book devotes many pages to the idea that Popular Mechanics and our parent company, the Hearst Corporation, are somehow implicated in the vast conspiracy he sees behind 9/11. He digs up century-old controversies and finds tenuous links between the magazine’s staff and various government officials. But he never explains how a magazine—much less a major corporation—could possibly convince its employees to help cover up the most notorious mass murder in our nation’s history. Popular Mechanics has close to 30 editorial staffers and dozens of freelance contributors. Does Griffin imagine that whenever we hire new editors I bring them into a secret bunker and initiate them into an ultraclandestine society for world domination? Why wouldn’t such prospective employees run screaming from our building? In the years since we began our work on 9/11 conspiracy theories, a number of our staffers have moved on to other jobs. What would stop them from revealing a conspiracy that, if true, would be one of the biggest journalistic scoops in history? Did we swear them all to lifetime secrecy? As with so many conspiracy claims, the whole elaborate fantasy becomes practically laughable on close examination.

The original Popular Mechanics article addressed 16 of the most common 9/11 conspiracy claims. The first edition of this book expanded that list by four, and added much more detail. As a result, many of the more adept theorists simply moved on to new theories, or shifted their focus to issues that our team had not covered as deeply. For example, at the time we published the first edition, there was still no definitive account of why World Trade Center 7—which was not hit by planes, only damaged by debris—also collapsed. Not surprisingly, as the truther community moved away from talk about missiles and pods, it began focusing obsessively on elaborate theories concerning WTC 7. (With the benefit of much more detailed engineering analysis, this edition addresses—and debunks—those WTC 7 claims in depth.)

It is hard to argue without facts. And yet that is the position in which 9/11 conspiracists increasingly find themselves. One by one, the key factual underpinnings of their theories have been demolished. But still they argue on, their passionate conviction undiminished.

In the end, the truther community’s tendency toward unintentional self-parody has perhaps done as much to undermine its credibility as has the work of Popular Mechanics. Just when the conspiracy movement seemed to be making real headway toward deeply influencing American culture, a funny thing happened: it began to turn into a punch line. South Park offered a brutal parody of the conspiracist worldview in an episode called “Mystery of the Urinal Deuce.” Comedian Jon Stewart started tweaking truthers on The Daily Show, at one point holding up a sign reading “9/11 WAS AN OUTSIDE JOB.” And, in a common-sense answer to the vast legion of conspiracy-oriented websites, an assortment of sharp, and often satirical, blogs has emerged to challenge the truthers on their own turf. In particular, the blog Screw Loose Change offers devastating analysis of the truther community, and links to point-by-point rebuttals to the claims advanced in Loose Change.

Of course, conspiracy theories involving 9/11 will never fully go away. And a book like this, no matter how widely reported or carefully updated, will never convince the most dedicated conspiracists. But, on the eve of the tenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, it is important to have a clear, objective, and thorough response to the consistently false and deeply malicious claims of the conspiracy movement.

New York City
2011

Afterword

On February 7, 2005, I [James Meigs] became a member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/Illuminati conspiracy for global domination. It was on that day the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics, with its cover story debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, hit newsstands. Within hours, the online community of 9/11 conspiracy buffs—which calls itself the “9/11 Truth Movement”—was aflame with wild fantasies about me and my staff, the magazine I edit, and the article we had published.

We had begun our plunge down the rabbit hole. Within hours, a post on http://www.portland.indymedia.org, which claims to be dedicated to “radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth,” called me “James Meigs the Coward and Traitor.” Not long afterward, another prominent conspiracy theorist produced an analysis that concluded that Popular Mechanics is a CIA front organization. Invective and threats soon clogged the comments section of our Web site and poured in by e-mail:

YOU HAVE DECLARD YOURSELF ENEMY OF AMERICANS AND FRIEND OF THE MOSSAD!

In a few short weeks, Popular Mechanics had gone from being a 100-year-old journal about science, engineering, car maintenance, and home improvement to being a pivotal player in a global conspiracy on a par with Nazi Germany. Not all the responses were negative, of course. One visitor to our Web site, after plowing through dozens of angry comments, left a supportive post that included this astute observation:

Some people are open to any possibility, and honestly examine all evidence in a rational manner to come to a conclusion, followed by a moral evaluation. Others start with a desire for a specific moral evaluation, and then work backwards assembling any fact that supports them, and dismissing any fact that does not.

As the hate mail poured in and articles claiming to have debunked the magazine’s analysis proliferated online, we soon learned to identify the key techniques that give conspiracy theorists their illusion of coherence.

Marginalization of Opposing Views

The 9/11 Truth Movement invariably describes the mainstream account of 9/11 as the “government version” or “the official version.” In fact, the generally accepted account of 9/11 is made up of a multitude of sources: thousands of newspaper, TV, and radio reports produced by journalists from all over the world; investigations conducted by independent organizations and institutions, including the American Society of Civil Engineers, Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.; eyewitness testimony from literally thousands of people; recordings and transcripts of phone calls, air traffic control transmissions, and other communications; thousands of photographs; thousands of feet of video footage; and, let’s not forget the words of Osama bin Laden, who discussed the operation in detail on more than one occasion, including in an audio recording released in May 2006 that said: “I am responsible for assigning the roles of the 19 brothers to conduct these conquests…”

The mainstream view of 9/11 is, in other words, a vast consensus. By presenting it instead as the product of a small coterie of insiders, conspiracists are able to ignore facts they find inconvenient and demonize people with whom they disagree.

Argument by Anomaly

In an article about the Popular Mechanics 9/11 report, Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer makes an important observation about the conspiracist method: “The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the ‘evidence’ for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy.”

A successful scientific theory organizes masses of information into a coherent, well-tested narrative. When a theory has managed to explain the real world accurately enough for long enough, it becomes accepted as fact. Conspiracy theorists, Shermer points out, generally ignore the mass of evidence that supports the mainstream view and focus strictly on tiny anomalies. But, in a complex and messy world, the fact that there might be a few details we don’t yet understand should not be surprising.

A good example is the conspiracist fascination with the collapse of 7 World Trade Center. Since the 47-story tower was not hit by an airplane, only by the debris of the North Tower, investigators weren’t sure at first just how or why it collapsed hours after the attacks. A scientist (or for that matter, a journalist or historian) might see that gap in our knowledge as an opportunity for further research (see “WTC 7: Fire and Debris Damage,” page 53). In the conspiracy world, however, even a hint of uncertainty is a chance to set a trap. If researchers can’t “prove” exactly how the building fell, they say, then there is only one other possible conclusion: Someone blew it up.

My comment:

Meigs’ afterword goes on for other ten pages but the excerpts quoted above give the picture: a psychological analysis of the truther mentality goes to the core to understand the movement. For instance, this “Someone blew WTC 7 up” is exactly what I call “paleologic” modes of mentation, and illustrated it with a classic example by a psychiatrist: “If the Greeks are afflicted by epidemics, it is because Phoebus wants to punish Agamemnon.” (“Paleologism” is the subject of some chapters of my book.)

Re the Scientific American statement about “holocaust denial” cited above even Mark Weber, a revisionist historian and current director of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) who has authored over a hundred articles relating to holocaust claims, has acknowledged that “it cannot be disputed” that “millions [of Jews] were forced from their homes; millions lost their lives” (listen the April 25, 2012 “Mark Weber Report: Holocaust Deceit, Remembrance and Reality”).

Contrary to what WN truthers claim, I believe that rejecting 9/11 conspiracy theories, and seriously considering the new approach to holocaust studies represented by Irmin Vinson, Mark Weber and David Irving are the mark of the mature nationalist.

Rockwell: A National Socialist Life

by William Pierce

rockwell_with_pipe


George Lincoln Rockwell was born on March 9, 1918, in Bloomington, a small coal-mining and farming town in central Illinois. Both his parents were theatrical performers. His father, George Lovejoy Rockwell, was a twenty-eight-year-old vaudeville comedian of English and Scotch ancestry. His mother, born Claire Schade, was a young German-French toe-dancer, part of a family dance team. His parents were divorced when he was six years old, and he and a younger brother and sister lived alternately with their mother and their father during the next few years.

The young Rockwell passed the greater part of his boyhood days in Maine, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. His father settled in a small coastal town in Maine, and Rockwell spent his summers there; attending school in Atlantic City and, later, in Providence during the winters. Some of his fondest memories in later years were of summer days spent on the Maine beaches, or hiking in the Maine woods, or exploring the coves and inlets of the Maine coast in his sailboat, which he built himself, starting from an old skiff. Rockwell acquired what was to be a lifelong love of sailing and the sea during those early years spent with his father in Maine.

Aside from a bit more traveling about than the average child, it is difficult to find anything extraordinary in his childhood environment. He lived in the midst neither great poverty nor great wealth; he had an affectionate relationship with both his parents, despite their divorce; he was a sound and healthy child, and there seems to be no evidence of prolonged unhappiness or turmoil in his childhood. If he later recalled with greater pleasure the times spent with his father than those spent with his mother, this can be attributed either to the greater opportunities to satisfy his youthful longing for adventure that life on the Maine coast offered relative to that in the city, or to the fact that his mother lived with a domineering sister of whom young Rockwell was not fond.

And yet, even as a boy he displayed those qualities of character which were later to set him off from the common run of men. His most remarkable quality was his responsiveness to challenge. To tell the boy Rockwell that a thing was impossible, that it simply could not be done, was to awaken in him the irresistible determination to do it. He has described an experience he had at the age of ten which illustrates this aspect of his character.

A juvenile gang of some of the tougher elements at the grammar school he was attending in an Atlantic City coastal suburb had singled him out for hazing. He was informed that he was to be given a cold dunking in the ocean, and that he should relax and submit gracefully, as resistance would be futile. Instead of submitting, he ferociously fought off the entire gang of his attackers on the beach, wildly striking out with his fists and feet, clawing, biting, and gouging until the other boys finally abandoned their aim of throwing him in the water and retire to nurse their wounds.

Later, as a teenager, he found that the challenge of a stormy sea affected him in much the same way as had the challenge of the juvenile gang. When other boys brought their boats into dock because the water was too rough, young Rockwell found his greatest pleasure in sailing. He loved nothing better than to pit his strength and his skill against the wild elements. As the wind and the waves rose so did his spirits Wrestling with tiller and rigging in a tossing boat, drenched with spray and blasted by fierce gusts, he would howl back at the wind in sheer animal joy.

This peculiar stubbornness of his nature–call it a combative spirit, if you will—coupled with an absolute physical fearlessness, which led him into many a dangerous and harebrained escapade as a boy, gave him the willpower as a man to undertake without hesitation ventures at which ordinary men quailed; throughout his life it led him to choose the course of action which his reason and his sensibility told him to be the right course regardless of the course those about him were taking; ultimately it provided the driving force which led him to issue a challenge and stand alone against a whole world, when it became apparent to him that that world was on the wrong course. This trait provides the key to the man.

Two other characteristics he displayed as a boy were an omnivorous curiosity and a stark objectivity. He attributed his curiosity, as well as the artistic talents which he early displayed, to his father, who also exhibited these traits, but the source of his rebellious spirit and his indomitable will is harder to assign. They seem to have been the product of a rare and fortuitous combination of genes, giving rise to a nature markedly different from that of his immediate forebears.

He entered Brown University in the fall of 1938, as a freshman. His major course of study was philosophy, but he was also very interested in the sciences. He used the opportunity of staff work on student periodicals to exercise his talents in drawing and creative writing. In addition to his curricular, journalistic, and artistic activities, he also found time for a substantial amount of skirt chasing and other collegiate sports, including skiing and fencing; he became a member of the Brown University fencing team.

While at Brown he had his first head-on encounter with modern liberalism. He enrolled in a sociology course with the naive expectation that, just as in his geology and psychology courses he would learn the scientific principles underlying those two areas of human knowledge, so in sociology would he learn some of the basic principles underlying human social behavior.

He was disappointed and confused, however, when it gradually became apparent to him that there was a profound difference in the attitudes of sociologists and, say, geologists toward their subjects. Whereas the authors of his geology textbooks were careful to point out there were many things about the history and the structure of the earth which were as yet unknown, or only imperfectly known, it was clear that there were indeed fundamental ideas and well-established facts upon which the science was based and that both his geology professor and the authors of geology textbooks were sincerely interested in presenting these ideas and facts to the student in an orderly manner, with the hope that he would thereby gain a better understanding of the nature of the planet on which he lived.

In sociology, he found the basic principles far more elusive. What was particularly disturbing to him, though, was not so much the complexity of the concepts as the gnawing suspicion the waters had been deliberately muddied. He redoubled his efforts to get to the roots of the subject or, at least, to understand where the hints, innuendoes, and roundabout promptings led: “I buried myself in my sociology books, absolutely determined to find why I was missing the kernel of the thing.”

The equalitarian idea that the manifest differences between the capabilities of individuals and between the evolutionary development of various races can be accounted for almost wholly by contemporary environmental effects–that there really are no inborn differences in quality worth mentioning among human beings–was certainly one of the places his sociology textbooks were leading:

I was bold enough to ask Professor Bucklin if this were the idea, and he turned red in anger. I was told it was impossible to make any generalizations, although all I was asking for was the fundamental idea, if any, of sociology. I began to see that sociology was different from any other course I had ever taken. Certain ideas produced apoplexy in the teacher, particularly the suggestion that perhaps some people were no-good biological slobs from the day they were born. Certain other ideas, although they were never formulated and stated frankly, were fostered and encouraged—and these were always ideas revolving around the total power of environment.

Although he did not clearly recognize it for what it was at that time, young Rockwell had partially uncovered one of the most widely used tactics of the modern liberals. When the clever liberal has as his goal miscegenation, say, he certainly does not just blurt this right out. Instead he will write novels, produce television shows, and film motion pictures which, subtly at first and then more and more boldly, suggest that those who engage in sexual affairs with Negroes are braver, better, more attractive people than those who don’t; and that opposition to miscegenation is a vulgar and loutish perversion, certain evidence of being a ridiculous square at best and a drooling, violent redneck at worst. But if one tries to pin him down and asks him why he is in favor of miscegenation, he will reply in a huff that that is not what he is aiming at at all, but only “justice, or fairness,” or “better understanding between the races.”

And so when Rockwell naively went right to the heart of the matter in Professor Bucklin’s sociology class, he got an angry reprimand. The racial equalitarians have gotten much bolder in the last thirty years, but at that time Rockwell was merely aware that they wanted him to accept certain ideas without actually those ideas out into the open arena of free discussion where they would be subject to attack:

I still knew little or nothing about communism or its pimping little sister, liberalism, but I could not avoid the steady pressure, everywhere in the University, to accept the ideas of massive human equality and the supremacy of environment.

Typically, this pressure resulted not in acquiescence but in his determination to stand up for what seemed to him to be reasonable and natural. He satirized the equalitarian point of view, not only in his column in the student newspaper, but also in one of his sociology examination papers! The nearly catastrophic consequences of this bit of insolence taught him the prudence of holding his tongue under certain circumstances.

As he began his junior year at Brown, the alien conspiracy to use America as a tool to make the world safe for Jewry was shifting its propaganda machine into high gear. National Socialist Germany was portrayed as a nation of depraved criminals whose goal was the enslavement of the world—including America. Hollywood, the big newspapers, and his liberal professors—always the most noisily vocal faction at any university—all pushed the same line, unabashedly appealing to the naive idealism of their audience: “Hitler must be stopped!”

And, like millions of other American patriots, Lincoln Rockwell fell for the smooth lies and the clever swindle, backed as they were by the authority of the head of the American government. Neither he nor his millions of compatriots realized that the conspiracy had reached into the White House, and that its occupant had sold his services to the conspirators:

It is typical of my political naivete of that time that when the propaganda about Hitler began to be pushed upon us in large doses, I swallowed it all, unable even to suspect that somebody might have an interest in all this, and that it might not be the interest of the United States or our people… It became obvious that we would have to get into the war to stop this “horrible ogre” who planned to conquer America so we were told, and so I believed.

Thus, in March, 1941, convinced that America was in mortal danger from “the Nazi aggressors,” Rockwell left his comfortable life at the university and offered his services to his country’s armed forces. Shortly after enlisting in the United States Navy, he received an appointment as an Aviation Cadet and began flight training at Squantum, Massachusetts. He received his first naval commission, as an ensign, on December 9, 1941—two days after the Pearl Harbor attack. He served as a naval aviator throughout World War II, advancing from the rank of ensign to lieutenant and winning several decorations. He commanded the naval air support during the American invasion of Guam, in July and August, 1944. He was promoted to lieutenant commander in October, 1945, and shortly thereafter returned to civilian life, where he hoped to make a career for himself as an artist.

While still in the navy, he had married a girl he had known as a student at Brown University. The marriage was not a particularly happy one, although it was destined to last more than ten years.

The first five years after leaving the navy were spent as an art student, a commercial photographer, a painter, an advertising executive, and a publisher, in Maine and in New York. Then in 1950, with the outbreak of war in Korea, Lieutenant Commander Rockwell returned to active duty with the United States Navy and was assigned to train fighter pilots in southern California. There almost by chance, the political education of thirty-two-year-old Lincoln Rockwell began.

It was in 1950 that Senator Joseph McCarthy’s investigations into subversive activities and treasonous behavior on the part of a number of United States government employees and officials began to receive wide public notice. Rockwell, like every honest citizen, was horrified and angered by these disclosures of treachery. But he was puzzled as much as he was shocked by the violent, hysterical, and vicious reaction to these disclosures which came from a certain segment of the population. Why were so many persons—and, especially, so many in the public-opinion-forming media—frantically determined to silence McCarthy and, failing that, to smear and discredit him?

McCarthy was an American with a distinguished record. A war hero, like Rockwell he had entered his country’s armed forces as an enlisted man and emerged as a much-decorated officer. He had won the Distinguished Flying Cross for his combat performance in World War II. Now that he was flushing from cover the rats who had sold out the vital interests of the country for which he had fought, Rockwell could not understand why any responsible and loyal citizen should seek to defame the man or block his courageous efforts:

I began to pay attention, in my spare time, to what it was all about. I read McCarthy speeches and pamphlets and found them factual, instead of the wild nonsense which the papers charged was his stock-in-trade. I became aware of a terrific slant in all the papers against Joe McCarthy, although I still couldn’t imagine why.

At this time an acquaintance gave Rockwell some anti-Communist tracts to read. One of the things he immediately noticed about them was their strongly anti-Semitic tone. Although manifest public evidence obliged him to agree with some of the charges made by the authors of these tracts—for example, that there were extraordinarily disproportionate numbers of Jews both among McCarthy’s attackers and among the subversives his investigations were unearthing—he found many of their claims too far-fetched to be credible. In particular, the charge that communism was a Jewish, not a Russian, movement seemed ridiculous when Rockwell considered the fact that Jews were so firmly entrenched in capitalistic enterprises and always had been; capitalism, supposedly the deadly enemy of communism, was the traditional Jewish sphere of influence.

One anti-Communist tabloid went so far as to cite various items of documentary evidence in support of its seemingly wild claims, and Rockwell decided to call its bluff by looking into this “evidence” for himself. On his next off-duty day he went to the public library in San Diego, and what he found there changed the course of his life—and will yet change the course of world history. In his own words: “Down there in the dark stacks of the San Diego Public Library, I got my awakening from thirty years of stupid political sleep…”

Rockwell was staggered by the evidence he uncovered in the library; it left no doubt, for instance, that what had been described in his school textbooks as the “Russian” Revolution was instead a Jewish orgy of genocide against the Russian people. He even found that in their own books and periodicals the Jews boasted more-or-less openly of the fact! In a Jewish biographical reference work entitled Who’s Who in American Jewry he found a number of prominent Bolsheviks proudly listed, although by no stretch of the imagination could they be considered Americans. Among them were Lazar Kaganovitch, the Butcher of the Ukraine, and Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein), the bloodthirsty Commissar of the Red Army, who was given credit in the book for liquidating “counter-revolutionary forces” in Russia.

Another book, written by a prominent “English” Jew, boasted that “the Jews to a greater degree than… any other ethnic group… have been the artisans of the Revolution of 1917.” An estimate was given in the book that “80% of the revolutionaries in Russia were Jews.”

Musty back issues of Jewish newspapers told the same story, and they were backed up by official U.S. government records. One volume of such records, which had been published twenty years previously, contained ministerial reports from Russia of brutal frankness. Typical of the material in these records was the following sentence written by the Dutch diplomatic official, Oudendyk, in a 1918 report to his government from Russia:

I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the World, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and unless as above stated Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality; and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.

Shocking as were these revelations, Rockwell was even more disturbed by the fact that the general public was oblivious to them. Why were these things not in school history text? Why was he told over and over again by the radio and newspapers and magazines of Adolf Hitler’s “awful crime” in killing so many Jews, but never told that the Jews in Russia were responsible for the murder of a vastly larger number of Gentiles?

Other questions presented themselves. He had been told that England’s attack on Germany was justified by Hitler’s attack on Poland. But what of the Soviet Union, which had invaded Poland at the same time? Why no English declaration of war against the Soviet Union? Could it be because the government there was in Jewish hands? Who was responsible for the conspiracy of silence on these and other questions? He grimly resolved to find out. And, later, as the facts gradually fitted into place and the whole, sordid picture began to emerge, he saw before him an inescapable obligation.

An honest man, when he becomes aware that some dirty work is afoot in his community, will speak out against it and attempt to rouse his neighbors into doing the same. What if he finds, though, that most of his neighbors do not want to be bothered; that many of his neighbors are already aware of what is afoot but prefer to ignore it because to oppose it might jeopardize their private affairs; that some of his neighbors—some of his wealthiest and most influential neighbors, the leaders of the community—are themselves engaged in the dirty work? If he is an ordinary man, he may grumble for a while about such a sorry state of affairs, but he will adapt himself as best he can to it. He will soon see there is nothing to be gained by sticking his neck out, and he will go on about his business.

Human nature being what it is, he will very likely ease his conscience by trying to forget as rapidly as possible what he has learned; perhaps he will even convince himself eventually that there is really nothing wrong after all, that his initial judgement was in error, and that the dirty work was really not dirty work but merely “progress”. If, on the other hand, he is an extraordinary man with a particularly strong sense of duty, he will continue to oppose what he knows to be wrong and bound to work evil for the community in the long run. He may continue to point out to his neighbors, even after they have made it clear that they are not interested, that the dirty work should be stopped; he may write pamphlets and deliver speeches; he may even run for public office on a “reform” ticket.

But even so, being a reasonable man and no “extremist”, he will feel himself obliged to give the malefactors the benefit of the doubt which must surely exist as to their motives. And perhaps their position is, indeed, not wholly wrong? Surely, some sort of reasonable compromise which will be fair to all concerned is the best solution. If the evildoer had been working alone when discovered, hanging would, of course, be the only admissible solution to the problem: a fitting and total repudiation by the community of his evil deeds. But when so many criminals, with so many accomplices, have been engaged for so long in such an extensive undertaking and have already done such profound damage, surely the most reasonable solution must be just to admonish the criminals—if, indeed, it is fair to call them criminals—, try to install a few safeguards against their renewed activity—safeguards which, to be sure, would not be too grossly inconsistent with the “progress” (or was it damage?) already wrought—and then, letting bygones be bygones, try to live with things as they are.

But, it is only one man out of tens of millions—the rare and lonely world-historical figure—who has, first, the objectivity to evaluate such a situation in terms of absolute and timeless standards and, unswayed by popular and contemporary considerations of “reasonableness”, to draw the ultimate conclusions which those standards dictate; and who then has the strength of will and character to insist that there must be no compromise with evil, that it must be rooted out and utterly destroyed, that right and health and sanity must again prevail, regardless of the commotion and temporary unpleasantness involved in restoring them.

Rockwell had seen the facts. To him, it was unthinkable to attempt to wriggle away from the conclusion they implied. And, as he realized the frightening magnitude of the task before him, instead of attempting to excuse himself from the responsibility which his new knowledge carried with it, he felt rising within him his characteristic response to a seemingly impossible challenge.

It was a straightforward sense of commitment which had led him to volunteer for military service in March, 1941, as soon as he had been tricked into believing that Adolf Hitler was a threat to his country, instead of waiting for Pearl Harbor. And in early 1951, when he began to understand that he had been tricked in 1941 and when he began to see who had tricked him and what they were up to and the terrible damage they had done to his people and were yet planning to do, that same sense of commitment left only one course open to him, namely, to fight! He did not stop to ask whether others were also willing to shoulder their responsibility; his own was perfectly clear to him.

But how to fight? Where to begin? What to do? The name of one man who had done something naturally came to his mind: Adolf Hitler. Rockwell has described what happened next:

I hunted around the San Diego bookshops and finally found a copy of Mein Kampf hidden away in the rear. I bought it, took it home, and sat down to read. And that was the end of one Lincoln Rockwell… and the beginning of an entirely different person.

He had not, of course, spent nearly thirty-three years completely oblivious to world events. Many things had bothered him deeply, and he had spent years of frustrating effort trying to fathom the apparently meaningless chaos into which the world seemed to be descending. It seemed to him that there must be some logical relationship between the events of the preceding few decades, but he could not find the key to the puzzle:

I simply suffered from the vague, unhappy feeling that things were wrong—I didn’t know exactly how—and that there must be a way of diagnosing the disease and its causes and making intelligent, organized efforts to correct that something wrong.

Adolf Hitler’s message in Mein Kampf gave him the key he had been seeking, and more:

In Mein Kampf I found abundant mental sunshine, which bathed all the gray world suddenly in the clear light of reason and understanding. Word after word, sentence after sentence stabbed into the darkness like thunderclaps and lightning bolts of revelation, tearing and ripping away the cobwebs of more than thirty years of darkness, brilliantly illuminating the mysteries of the heretofore impenetrable murk in a world gone mad.

I was transfixed, hypnotized. I could not lay the book down without agonies of impatience to get back to it. I read it walking to the squadron; I took it into the air and read it lying on the chart board while I automatically gave the instructions to the other planes circling over the desert. I read it crossing the Coronado ferry. I read it into the night and the next morning. When I had finished I started again and reread every word, underlining and marking especially magnificent passages. I studied it; I thought about it; I wondered at the utter, indescribable genius of it…

I reread and studied it some more. Slowly, bit by bit, I began to understand. I realized that National Socialism, the iconoclastic world view of Adolf Hitler; was the doctrine of scientific racial idealism–actually a new religion…

And thus Lincoln Rockwell became a National Socialist. But his conversion to the new religion still did not answer his question, “What can be done?” Eight long years of struggle and defeat lay ahead of him before he would gain the knowledge he needed to effectively translate his new faith into action and begin to carry on Adolf Hitler’s great work once again. While he still lacked the wisdom that could only come in the years ahead, he lacked nothing in energy and determination. For a year he continued to explore the ramifications of the new world view he had adopted and also continued his self-education in several other areas, including the Jewish question.

Then, in November, 1952, the Navy assigned him to a year of duty at the American base at Keflavik in Iceland, where he was executive officer and, later, commanding officer of the Fleet Aircraft Service Squadron there, “Fasron” 107. His promotion to commander came in October, 1953, after he had requested an extension of his Icelandic assignment for another year. He also met and fell in love with an Icelandic girl, who became his second wife in the same month he was promoted. This marriage was far happier than his first. The relative isolation and solitude he enjoyed in Iceland gave him a further opportunity to consolidate his thoughts and to plan a campaign of political action based on his National Socialist philosophy. Feeling that his most urgent need was some medium for the dissemination of his political message, he considered various ways in which he might enter the publishing business. He needed to establish a bridgehead in this industry which would provide him with operational funds and living expenses as well as give him a vehicle for political expression.

He finally decided to begin his career with the publication of a monthly magazine for the wives of American servicemen, primarily because the complete absence of any competing publication in the field seemed to offer an excellent business advantage. He felt that he could not only capture this market, thus assuring himself a steady income, but that service families would provide a particularly receptive audience for his political ideas. His idea was to employ the utmost subtlety, disguising his propaganda so carefully that he would not jeopardize any Jewish advertising accounts the magazine might acquire. He naively thought that he would deceive the Jews and move the hearts and minds of his readers in the desired direction simultaneously.

Rough plans had been laid by the time his service in Iceland was over. His return to civilian life came on December 15, 1954. Nine months of more planning, hard work, fund-raising, and promotion led to the realization of his ideas with the publication of his new magazine, for which he chose the name U.S. Lady, in Washington, in September, 1955.

At the same time he was getting his magazine underway, he began making personal contacts in right-wing circles in the Washington area. He attended the meetings of various groups and then began to organize meetings of his own. Before he could put his magazine to use as a medium for disguised propaganda, however, he found himself in serious financial difficulties, due to his lack of capital, and he was forced to sell the magazine in order to avoid bankruptcy.

With undiminished enthusiasm, he continued his organizing efforts among the right wing. Making the same mistake that nearly every other beginner makes, he assumed that the proper way to proceed lay in coordinating the numerous right-wing and conservative organizations and individuals—bringing them together into a right-wing superstructure where they could work effectively for their common goals. He felt that such a coordination could make an almost miraculous transformation in the strength of the right-wing position in America.

To this end he bought radio advertisements, spoke at dozens of meetings, wrote numberless letters, and devoted every waking hour to the promotion of his plan for unity. He created a paper organization, the American Federation of Conservative Organizations, and continued his tireless efforts to inspire and mobilize even a few of the hundreds of right-wing groups and individuals with whom he had established contact, but to no avail: “Our meetings were better and better attended, but there was no result at all—nothing accomplished.”

He sadly learned that all the right-wing groups had one weakness in common: their members loved to talk but were incapable of action. A substantial portion of them were hobbyists—escapists obsessed with various pet projects and absolutely invulnerable to reason, or masochists who delighted in moaning endlessly about treason and decay but who were shocked at the suggestion that they should help put an end to it. Many were so neurotic that the idea of engaging them in any prolonged cooperative effort was untenable. Some were simply insane. Virtually all were cowards. Years of inaction or ineffectiveness had drained the ranks of the right-wing of the type of human material essential for any serious undertaking. Very little was left but the sort of dregs with which nothing could be done.

Unfortunately, he had failed to heed the Leader’s warning that eight cripples who join arms do not yield even one gladiator as a result:

And if there were indeed one healthy man among the cripples, he would expend all his strength just keeping the others on their feet and in this way become a cripple himself.

By the formation of a federation, weak organizations are never transformed into strong ones, but a strong organization can and often will be weakened. The opinion that strength must result from the association of weak groups is incorrect…

Great, truly world-shaking revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations, never as the undertakings of coalitions.

It has been said that experience keeps a dear school, and in Rockwell’s case it was dear indeed. He had exhausted all the money left from the sale of U.S. Lady by the time the last meeting of his American Federation of Conservative Organizations, on July 4, 1956, failed to produce any concrete results. He had to find a new source of income and considered himself fortunate to obtain a temporary position as a television scriptwriter.

This lasted only a few months, however, and then he took a position on the staff of the New York-based conservative magazine, American Mercury, as assistant to the publisher. He had learned the futility of trying to achieve effective cooperation between the various right-wing groups and had resigned himself to forming a new organization.

Rockwell still had two bitter lessons to learn in the school of experience, however—lessons which the Leader had set forth clearly in his immortal book, but which Rockwell, for all his careful study, had failed to take to heart, just as with the admonition against hoping to gain strength by uniting weaknesses. He still believed that the enemies of our people could be fought effectively by the “respectable” means to which conservatives have always restricted themselves. He thought to avoid the “stigma” of anti-Semitism by working silently and indirectly against treason and racial subversion. This method had the great advantage of not provoking the enemy, so that one could proceed peacefully and safely with one’s “silent” work.

Thus, while working at American Mercury he began to formulate plans for an underground, “hard-core” National Socialist organization, with a right-wing front and financing by wealthy conservatives. Since the organization was to be, in effect, National Socialist, with National Socialists at the helm and carrying out the significant activities, and the conservative front only a disguise, he happily thought he had a plan which would not be subject to all the flaws of those of his conservative efforts of the past.

His new project rapidly foundered on the shoals of reality, however. First he found that wealthy conservatives suffered from most of the character defects that he had already observed in not-so-wealthy conservatives. Money could be gotten from them for “pet” projects—but not for any serious effort which smacked of danger, particularly danger of exposure. A more fundamental weakness of the “secret” approach, however, lay in the fact that it is the surface disguise, the front—not the hidden core—which determines the quality of the personnel attracted to an organization. Thus, when his anticipated source of funds balked and his one National Socialist recruit became discouraged and left, Rockwell was faced with the prospect of scrapping his new idea and starting again from nothing.

Sadly he re-read the words the Leader had written more than thirty years previously: “A man who knows a thing, recognizes a given danger, and sees with his own eyes the possibility of a remedy, damned well has the duty and the obligation not to work ‘silently’, but to stand up openly against the evil and for its cure. If he does not do so then he is a faithless, miserable weakling who fails either from cowardice or from laziness and incompetence… Every last agitator who possesses the courage to defend his opinions with manly forth-rightness, standing on a tavern table among his adversaries, accomplishes more than a thousand of these lying, treacherous sneaks.”

It had taken two years of repeated discouragements and failures to bring this lesson home to him, but now he understood it. He had finally seen the fallacy underlying the conservative premise. In his own words:

Although it is made to appear so, the battle between the conservatives and liberals is not a battle of ideas or even of Political organizations. It is a battle of terror, and power. The Jews and their accomplices and dupes are not running our country and its people because of the excellence of their ideas or the merit of their work or the genuine majority of people behind them. They are in power in spite of the lack of these things, and only because they have driven their way into power by daring minority tactics. They can stay in power only because people are afraid to oppose them—afraid they will be socially ostracized, afraid they will be smeared in the press, afraid they will lose their jobs, afraid they will not be able to run their businesses, afraid they will lose political offices. It is fear and fear alone, which keeps these filthy left-wing sneaks in power—not ignorance on the part of the American people, as the conservatives keep telling each other.

Beyond this however, he was coming to an even more fundamental conclusion: Not only were conservatives wrong in their evaluation of the nature of the conflict between themselves and liberals and wrong in their choice of tactics, but their motives were also wrong; at least, he was beginning to see that their motives differed fundamentally from his own. Basically, the conservatives are aracial. Their primary concerns are economic: taxes, government spending, fiscal responsibility; and social: law and order, honest government, morality. At worst, their sole interest is the protection of their standard of living from the encroachments of the welfare state; at best, they are genuinely concerned about the general decay of standards and the trend toward mobocracy and chaos. But, as a whole, they show very little concern for the biological problem of which all these other problems are only manifestations.

Certainly the right wing was preferable to the left wing in this respect. At least conservatives tended to have a healthy anti-Semitic instinct. But as long as their inner orientation was economic-materialistic rather than racial-idealistic, they would remain primarily interested in the defense of a system rather than a race, they would continue to look for easy and superficial solutions rather than fundamental ones, and they would continue to lack that spirit of selfless idealism essential to ultimate victory. Thus, as the year 1956 drew to a close, Rockwell was certain of one thing: Conservatives would never, by any stretch of the imagination, be able to offer any effective opposition to the forces of degeneration and death. As he wrote later, anyone, when he first discovers what is going on, might be forgiven a certain period of nourishing the delusion and hope that there is a safe, easy, and “nice” solution to the problem. But to pursue the same fruitless tactics year after year is evidence of something else:

Conservatives are the world’s champion ostriches, muttering to each other down under the sand “in secret,” while their plumed bottoms wave in the breeze for the Jews to kick at their leisure. They are fooling nobody but themselves.

The answer would have to be found elsewhere—but where, how?

The years 1957 and 1958 were difficult ones. As a representative of a New York management-consultant firm, he spent most of 1957 traveling in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, writing and consolidating his thoughts whenever he could find time. The winter of 1957–58 saw a brief interlude in Atlanta, where he sold advertising.

During this period, Rockwell had an experience about which he has never written and which he related to only a few people. Always a skeptic where the supernatural was concerned, he was certainly not a man to be easily influenced by omens. Yet there can be no doubt that he attached special significance to a series of dreams that he had then. The dreams—actually all variations of a single dream—occurred nearly every night for a period of several weeks and were of such intensity that he could recall them vividly upon waking. In each dream he saw himself in some everyday situation: sitting in a crowded theater, eating at a counter in a diner, walking through the busy lobby of an office building, or inspecting the airplanes of his squadron at an airfield hangar.

And in each dream a man would approach him—theater usher, diner cook, office clerk, or mechanic—and say something to the effect, “Mr. Rockwell, there is someone to see you.” And then he would be led off to some back room or side office in the building or hangar, as the case may have been. He would open the door and find waiting for him inside, always alone—Adolf Hitler. Then the dream would end.

One can most easily interpret these dreams as a case of autosuggestion, but in the light of later developments Rockwell considered them as a symbolic summons, a beckoning onto the path for which he was then still groping, whether that beckoning was the consequence of an internal or an external stimulus.

Early in 1958 he returned to Virginia. His first effort there was in Newport News, where he produced political cartoons in collaboration with the publisher of a small racist magazine which shortly went bankrupt. In Newport News, however, he met a man who was to play a critical role in changing the course of his political career: Harold N. Arrowsmith, Jr.

Arrowsmith was a wealthy conservative with a “pet” project—but he was not like any other wealthy conservative Rockwell had met. Independently wealthy as the result of an inheritance, he had formerly been a physical anthropologist. He had stumbled into politics rather by accident when a friend on the research staff of a Congressional investigating committee had asked him for some help with some library research connected with a case under investigation. In the course of this work he had, to his surprise, come upon some of the documentary material that had so startled Rockwell a few years earlier in San Diego.

Being a trained scholar, a linguist with a dozen languages at his disposal, having access to all the major libraries and archives of the Western world—and with unlimited time and money—he was able to follow up his initial discoveries and soon had unearthed literally thousands of items of evidence. The story they told was a shocking and frightening one: world wars and revolutions, famines and massacres—not the caprices of history, but the results of deliberate and cold-blooded scheming.

Although he had filing cabinets bulging with military intelligence reports, court records, photostats of diplomatic correspondence, and other material, he had not been able to publicize any of his finds. Scholarly journals returned his carefully written and documented papers with rejection slips, and it soon became apparent that no publisher of general periodicals would accept them either. He approached Rockwell with the proposition of printing, publishing, and distributing some of his documentary material, with full financial backing.

They formed the “National Committee to Free America from Jewish Domination,” and Rockwell moved to Arlington, Virginia, where Arrowsmith provided him with a house and printing equipment.

Rockwell had already reached the conclusion that if any progress were to be made, it was necessary to break out of the right-wing milieu into fresh territory. Right-wingers had been exchanging and reading one another’s pamphlets for years, with no noticeable results. They always used the same mailing lists and sent their propaganda to people who, for the most part, had already heard at least a dozen variations on the same theme. What was needed was mass publicity, so that some fresh blood could be attracted into the Movement.

As the normal channels of mass propaganda were closed to most right-wingers—and certainly to anyone whose propaganda might prove distressing to Jews—Rockwell had decided that radical means must be used to force open those channels. He placed this objective before all others. For, he reasoned, if one is to mobilize men into an organization—secret or otherwise—for the purpose of gaining political power, one must first let those men know of one’s existence and communicate to them at least a bare outline of one’s program. Until a mass of new raw material—potential recruits—could be stirred up by making a really significant impact on the public consciousness, there was simply no sense in proceeding further; he had already spent too much time doing things the old way. He was, in fact, prepared to take the next-to-last step in his progress from just another goy to the heir to Adolf Hitler’s mighty legacy. He decided on public agitation of the most provocative sort-agitation of such a blatant and revolutionary sort that the mass media could not ignore it.

In May, 1958, Eisenhower had sent U.S. marines to Lebanon to help maintain the government of President Chamoun in power, against the wishes of the Arab citizens of that country. The Lebanese Arabs desired closer cooperation with the other Arab states, but Chamoun, much to the pleasure of the Jews, did not. The threat of the overthrow of Chamoun and of a pro-Arab government coming into power in Lebanon, thus adding another member to the Arab bloc opposing the illegal Jewish occupation of Palestine, led U.S. Jews to press the course of U.S. intervention upon Eisenhower, always their willing tool. The issue was much in the public eye during the summer of 1958, and Rockwell decided to use it as the basis of his first public demonstration—a picket of the White House. Calling on many of the contacts he had made around the country during the past few years, he was able to arrange for a busload of young demonstrators to come to Washington and also to organize protest groups in both Atlanta, Georgia, and Louisville, Kentucky.

Then on Sunday morning, July 29, 1958, Rockwell led his group of pickets to the White House, while the groups in Atlanta and Louisville began their demonstrations simultaneously. Carrying large signs which Rockwell had designed and printed himself, these three groups made the first public protest against Jewish control of the U.S. government since the Jews had silenced their critics in 1941. It was indeed a momentous occasion: not yet an open National Socialist demonstration, but a vigorous slap in the face for the enemy—a slap which could not be ignored, as all the “secret” right-wing activity had been for years.

Ten weeks later, on October 12, a synagogue in Atlanta was mysteriously blown up. Police immediately swooped on Rockwell’s men in Atlanta who had demonstrated in July. Newspapers around the world carried front-page stories implicating Rockwell and Arrowsmith in the bombing. Arrowsmith, who felt he was getting more involved in politics than was comfortable, retrieved his printing equipment and withdrew Rockwell’s financial support. For the first time, Rockwell began to get a taste of the difficult times which lay ahead. Hoodlums, instigated by the newspaper publicity, attacked his home. Windows were broken, and stones and firecrackers were thrown at his house late at night. Both by day and by night he and his wife received obscene and threatening telephone calls. Finally, for the sake of their safety, he felt obliged to send his family to Iceland.

With its financial backing gone, the “National Committee to Free America from Jewish Control” was no more. The last of Rockwell’s conservative friends evaporated in the harsh glare of newspaper hate propaganda which was heaped upon him. As the new year, 1959, came in, he found himself alone in an empty house, without friends or money or prospects for the future. He had dared to seize the dragon by the tail and had survived. Yet, in the bleak, cold days of January and February, 1959, this gave him little comfort as he faced an uncertain and unpromising future.

As I sat alone in that empty house or lay alone in that even emptier bed in the silent, hollow darkness, the full realization of what I was about bore in upon me with fearful urgency. I realized there was no turning back; as long as I lived I was marked with the stigma of anti-Jewishness… I could never again hope to earn a normal living. The Jews could not survive unless they made an example of me the rest of my life, else too many others might be tempted to follow my example. My Rubicon had been crossed, and it was fight and win—or die.

And then something happened which, in its way, was to be as decisive in his life as had been his finding Adolf Hitler’s message in Mein Kampf, eight years before, in San Diego. Again, it was like a guiding hand reaching to him from the twilight of the past—from a charred, rubble-filled bunker in Berlin—and showing him the way. Waiting for him at the post office one morning at the beginning of March was a large carton. In it, carefully folded, was a huge swastika banner, which had been sent by a young admirer.

Deeply moved, he carried the banner home and hung it across one end of his living room, completely covering the wall. He found a small, bronze plaque with a relief bust of Adolf Hitler, which had been given to him earlier, and mounted it in the center of the swastika. Then he found three candles and candle holders, which he placed on a small book-case he had arranged just below the bronze plaque. He closed the blinds and lit the candles:

I stood there in the flickering candlelight, not a sound in the house, not a soul near me or aware of what I was doing—or caring.

On that cold, March morning, alone before the dimly lit altar, Lincoln Rockwell underwent an experience of a sort shared by few men in the long history of our race—an experience which comes seldom to this world but which may radically alter the course of that world when it does. Nearly fifty-three years before, a similar experience had befallen a man—that time on a cold, November night, on a hilltop overlooking the Austrian town of Linz.

It was a religious experience that was more than religious. As he stood there he felt an indescribable torrent of emotions surging through his being, reaching higher and higher in a crescendo with a peak of unbearable intensity. He felt the awe-inspiring awareness for a few moments, or a few minutes, of being more than himself, of being in communion with that which is beyond description and beyond comprehension. Something with the cool, vast feeling of eternity and of infinity—of long ages spanning the birth and death of suns, and of immense, starry vistas-filled his soul to the bursting point. One may call that Something by different names—the Great Spirit, perhaps, or Destiny, or the Soul of the Universe, or God—but once it has brushed the soul of a man, that man can never again be wholly what he was before. It changes him spiritually in the same way that a mighty earthquake or a cataclysmic eruption, the subsidence of a continent or the bursting forth of a new mountain range, changes forever the face of the earth.

Slowly the storm subsided, and Lincoln Rockwell—a new Lincoln Rockwell—became aware once again of the room about him and of his own thoughts. He has described for us his feeling then:

Where before I had wanted to fight the forces of tyranny and regression, now I HAD to fight them. But even more, I felt within me the power to prevail—strength beyond my own strength—the ability to do the right thing even when I was personally overwhelmed by events. And that strength has not yet failed me. Nor will it fail… I knew with calm certainty exactly what to do, and I knew, in a hard-to-explain sense, what was ahead. It was something like looking at a road from the air after seeing only the curve ahead from the ground… Hitler had shown the way to survival. It would be my task on this earth to carry his ideas… to total, world-wide victory. I knew I would not live to see the victory which I would make possible. But I would not die before I had made that victory certain.

And just as Adolf Hitler had said of his experience on the Freinberg, “In that hour it began,” so in that hour it began for Lincoln Rockwell also. He did not realize it then, of course, but this climactic event had come almost exactly in the middle of his political life; he had run just half the course from that fall day in 1950, in the San Diego Public Library, to a martyr’s death in Arlington in the late summer of 1967.

Before, he had been a right-winger, a conservative, albeit a more and more openly anti-Jewish one; before, he had felt the need to keep his National Socialism concealed; before, while he had admired Adolf Hitler as the greatest thinker in the history of the race and Mein Kampf as the most important book ever written, they had not been wholly real to him—and this attitude had resulted in his failure so often to apply the Leader’s teachings to his own political efforts. Now, however, he was no longer a conservative, but a National Socialist, and he would bear witness for his faith before the whole world; now, at last, he recognized in Adolf Hitler not just an extraordinarily great mind and spirit, but something immortal, transcendental, more than human; now he saw the Leader as an embodiment, in a way, of that Universal Soul with which he had briefly communed; now he was prepared to follow the Leader’s teachings without reservation, in all things.

At the same time that these fundamental changes in his outlook took place, he saw the need for a fundamental change in his political tactics. He recalled the Leader’s words:

Any man who is not attacked in the Jewish newspapers, not slandered and vilified, is no true National Socialist. The best measure of the value of his will is the hostility he receives from the mortal enemy of our people…

Every Jewish slander and every Jewish lie is a scar of honor on the body of our warriors.

The man they have most reviled stands closest to us, and the man they hate worst is our best friend.

Anyone who picks up a Jewish newspaper in the morning and does not see himself slandered in it has not made profitable use of the previous day; for if he had, he would be persecuted, reviled, slandered, abused, befouled. And only the man who combats this mortal enemy of our nation and of all Aryan humanity and culture most effectively may expect to see the slanders of this race and the efforts of this people directed against him.

And further:

It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again, and that we gradually appear to be the only power that anyone reckons with at the moment. What we really are and what we really want, we will show the Jewish journalistic rabble when the day comes.

Rockwell had already recognized the need for gaining mass publicity by radical means, but he had flinched at the thought of the slander and vilification, the misrepresentation and ridicule which must inevitably accompany any publicity he received through the alien-dominated mass media. He had been living in the conservative dream world and had shared with other right-wingers the comfortable illusion that one can keep the enemy fooled—even make him think one is his friend—and fight him effectively at the same time.

Even as he gradually became more forthright in his statements with respect to the Jewish question, he retained the feeling that to speak out openly for Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist world view would be nothing short of suicide.

Thus he had fallen between two stools after his demonstration of July 29, 1958. He had been numbed by the virulence of the hatred unleashed against him, and at the same time found himself crippled by self-imposed limitations in his own campaign.

Now, however, he had decided that not only would he never again flinch under the torrent of abuse and slander which his activities were sure to bring down on him, but he would provoke such attacks by the enemy, looking upon each one as a “scar of honor” and also as another small step toward his eventual general recognition as the opponent of everything the enemy stood for, as “the only power with which [that enemy] reckoned.” And he saw that an open avowal of his National Socialism was not only the strongest irritant he could bring to bear against his enemy, but it was the only realistic basis for gathering around himself those elements of the population needed to build a viable and lasting movement with which eventually to destroy that enemy and restore his own race to the position of strength and health and honor from which it had abdicated.

Actually, he carried the Leader’s counsel about the use of the enemy’s own propaganda to its logical extreme. Looking at the task before him realistically for the first time, he saw that the problems he faced were so severe that, in order to make any progress against them, he would be obliged to concentrate all his energies upon one aspect of those problems at a time.

The first step was general recognition. His earlier conviction that that goal must be attained at the expense of every other consideration was now stronger than ever. Thus, instead of following the natural urge to dissociate National Socialism from the Hollywood image that Jewry had been building for it for more than three decades, he temporarily threw all hopes of “respectability”—even among other National Socialists—aside and set about turning to his own advantage all the Jews’ previous efforts.

Toward this end he deliberately pinned on himself the label “Nazi” rather than “National Socialist,” using this bit of journalistic jargon which had been coined by the enemy during the early days of struggle in Germany, a term looked upon by National Socialists with about the same feeling that convinced Marxists must look upon the designation “commie” or “pinko”. Behind this step—one which was to cause much misunderstanding and suspicion in days to come—was the cold-blooded realization that a strutting, shouting uniform-wearing, Hollywood-style “Nazi” was vastly more newsworthy, had vastly more “shock value,” than any mere National Socialist.

As he pondered over his soul-stirring experience and began to lay new plans for the future during the next few days, events began flowing in the new channel marked out for them by the finger of Destiny. Three men, a right-wing acquaintance and two other men who were strangers to Rockwell, dropped in to see him one evening. Initially shocked and repelled by the swastika banner in his living room, they were soon won over by his passionate exposition of the new cause. Two of the three remained to become his first disciples.

Then he opened the blinds on his windows, making his swastika banner visible from the street. He issued swastika armbands to his two recruits, and the three of them swaggered about the house wearing holstered pistols. Later he mounted an illuminated swastika on the roof.

The crowds came to laugh and jeer and throw rocks-but a few remained to listen. His “stormtroopers” grew in number from two, to four, to ten.

These March days in 1959, which witnessed the first genuine rebirth of National Socialist activity after nearly fourteen years of terror and total suppression, marked the beginning of the stormiest and most difficult times Rockwell faced. Harassed by the police with illegal searches and confiscation of his property and materials, assaulted by thugs and vandals whom the police made no efforts to apprehend, he and his small group of followers printed and distributed tens of thousands of leaflets and talked to throngs of curious and hostile visitors who came to see the “American Fuehrer,” as the newspapers laughingly called him. He first chose the name “American Party” for his embryonic organization, but soon changed the name to “American Nazi Party.”

Keeping his initial objective foremost in his mind, he concentrated the activities of his small group primarily on the distribution of inflammatory leaflets, on creating public incidents, on haranguing crowds under circumstances especially chosen to provoke violent opposition—anything and everything, in other words, to gain mass publicity, to become generally recognized as the opponent of the Jews and everything they represented, from Marxism to unprincipled capitalism, from racial degeneration to cultural Bolshevism.

His first soapbox-style public address was delivered on the Mall, in Washington, on Sunday, April 3, 1960, and became a regular occurrence for some time thereafter. A letter he wrote to his mother during this early period of public speaking gives an idea of a few of the difficulties he faced:

7 July, 1960

Dear Mother:

Thank you for the letter and the help. It is much appreciated… Don’t pay too much attention to what the papers say, Mother they lie unbelievably. Last week they tried to murder us again on the Mall here and almost killed Major Morgan, whom you met, when they dragged him out—ten of them—and stomped him and left him for dead. But we prevailed, and even though the police, much against their will, were forced to arrest us for “disorderly conduct” (for being attacked by a murderous mob!), the people are with us. This sort of thing is inevitable, and it will get worse. Now they have tried—yesterday—to have me heaved in an insane asylum to shut me up, but they were surprised, as I was relieved, when people rushed forward to offer the huge cash bond they set for me and I will have a psychiatrist of my own choosing deliver a report, instead of the two Jews they planned for me. Do not worry about all this. It is dangerous, painful, and bitter when our own people do not understand what we are doing and suffering for them, but I am sure that the Lord will not permit liars and villains to win in the end. You will yet be mighty proud…

Love,

Link

In May, 1960, the National Socialist Bulletin made its appearance as the first periodical published by the American Nazi Party. It evolved in to the Stormtrooper magazine after eight issues. Meanwhile, on February 5, 1960, the United States Navy, under pressure from Jewish groups, forced Rockwell to accept a discharge from the Naval Reserve.

Despite the news quarantine imposed on him, despite beatings and jailings, despite a chronic lack of funds, despite serious personnel problems, and despite a thousand other troubles and difficulties, his campaign to gain public recognition made steady progress. Newspapers found it impossible to completely avoid mentioning his brash and daring exploits; editors and columnists found irresistible the temptation to denounce or “expose” him. Even radio and television emcees, ever on the prowl for sensation, yielded to temptation and defied the ban on publicity for Rockwell.

The image of George Lincoln Rockwell and the America Nazi Party created by the mass media for public consumption was, of course, a grossly distorted one. Rockwell had succeeded in forcing the media, more or less against their will, to give him publicity. Unfortunately, he could not force them to be impartial in their treatment, or even to be truthful. An interview with him published in the popular magazine, Playboy, was prefaced with such editorial remarks as: “Unlike controversial past interviewees Rockwell could not be called a spokesman for any socially or politically significant minority. But we felt that the very virulence of Rockwell’s messianic master-racism could transform a really searching conversation with the 48-year-old Fuhrer into a revealing portrait of both rampant racism and the pathology of fascism.”

Another commented: “The question of George Lincoln Rockwell boils down, then, to the question of how far can America let the hate-mongers go. Will an unsound branch on the tree of American democracy fall off or will it poison the organism?”

The really ambitious writers, editors, and reporters did not restrict themselves to such mildly prejudicial remarks but vied with one another in concocting outrageous lies about Rockwell. He was accused of cowardice, sadism, selfish gormandizing, kidnapping: “Like the late Adolf Schickelgruber, on whom he models himself, he believes in leading from behind—as far behind as possible.” In one magazine he was “quoted” as boasting that he had once castrated a heckler with his bare hands,” and another reported: “George Rockwell’s hysterical raving has already whipped up the lunatic fringe to the breaking point. Last summer three of his stormtroopers decided to please the Fuehrer by kidnapping a small Jewish child in Washington, D.C., and holding him at the Party Headquarters for several hours. How many more innocent citizens will be subjected to harassment before Robert F. Kennedy and the Justice Department move in?”

Topping them all was the story that “Like a true Nazi top dog, he avails himself of top-dog privileges and orders private meals served in his room. He partakes of such fancy fare as turtle soup, lobster, and steak while the men eat hash. Between meals he enjoys sucking kumquats.” This last flight of fancy is reminiscent of articles published in the German press (before 1933) which portrayed Adolf Hitler as a drunken profligate (Hitler only drank once in his entire life: the night of his High School Graduation) and lecher who dissipated the contributions of his followers in high living, champagne parties, and whoring.

Rockwell accepted these lies and slanders philosophically, for the alternative to this Jew-designed public image even was no public image at all. As a matter of fact, the Jews—and non-Jewish publicists anxious to demonstrate their affection for the Jews—cannot be given all the blame for this poor image. Rockwell himself lent a conscious hand to its creation, as he admitted when he said, “When I have the rare opportunity to use some mass medium, as was recently the case when I gave an interview to Playboy, I am forced to walk a careful line between what I should like to say and what the enemy would like to hear me say. Unless I deliberately sound at least halfway like a raving illiterate with three loose screws, such an interview would never be printed.”

The price he paid for becoming generally recognized as “Mr. Nazi” was a high one indeed. Other men with sound racial instincts but without Rockwell’s understanding of political realities were, naturally enough, appalled by what seemed to be Rockwell’s ridiculous antics. Most people, even relatively sophisticated ones who talk knowingly about “managed news,”simply find incomprehensible the Jewish Big Lie technique.

These sound but simple citizens all too often jumped to the not-implausible conclusion that Rockwell was a kind of agent provocateur, a traitor hired by the enemy to discredit honest racists and patriots. His correspondence with some of them displays a mixture of impatience with their inability to perceive the essence of the real problems facing our race, and a sincere desire to evoke understanding. The following extracts from a letter to a member of a snobbish racist group calling itself the “European Liberation Front” are typical:

Dear Mr ___:

I realize that I am only a stupid, silly American, but I do love this country, in spite of your denunciation of it. What you hate about it is what the Jews have done to it, and you are like a man who permits his wife to be debauched by rapists and then tosses her in the garbage can for it. Shame on you! “American” influence on Europe is not American at all, and you damned sure should know it. The real American influence was Henry Ford, our West, and the like.

Europe is a tired old man-more like a tired old lady—and if Western culture is to be saved, it will be saved by the last Western barbarians, the American barbarians I love. Men like you, suave, polished, educated, supercilious, and “above” nasty physical violence, cannot save themselves, let alone a nation, a culture, or a race. You people with your “European Liberation Front” are going at it backwards. You can’t liberate Europe any more with Europeans. Hitler gave that effort every bit of holy genius within him, and he was mashed by the American barbarians. You and your egghead gang of dandies are in love with what is gone and insist on ignoring what is here. Rome is no more. You keep trying to resurrect it, and you can’t, because there are no more noble Romans over there, at least not enough to make a real fight of it. Europe is like one big France—all empty shell, fine words, pretty songs, and dead men. We helped kill Europe. If you did liberate it, like France was “liberated”, it would sink into degeneracy again in a century…

There are, of course, good, vigorous fighting men in Europe, but they are swamped by the human garbage left in the wreckage of two wars promoted by Jews and fought by Americans. I am building National Socialism here, by such expedients and methods as may be possible, and I am succeeding, in spite of your looking down your nose at me…

Whenever I can get some or the other of you to ditch the “We’re-the-real-National Socialists” game and start being National Socialists, I give strength to the cause to which I have given my life, my family, my comfort, and everything else I have to give, no matter what you may have been told…

Frankness, not diplomacy, was his strong point.

In order to allay hostility and suspicion as much as he could, he was soon obliged to divert some of his energies from agitation and publicity garnering to a more sober exposition of his ideas. His first major effort in that direction was the publication of his political autobiography, This Time the World. Written hastily in the fall of 1960 between speaking engagements, court appearances, street brawls, and desperate attempts to raise money to sustain his small group, he was not able to publish it until a year later. The printing and binding of the book were done entirely by his untrained stormtroopers, and their only machinery was a tiny, office-style duplicator. The absolute sincerity of its tone failed to convince few of its readers, but the difficulties of distribution, due to the Jewish “quarantine”, limited its circulation to a few thousand copies.

In October, 1961, the first of his Rockwell Reports appeared. Varying in length from four to thirty-six pages, the Rockwell Reports appeared semi-monthly at first, then monthly, occasionally lapsing into bi-monthly publication during particularly difficult periods. The Rockwell Reports contained a lively mixture of National Socialist ideology, current political analysis, prognostication, political cartoons and drawings, reproductions of pertinent news clippings, and photographs of Party activities. They all bore his unique stamp and, more than any other one thing, were responsible for drawing to him the idealistic young men who formed the cadre of the growing movement.

From the beginning, Rockwell had understood the necessity for the National Socialist movement eventually to operate from a worldwide basis. For the ultimate political goal of the Movement was the establishment of an Aryan world order, a pax Aryana, as a prerequisite for the attainment of the long-term racial goals of the Movement. From the spring of 1959, this concept had existed on paper as the “World Union of Free-Enterprise National Socialists,” but until the summer of 1962 it was not implemented beyond an exchange of letters with individual National Socialists in Europe. In early August, 1962, Rockwell met with National Socialist representatives from four other nations in the Cotswold Hills, near Cotswold, England, and the World Union of National Socialists formally came into existence. On the fifth of August the protocol now known as the Cotswold Agreements was drawn up, pledging the National Socialist movements of the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany (including Austria), and Belgium to a common effort. Annual meetings of the World Union of National Socialists were originally envisaged, but Fate and circumstances prevented this. Rockwell was under increasing pressure in America during the next five years, as the situation there grew steadily more turbulent.

Rockwell’s original program was divided into three phases. The first phase, beginning in March, 1959, was to be a phase of provocative but essentially non-constructive activity, intended to generate publicity and build a public image, no matter how distorted. The second phase was to be a cadre-building phase, during which a strong, disciplined, effective, professional National Socialist organization was to be built and capabilities in propaganda and organizing developed to a high degree. The third phase was to be one of mass organization.

Phase one was masterfully executed. Rockwell proved himself an outstanding tactician in the rough-and-tumble game of smashing through the Jewish blackout barrier. With cool objectivity, he watched the press heap bucket after bucket of lies and filth on his image, provoking them to renewed activity whenever they tired. With keen insight he analyzed the Jewish situation. He understood that though they occupied the key positions of control in the public-opinion-forming networks, they were constrained to a large extent by the fact that that control must remain hidden from the public.

Furthermore, he understood the fact that a very substantial portion of the reporters, editors, columnists, newscasters, and even many individual newspaper and broadcast-station owners are not Jews, and, barring direct and categorical orders to the contrary from the key Jews, these people can be counted upon to react in a more-or-less predictable way to a given stimulus. Thus, by taking a position and making statements which seemed extreme and even ridiculous to the “average citizen,” he could entice publicists to quote him widely, thinking thus to discredit both the man and the philosophy with these average citizens. What they failed to understand was that before the Movement could profit from any mass appeal, it had to appeal to a large number of very un-average citizens—fearless idealists who could form the National Socialist cadre.

And these men responded in a very different way to Rockwell’s message than did the liberal publicists or their average audience. They saw beyond the superficial “ridiculousness” of his message to the kernel of deep truth that it contained. While the average citizen, incapable of thinking beyond the immediate problems of the day, found Rockwell’s message “too extreme,” just as the publicists intended, those who could extrapolate in their minds the developments of the present to the consequences of tomorrow—and of a century hence—saw the compelling necessity of his demands. But such men are rather sparsely distributed throughout the population, and to reach them Rockwell needed to cast his net very wide; this the publicists helped him do while they thought to smear him. Rockwell also understood that the image of him being erected in the minds of the masses, while a liability now, had a value for the future, when conditions had ripened so that at least some of those masses were ready for an “extremist”.

Phase two—cadre building and organizational development—in a sense was co-extant with phase one, for from the very beginning Rockwell’s publicity began to attract a few of the idealists needed for phase two, and these men began to constitute the skeleton of the organizational structure which was later to be filled out. Even a bit of phase three entered the picture during the first phase, when Rockwell conducted a campaign to become governor of the state of Virginia in 1965.

This election campaign proved to be a period of extremely valuable training not only for Rockwell but for the leadership personnel of his entire Party. Realizing the eventual need to develop proficiency at mass campaigning, Rockwell decided to begin acquiring experience in that direction soon rather than late. As he later admitted, after winning less than 1.5% of the votes cast, the campaign also provided a more fundamental lesson and helped him to realistically re-evaluate the entire status of the Movement. Before, he had taken overly optimistic view that the Movement would begin to pick up substantial mass following as soon as it had gained sufficient publicity through his phase-one activities; that is, he believed that phases two and three would be largely concurrent.

After the Virginia campaign, having been reminded once again of the stupendous inertia of public opinion, he realized that phase two would be much longer than originally anticipated, and that the beginning of any substantial success from phase-three activity would have to await two things: a considerable internal strengthening of the Movement and a considerable worsening of the general racial-social-economic situation.

With this first thing in mind, he made the decision in 1966 to inaugurate a general activity. As mentioned before, the first two phases of Party activity overlapped to a large extent, and the transition between the two was marked primarily by a shift of emphasis. Phase one was the “Nazi” era of the Movement. Phase two is the beginning of the National Socialist era. In line with this re-emphasis, the American Nazi Party officially became the National Socialist White People’s Party on January 1, 1967, and that date can reasonably be considered to mark the transition. Six months earlier, the appearance of National Socialist World was a major step in this direction. And six months after that date—in June, 1967—a historic re-organizational conference of the Party leadership was held in Arlington. There Rockwell set the Movement on its new course, explaining the need for a total professionalization of every activity, from fund raising to propaganda writing, in order to meet the severe demands to be expected during the long period of growth and struggle ahead.

He was now forty-nine years old. For the past eight years he had been working an average sixteen hours a day, seven days a week. The strain on his physical and spiritual resources had been severe. Usually he was obliged to concentrate on the several tasks simultaneously. There was always a demonstration to be planned, a speech to be prepared, propaganda to be written, a court case to be fought, money to be raised, and everything to be done under nearly impossible working conditions, with incessant interruptions. Only the immense vitality of his rugged, six-foot-four-inch frame and a deep reserve of spiritual strength had sustained him in the past.

The course that lay ahead would certainly be no easier; on the contrary, in addition to the old tasks connected with agitation and publicity, there would be many new problems to be faced as the Movement continued into its new phase of activity.

Other men—strong men—might have yielded to the temptation to remain with a prescription to which they had become accustomed and not venture from a beaten path into strange and difficult territory. The slightest trace of subjectivity would allow them to ring forth a hundred reasons for not changing a modus operandi which they had found successful in the past. And yet it was characteristic of Rockwell that he did not hesitate for an instant. When he saw that the time had come for the Movement to change its tactics and accept a different set of challenges, he set himself to the new task with the same determination that he had shown throughout the first phase.

Now it was necessary to build up a whole new public image for the Party, or, rather, gradually to transform the grossly distorted image he had induced the enemy to build for him to one closer to the truth. It was a demanding task, and he spent the summer of 1967 in laying plans for the future and in finishing his new book, White Power.



On the 25th of August, 1967, a Friday, at two minutes before noon, near his Arlington headquarters, an assassin’s bullet struck him down.

Following a denial by the United States government of Commander Rockwell’s right to burial in a national cemetery, his Party comrades had his body cremated, and a National Socialist memorial service was held in Arlington on the afternoon of August 30. His eulogy was short but moving:

The stunning suddenness of his departure and the ensuing turmoil of the last few days have kept us from yet assessing the magnitude of our loss.

He saw further than other men, and he fought harder…

And so long as that Movement remains and that idea continues to fill the hearts and minds of men, the spirit of Lincoln Rockwell lives on.

For it was he, Lincoln Rockwell, who again picked up the torch which fell to earth twenty-two years ago. Adolf Hitler founded our great Movement and will forever fill a unique position in the saga of our race; but had it not been for Lincoln Rockwell, Adolf Hitler’s mighty work might well have been in vain. It was Lincoln Rockwell who set us once again on the upward path when we had faltered and wanted to go back again.



____________________________________

Note from the Ed.:

Only a few sentences of the long eulogy have been reproduced above.
The US judiciary system did not condemn the assassin,
John Patler, to either death penalty or life sentence.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 234 other followers