Fuck the Holocaust!

As promised to some of the commenters of WDH, I have started to study the Holocaust debate. The first step was letting, as in the court charades we see in Hollywood, the opening statement to the prosecutor’s side. Since Michael Shermer debated courteously the Holocaust with his opponent Mark Weber (the whole exchange can be seen at YouTube) I used Shermer’s book, coauthored with a Jew, as the opening prosecutor statement.

According to this analogy I am only a member of the Juror and still have to read quite a few books on the other side (my methodology: read one book by the prosecutor, the next by the attorney, etc.). I am not supposed to reach any conclusion yet.

I expected to read what the Jewish coauthor of Denying History: Who Says that The Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? wrote. However, I must leave criticism of the gentile author, Shermer, for my next entry. What I would like to say now has to do with Jonathan Bowden’s London speech on September 8, 2007 where he mentioned the Shoah. The following passage struck me:

Firstly, cultures would be mono-ethnic. Secondly, there would be a respect for the past glories of our civilization. Thirdly, we would not preface every attempt to be strong by saying “I’m sorry, I’m sorry for what we have done.”

We’re not sorry!

And we’ve stepped over the prospect of being sorry.

Menachem Begin in his autobiography, which is called—is it called My Struggle?—it’s called My Life, he was asked about the massacres of Palestinian villages, which was certainly instituted by his paramilitary group. And he said, “The sun comes up and goes down. It was necessary. We lived, we struggled, and they have died. Israel!” And we have to do the same. We have to do the same.

Independently of what I might conclude if I continue this Holo “trial” with more books, my first thought is that it is a historical fact that Bolshevik Jews killed more White civilians than the Jews attributed to Himmler. (Keyword: attributed for those who already have sided the attorney on the Holo issue.) But let’s suppose for a moment that the prosecutor is right, and by that I mean that more than three million Jews died during the Second World War.

So what?

Why the hell should I, the Germans, White Europeans or White Americans feel guilty about it? When has the Jew felt guilty about the Holodomor—where, even if the official stats on the Holocaust are true, more innocent Ukrainians lost their lives in 1932 than Jews in 1942-1945?

It makes no sense! And independently of where this Holo quest would drive curious readers of both revisionist and official literature, the real axiological question was raised by Bowden during that London speech. Even if the Shoah happened, Bowden seemed to tell the audience,

“We’re not sorry!”

In addition to Bowden’s speech read this article by William Pierce: the best piece I have read to understand the Jewish Problem.

If Jews are innately predisposed to hurt us, why the fuss if someone tried, during the heat of a Hellish War, to solve the Problem once and for all? It is so self-defeating that I am tempted to lose my temper and shout:

Fuck the Holocaust, and revisionist literature too!

But why this friendly fire? Because the problem with the White psyche is far deeper that what most of us suspect. Judge it yourselves with the above example of more civilians killed by Red Terror (which during the communist collectivization many regarded as Jewish Terror) in addition to the similar Holocaust perpetrated by the Americans against the Germans: a fratricide of epic proportions that we should start calling “Hellstorm.”

Why are Whites always on the defensive, even White nationalists? Why always trying to apologize? Don’t Holo revisionists know that sheer negation (“No: I didn’t do it…!”) is for children, that it places ourselves on the defensive? What about attacking? What about saying, You damned Kike murdered more than us? Or: You traitor Gentile, including Stalin’s and Eisenhower’s willing executioners, murdered more civilians than us?

Let’s suppose that machines to see the past were invented and that, instead of reading silly books on the fate of der Juden in the 1940s, we finally had conclusive proof that, say, up to four million of them died as a result of harsh German treatment during the War.

So what? Why are you using Christian guilt to unilaterally judge war events? Why not kick your moral grammar so hard that it reaches Alaska bypassing Canada (or if you’re in Germany, kicking it so hard that it reaches England bypassing the Channel)? Why just don’t say, like Begin, “The sun comes up and goes down. It was necessary.”

What a Kike can say Aryans can’t, right?

♣

I am fed up of the Neochristians’ guilt feelings and passion for self-flagellation. Even before the war it was their liberal morals what enabled the Jewish takeover throughout the 19th century in Europe (and let’s not even mention what happened in America in the 20th). Revisionists: Why can’t you think like Nietzsche thought, that Zarathustra left his humanity behind only when he overcame his Christian pity? Bowden’s speech itself was properly baptized, “Credo: A Nietzschean Testament” during the transcript a year ago.

Even the anti-Christians at VNN Forum look like pious Neochristians compared to me! Visit their forum: They deny, deny and deny that the slaughtering of der Juden took place…

This is my reply to them: Who gives a fuck? Only the Christian or Liberal humans, right? So paradoxically your discourse is unconsciously aimed at Christians and Liberals…

The sad truth is that those who fancy themselves anti-Christian, or anti-Liberal nationalists have been unwilling to take the final step to overmanhood. This is the crucial passage of my “Dies Irae”:

Presently you remember the last chapter, “The Sign,” of Nietzsche’s favorite book when Zarathustra rises in the morning and finds a lion outside his cave, which he takes to be a sign that the Overman is finally coming. This new Zarathustra—you—rises triumphantly, realizing you have overcome your final sin: pity.

Even if after much scholarly search the six-million figure turns out to be true (I doubt it), as I said elsewhere, later in this century Whites will be challenged with something analogous to multiplying the six-million figure by a factor of a thousand if they really want to survive: insofar as the Earth’s energy reservoirs will be increasingly depleted precisely while the human population still grows exponentially.

The choice for Whites in this fateful 21st century will be to hostilely takeover the oil supplies from non-White, third-world peoples or die—an action that would condemn not six millions but billions to starve to death and We

Will
Not
Be
Sorry!

The alternative would be starvation within the coming White ethnostate when energy depletion reaches its bottom worldwide.

My prediction is that by the 22nd century when the peak-oil crisis is finally over, no surviving White will give a damn about whether or not the National Socialists dispatched six million Juden. Their only ethos will be to keep the White ethnos alive.

But why not say it now, even before the energy apocalypse occurs:

Umwertung aller Werte!

Michael O’Meara revisited

The first time I read Michael O’Meara’s “White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism,” published in October 2, 2011 at Counter-Currents, it confused me: On the one hand, O’Meara’s Toward the White Republic had made a profound dent in my thinking; on the other, by that time I still was under the impression that the Jewish problem was probably the main cause for the West’s darkest hour.

Now that I have read Tom Sunic’s latest book, extensively quoted in my previous post, I have finally made up my mind about that highly controversial O’Meara piece. In brackets I’ll offer my comments about that brief article originally written in 2010.

O’Meara wrote:

“White nationalism” is a much abused term.

Its defining tenet holds that European-Americans need their own ethnostate to prevent their destruction by the anti-white forces controlling the political and social systems of the United States and that such an ethnostate is the necessary precondition for re-asserting America’s European destiny. It is thus not an aspiration for racial supremacy or segregation, not a form of racial hatred or eugenic social engineering, but rather a movement of thought, akin to historic nationalism, which champions the New World’s “white nation.”

Relatedly, white nationalism has an important anti-Jewish facet because Organized Jewry is a powerful (some claim the most powerful) force compelling the present ethnocidal assault on European America.

This anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic facet, however, is but one aspect of white nationalism. The struggle—with ideas today, in the streets tomorrow, through force of arms in the end—to establish a European ethnostate in North America entails, by definition, resisting not just the alien forces threatening white life, but, more important, consciously affirming and asserting America’s European destiny.

As a critique of alien cultural distortion, anti-Semitism, then, may be a necessary part of the larger “national” struggle—but it is neither the aim of that struggle nor its essence.

A great many of those associated with white nationalism, however, not just fixate on the “inner enemy” to the exclusion of everything else, they tend to define their project in terms of the “Semitism” they oppose. The result, I contend, distorts or side-tracks white nationalism’s higher purpose.

* * *

If anti-Semitism is the natural “anti-body” that America’s cultural organism produces to defend itself, then to see white nationalism solely in its terms is to think that it is the opposite of the “body” it resists. This makes the “Aryan” the negative of the Jew, for anti-Semites assume not just a certain symmetry with their Semitic enemy, they inadvertently turn white nationalism into a sort of inverse Semitism.

[On this point I kind of disagree with O’Meara. As I pointed out in my essay-review of Kevin MacDonald’s second book of his trilogy, what we need is exactly a mirror-image of Judaism: National Socialism.]

More specifically, a Judeo-centric white nationalism promotes a strictly nullifying orientation in so far as it seeks to overthrow Jewish supremacy not on the basis of anything positive or native, but solely because of its destructive—“parasitic”—impact on white life. This negative orientation is supportable, though, only as long as its costs are ignored, for it leaves whites totally unconscious of what they are fighting for and, when exaggerated, fosters pathologies of another kind.

[One of the most infantile pathologies in the American white nationalist scene is the infatuation of many with ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theories: “Mossad orchestrated the attacks!”]

A critique of Jewish power that serves white interest would inevitably go beyond negativity to stress the informing and transcendent values which Jewish interests (among other contending forces) threaten.

Judeo-centric white nationalism, however, rarely attains such levels and, as a dogma oblivious to every differing view, usually ends up discrediting the nationalist cause.

As such, this dogma knows the answer to every question before it is even posed—for every failing and misfortune we suffer is automatically assumed to be the fault of the Omnipotent Jew. No need, then, for laborious studies in history, culture, and political-social analysis—just “name the Jew” and everything is explainable.

[In spite of the fact that both William Pierce’s and Arthur Kemp’s histories on the white race constitute a literary treat, very few American white nationalists seem to have taken the trouble of reading them. Is this because Kemp’s and Pierce’s focus is not America?]

So positioned, it can’t see that Jewish power is aided, abetted, and made possible by the very principles undergirding America’s liberal order—that Jewish power involves “Aryan” compliance, and that this compliance, routinely venerated in America’s Low Church worship of Mammon, emphasizes quantifying factors indifferent not just to a man’s qualities, but to the “rights” of blood and spirit.

[I am not an American. But when I lived in San Rafael in California, my roommate Guy Palmer—no: I am not afraid of dropping names—told me that, although he professed no religion whatsoever, for him money was the closest substitute of religion. I was shocked.]

Worse, an inordinate number of Judeo-centric white nationalists tend to share the same antipathy to Europe (our Fatherland) as do the Jews and consider materialism, egoism, and democratic corruption, inherent to America’s liberal project, as something uniquely Jewish, and not, as the most cursory examination of the historical record shows, an organic offshoot of the liberal system created by Americans of European Christian (mainly Calvinist) extraction.

[Again, see Sunic’s most recent book.]

For this reason, I often wonder if obsessing about Jews doesn’t cause certain culture-distortions in those so involved and that the white nationalism of these obsessives neglects, as a consequence, all that is positive and life-affirming in our own project—naively assuming, as they do, that a solution to the Jewish problem is all it will take to ensure a future for white children in North America.

[Is it what makes them blind that a final solution to the Jewish problem was not enough for the inquisitorial Spaniards and the Portuguese? After all, they failed to ensure a future for Iberian white children in both the Americas and the Iberian peninsula itself.]

Totally oblivious, then, to the fact that America’s shallow, latently anti-European culture favors Jewish methods and Jewish concerns, these blinkered anti-Semites prefer to indulge in fairy tales about “cultural Marxism” and the Frankfurter bogey man—unconscious of or uninterested in the larger subversion.

Knowing only their caricature of the inner enemy, they also either ignore the outer enemy (the colored world), treat it as a friend, or consider it a mere adversary. The West’s 1400-year conflict with Islam and its various conflictual relations with the non-white world are thereby reduced to Jewish machinations, dismissed, in effect, as an actual danger to Europe’s destiny and to the True America born of Europe.

[Counter-jihadists have a point here, in spite of the fact that they’re blind to the Jewish question. Those who want to expand their voyages beyond the strait waters of “orthodox” white nationalism could start by watching Craig Bodeker’s interview of Srda Trifkovic as a previous step for becoming familiar with Trifkovic’s work on Islam.]

This unbalanced, all-consuming Judeo-centric white nationalism is above all politically timid, emphasizing Jewish machinations, but neglecting the ways in which the American project itself betrays our European destiny. It thus conveniently ignores the revolutionary changes that whites will need to make, in themselves and in the larger order, if they are ever to throw off the alien, anti-white forces governing the United States and resume their European destiny. In this sense, Judeo-centric white nationalism is just another variant of the prevailing country-club conservatism.

In sum, Jew-obsessed nationalism:

• is purely negative and potentially distorting;

• fosters a Manichaeism that neglects every other factor responsible for white dispossession;

• ignores that the culture of critique and other anti-white stratagems are inherent to America’s modern liberal order;

• neglects the outer enemy;

• threatens to turn white nationalism into an inverse Semitism;

• and, in the last instance, has no real idea of what white nationalists are fighting for.

♣

[In the heated comments section of the Counter-Currents thread, O’Meara criticized even further those who believe in the single Jewish cause for our problems. He said:]

I think their ignorance, reductionism, and resentment are a disgrace to everything associated with nationalism.

[O’Meara, by the way, is also the author of the essays “The Psychopathology of Judaism” and “Evola’s Anti-Semitism.”]

Kevin MacDonald, unlike his epigones, knows how to make an argument and support it with substantiating evidence. Nevertheless, his argument proves nothing (except his own intelligence), for with the same methods but in reference to different facts, I could make an equally convincing argument to “prove” that corporate capitalism (or the Cold War state, Catholicism, Protestantism, or a half-dozen other factors) were far more influential in legalizing the formal de-Europeanization of the American people.

[Isn’t it a shame that O’Meara is not presently sponsored, and that he has to do blue-collar jobs for a living? If American white nationalists were a little more responsible, the movement might count by now with a scholarly work that rivaled MacDonald’s paradigm in the sense of proving that capitalism and a form of evangelical Christianity enabled the empowerment of the Jews.]

I think it’s significant that in the years I posted at VNN [Vanguard News Network], I was less offended by the numbskull things said by obviously badly educated types there (who at least had the virtue of saying them with some wit), than I am by the numskull things said so often by so many middle class intellectuals associated with a site ostensively aimed at the higher IQ types [i.e., the commenters at the Counter-Currents webzine].

[This reminds me that the owner of a Jew-wise blog, whose working hypothesis is also that Jews are the main factor, has stated openly and unabashedly that he and his audience must focus on the US. This is exactly the wrong approach insofar as America is just the product of bad European history.]

A final comment.

To my critics: Misread my piece and make me into a philo-Semite if you like—that way you won’t have to abandon your virtualist understanding of things (which, I realize, is the normal, comfortable de-Aryanized approach favored in America’s Low Culture—the real source of our predicament).

To Greg: You know I’m not a New Rightist. I call myself a “revolutionary nationalist,” but my identitarianism is closer to the [European] NR than your appeasing anti-Semitism, which tries to couple that which cannot be coupled. If you don’t get this, your NANR [North American New Right—Greg Johnson’s term] is likely to end up in the same historical garbage can as Rockwell’s ANP and all the other pseudo-NS follies of the last half century.

On exterminationist anti-Semitism

Or:

The art of having my cake and eating it too

Last year, at Counter-Currents Greg Johnson wrote:

To win this battle, it might be necessary for some of us to become monsters who cannot return to normal society to enjoy the fruits of victory. We need leaders who are willing to sacrifice their immortal souls to this cause. I don’t believe there is an immortal soul, but psychologically speaking what passes for it are immortal scruples or absolute principles other than victory. All these need to be slain and sacrificed on the altar of victory.

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

But at Alex Linder’s own forum a few days ago Greg rebuked me for taking seriously William Pierce’s ethnic cleansing fantasies once the white revolutionaries take over (“…and Pierce’s absurd Nordicism and repugnant exterminationism have only reinforced my sense that something about your critical faculties is not quite right”).

I am tempted to argue in coming entries, perhaps at the Addenda, that the late Pierce, not the more conservative figures in today’s pro-white movement, held the upper moral ground. But first I’d like to say something more about

Greg Johnson

Unlike the later Nietzsche, it seems that Greg still subscribes Christian doctrine and, inadvertently, Christian axiology too, i.e., the inversion of values. This is the diametric opposite of the indented quotation above. Consciously or unconsciously, I believe that Greg lies to himself and his readership by claiming that he already left Christianity behind.

See for example what he said in a December, 2010 lecture at the Swedenborgian Church of San Francisco. Alas for Greg, the lecture was recently “outed” in the pro-white community, much to his embarrassment. At the Swedenborgian meeting Greg Johnson said:

“What most inspired me was his [Swedenborg’s] discussion of the life of Christ and the meaning and the mystery of that… Swedenborg gave us the means to understand that mystery.”

After quoting Scripture Greg asked, “What does it mean to say that ‘God is with us’?” and went into a theological peroration where he added:

“…a child was born. A child that somehow was the God of eternity. This unique incarnation is the great mystery. It is the conundrum of theologians and metaphysicians. Why was Jesus born? Why did God become man? Swedenborg claims that this was not part of Plan A… Jesus was Plan B… because of certain contingencies that [should not have] happened.”

Greg then used autobiographical vignettes mentioning his childhood and his father to illustrate “Plan B,” presumably what God felt obliged to do when mankind fell into the original sin. He even mentioned the word “salvation.” At some point Greg seemed to endorse the infinitely monstrous—the real monstrosity, not my endorsement of Pierce’s views—belief that it’s within God’s freedom to send us to Hell. (As an aside, see my theological piece on eternal damnation here.) After speculating on the Second Coming, Greg finished his lecture with an “Amen” and the Swedenborgians started to pray.

Listen to the audio linked above to hear, in Greg’s own voice, the above thoughts. Greg’s lecture sounds like the Catholic doctrine I was taught as a kid before my First Communion.

Apparently, Greg has two personas. He is a Nietzschean at Counter-Currents and a pious Christian at his church in San Francisco. He literally had it both ways before his activities with the Swedenborgians were outed. As to his other persona, take note of what Greg Johnson commented this year at The Occidental Observer:

[Christianity] did undermine racial exclusivity for nearly 2,000 years. Racial and subracial differences were no bar to marriage, as long as both parties were Christian.

And at another blog:

Christianity will not be dead until its secular offspring, liberal universalism, is dead as well. But you know that, don’t you? Christian fanatics are precisely the ones who believe that blood differences don’t matter.

I wonder what would his Swedenborgians friends say if they hit in the internet these impious comments (see my brief collection of anti-Christian comments authored by Greg here).

My purpose here is not to psychoanalyze Greg but to show that, with his kind of closet Christianity, he is not the genuine Nietzschean that I previously thought. Given his doublethink I even doubt that Greg can be a consistent leader in advancing the nationalist agenda. Just compare his Himmler-like advice that could have been taught at Wewelsburg Castle (“To win this battle it might be necessary for some of us to become monsters…”) with his more recent pronouncements (“…and Pierce’s absurd Nordicism and repugnant exterminationism”).

OK, were it not absolutely necessary to transvaluate the inverted values back to “master” (not “slave”) morality in order to save whites from extinction, I wouldn’t have extended on Greg’s duplicity above. But see the opening words of chapter 56, “Old and New Tables” of Thus Spake Zarathustra, the new Moses:

Here do I sit and wait, old broken tables around me and also new half-written tables. When cometh mine hour?

Not yet at Counter-Currents… I’m afraid to say that its editor-in-chief seems to specialize in the mischievous art of having my cake and eating it too.

Brad Griffin

Brad Griffin (“Hunter Wallace”) is the administrator of the popular blogsite Occidental Dissent that focuses on the conflict between his beloved Dixie and the treasonous Yankees. In his recent discussion with Alex Linder, Brad challenged his opponent’s exterminationism with a very tough question:

Let’s suppose you were handed a Glock. There is a 6 year old female Jewish child in the room across the hallway. Could you walk into the room next door, point the gun at the child’s face, and pull the trigger? If so, how many times could you do it?

How many people here [VNN Forum] could do it? Anyone?

In the last few years Brad has also called Alex a “sociopath” precisely because of Alex’s “exterminationism” on a purely intellectual plane. And it’s worth noting that a couple of years ago, in an interview that Jim Giles apparently deleted, Brad issued the same challenge to Jim but this time imagining a hypothetical seven year-old Jewess (I remember so well the edge in Brad’s voice). Independently of what Alex and his henchmen at VNN Forum have said about Brad’s tough question, I’d like to respond to Brad directly:

I would not shoot the girl.

This said, final solutions on the millions of adults who pose serious threats to the fourteen words must be considered. My own preferred solution to the Jewish problem is stopping all Jewish immigration; designating Judaism as a political, endogamous, racial evolutionary strategy hostile to the West—instead of a just another “religious faith”—and placing legal restrictions on it throughout the White world; initiating Jew out-migration, and the quarantine of the Jewish people within Israel.

However, what bothers me, as I confessed in “Vanguardist poll,” is that apparently Jews have the right to openly and unabashedly fantasize about exterminating us (“The best of the Goyim must be destroyed”—The Talmud), while, at the same time, whites feel extremely dismayed when one of us dares to return the favor.

Kevin MacDonald

Yesterday Jim Giles interviewed Kevin and directly asked the professor what does he think about Alex’s exterminationist anti-Semitism. The show reminded me Jim’s now deleted interview of Brad two years ago, when Brad pleaded to save the little, thoroughly hypothetical Jewess with anguished edges in his voice. Since then, Jim has revisited his previous tolerance of Alex’s exterminationism and is now dismayed that Alex and a few of his VNN commenters openly advocate permanently getting rid of the subversive tribe.

In yesterday’s interview, Kevin told Jim that Alex’s exterminationist position is “pretty crazy and counterproductive.” The good professor also said: “That’s the kind of thing that I think is absolutely detrimental,” and used the term “black eye” as to how would nationalists be seen in public relations after such pronouncements.

VNN Forum of course takes the opposite stance. In one of the threads commenting these inter-blogs exchanges a Serbian wrote, “White nationalism shouldn’t be about ‘appealing’ to the impotent, superstitious, feminine and mentally sterile. Whites need leaders who think like jews, not christ morons.”

Well, while I see the point in the recent Jim Giles show, it still bothers me that the West tolerates exterminationist anti-Whitism pronouncements by the Jews while, at the same time, it freaks out when hearing that someone of us advocates exterminationist anti-Semitism.

A chutzpahthic double-standard!

Are we doing it to ourselves?

The following are excerpted comments from:

Alex Linder said…

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

Lew said…

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

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

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

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

So what we’re left with is this:

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

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

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

Greg Johnson said…

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

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

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

Alex Linder said…

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

Greg Johnson said…

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

Alex Linder said…

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

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

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

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

Alex Linder writes:

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

No, it is a lot more complex than that.

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

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

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

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

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


[Back to:]

Alex Linder said…

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

My interpolated comment for this blog:

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

Lew said…

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

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

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

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

My comment:

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

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

Lew,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alex Linder today

Listen to today’s interview: here

Orwellian Canada

Ezra Levant on Section 13 (part 1)

Ezra Levant on Section 13 (part 2)

Ezra Levant and guest on Big Sister

Vanguardist retort

I’m openly intolerant. If someone doesn’t follow my line, he’s the enemy. Not like it’s a hard standard to meet: openly White and openly anti-jew. That’s all. Within that framework, we can do business. Outside it, we’re enemies. Simple, clear, effective.

—Alex Linder’s dual litmus test

The following is Linder’s deconstruction at VNN Forum of what Leon Haller said at Majority Rights. It exemplifies my view about why the mainstreamer side of white nationalism is deluded.

If these guys continue to behave like the millions of feminized western males, we will never see an ethnostate. If the words “He who wants to fight must be prepared to die” mean something it’s We either grow a pair or we are going extinct: No more white children, no more western art, no more beauty of the white Aryan woman in Germany or any part of the world, but a dehumanized society inundated by non-white swarms.

It’s that simple.

No ellipsis added between unquoted sentences:





Leon Haller: The primary strategic question is always, therefore, who is your base?

Alex Linder: Wrong, quite wrong. First you must answer a pre-strategic question: who are “we”? Yeah. That basic. Once that is answered, and you know what you mean by “we” and “our” (the VNN answer is we are Whites, and jews are our enemy), then the strategic question becomes: how do we gain sovereignty from a System in which jews control the money, the mass media, and the military?

Haller: The base of any movement to save the white race—the minimum of which in my view consists in stopping nonwhite immigration everywhere, followed by repatriating nonwhites from Europe, and, in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, 1) ending white judicial and legislative oppression, and 2) reestablishing white cultural hegemony—is going to be found among conservatives. Who else could it be? Occasional NS [National Socialist] Euros think that some labourite working class somewhere will constitute it, but I think that view is decades out of date, if it was ever valid.

Linder: Wrong on two levels.

Our cause isn’t truly a political position but a species-representation: We are a biological party, not a political party. White society by default, on a far deeper level than mere petty politics, is what white nationalism represents. We aren’t representing or appealing, we are the thing itself—the thing itself defending itself, in the biosphere. We don’t need to appeal to anybody, we not only represent them already, we are them. We’re just open about it. That is the only real difference between us and the vast majority of fellow whites: we are open about it.

The reason people don’t join their formal political behavior with their informal unspoken feelings and behavior is fear. The jews have divorced our external from our internal by means of fear. It is fear, above all else, that we must overcome, in ourselves and in our people, if we are to regain sovereignty.

Only bravery gets out fear. We don’t need to appeal to people, Leon. We need to lead them. Lead them means not making arguments that people already believe in but, at this point, not showing fear, and striking back at the enemy, verbally and, if we have the guts, like Breivik did, physically. [Chechar’s note: Cf. the recent entry Linder on Breivik]

People will only join us when they see 1) we are not afraid (like the cowardly conservatives and Republicans) and that 2) we strike real blows against the enemy. It starts verbally by using slurs. Truly, the continental verbal-political-strategic divide is the use of the term nigger. If you won’t use it under your real name, you are not involved in serious politics. You are merely a conservative. Either use “nigger” or be a niggler, to make a phrase of it.

We gotta be gross large powerful and scary as all fuck, Haller, like a great white shark maw coming up out of the water at the slick black jewmud-seal.

Haller: Speaking as an American, though on this issue I can’t believe matters would be much different in Canada or England—or perhaps any white nation today, given the postwar convergence of governing structures, economies and lifestyles—, it is perfectly obvious to me that our base is among conservatives (I’m tempted to add, “duh”).

Linder: You are inside the box, Haller. You need to get out of the box.

We don’t need to appeal to voters, Leon, we need to attract White men. We don’t do that by our silly positions, we do it by what we are.

We only have one agenda item: whites living normally among whites in a white country under White control. If our cause isn’t negotiable, if it isn’t a matter of voting because it’s deeper than that (our existence is not up for debate) then talking about appeals and who and how we need to alter our position smorgasbord is actually obscene, if you think about it. It reduces our cause to cheap trifling. It makes petty what is profound. Don’t do that. Our cause is not conservative. Appealing to middle-class cowards never has and never will get racialism anywhere. Selfish, cowardly bourgeois won’t fight for anything but lower taxes. They’ll join us all right: when we’re on the verge of winning. So it was with Hitler, and his Germans were a hell of a lot more serious, intelligent and less sketchy than AmeriKwans in 2011.

Haller: My point is that white preservationists will only find allies, if at all, among conventional, as yet “unawakened”, conservatives. So the real question, for those who actually want to do some racial good in the world, for those, that is, for whom intellectual work is not an end in itself, but a guide to desired social change, is, how can we best appeal to the broader world of conservatives?

Linder: If you use the word appeal, you don’t get it. Your mindset is trapped in a petty political world that has nothing to do with deep, real politics—where nothing is off the table. I mean, that’s how we got here.

The jews don’t play fair. Our petty right-wing politics have faced the jews for a hundred years and the jews have won every single time. Maybe we should try something different. Of course we should. What is new and different is using slurs, following a principled, impersonal political line, and attacking everyone not meeting our litmus test as the enemy, with the end goal of destroying the petty right, the stupid, cowardly, lazy conservatives, en route to polarizing the public for the real and final battle between Whites and jews.

The conservative approach has been tried for decades. It has failed. Let’s try a different route.

Haller: As I have argued vociferously and ad nauseam, the answer to this question is “subtly” —not in terms of outspokenness, but intellectual content. In democracies whose (still) white majority populations are remarkably psychologically and thus politically stable, that which is seen as too far outside the mainstream will fail. But the “mainstream” comprises a number of different “streams”, so to speak. If we are going to challenge the racial status quo, which, if left unchallenged, will in the normal course of things destroy us, then we need to be as mainstream as possible in every other way apart from the foundational ideological challenge.

Linder: Wholly wrong. Indeed, comically wrong. You just don’t get it, Haller: the enemy controls all the devices that determine what is normal and who has authority. That’s tv, mostly. But also public schools, preachers, the presidency. A subtle, moderate appeal to cowardly conservatives is going to create an invincible racial radicalism? You can’t be serious. Loud, gross, unsubtle, clear, simple, but above all strong… is what is called for. Strong is the only thing whites understand.

The masses are feminine, Leon. They respond to strength, like a woman. Not niggling weakness. They want to be bowled over, not reasoned with. If they’re scared of ZOG’s penalties for siding with the politics they really want, no rational argument will win them over—only showing there’s a new sheriff in town, and he might just be on the way to kicking ZOG’s ass. Elemental stuff. It always is. Who’s the big dog in the room? Hint: itz never a bunch of conservative faggots. Never. We’re not in an argument. We’re not in a debate. We’re not playing a game. We’re in a fight. And a fight with no rules. Humans are animals, and that is the bottom-line fact. Whites lost their countries through intimidation, and they will only get them back through bravery.

Haller: People like David Duke and especially Jared Taylor came to understand that unconventional grooming habits, wearing funny “uniforms,” indulging in strange gestures or forms of speech, or adhering to bizarre or repugnant (conspiracy) theories and/or ideologies, was simply less effective than appearing “clean-cut” and as culturally and psychologically normal as possible.

Linder: Yeah, and I’m an average white guy watching Polished Turd get abused off his own paid-for podium by a bunch of teenage pussies [see here]. Yeah, I’m signing up with kosher racialism real quick. Looks like fun. We whine and niggle (what Jerry calls gentlemanliness), and get our ass kicked.

No strength? No power. Where’s the strength in conservatism? Just some arguments. Arguments without heroes to champion them do nothing. As Hitler said—and he was a winner, unlike conservatives— “it is not enough that you believe: you must fight.” Truth shall not prevail without a sword at her side.

Why did people follow Hitler, Haller? Was it his arguments? Or was it that they knew he meant what he said and would back it with his life? You can’t even find among your cowardly conservatives a leader with the guts to use “nigger” in public. And you’re going fuck The People with that dick?

Haller: This emphasis on conventionality ought to extend to ideology. Thus, in assessing how to get a hearing for WP [White preservationist] concerns from conservatives…

Linder: Real men lead. They don’t “appeal” or “try to get a hearing.” Passive, passive, passive, wimpy, wimpy, wimpy, loser, loser, loser.

I hate to use a niggerism, but either go big or don’t go at all. This wimpy democratic-electoral appeal to lazy, cowardly, selfish middle-class khaki wearers is ridiculous. You can’t take crap like that and escher it into revolutionary warriors. That ought to be obvious. What we need to do is be the Conans, and by our sheer powerful awesomeness attract the barbarians. Then the lamenting women—an apter description of conservatives could hardly be devised—will follow us. “Appealing” to the conformist middle-classes is the political equivalent of putting women on a pedestal. It doesn’t work except to produce misery. Only ideological racial fanatics can do that. Accept it. Help generate those fanatics.

Haller: …our only possible mass base, we need to understand conservatives, and try to show that WP—and the policies it requires: ending immigration, ending the anti-white racial spoils system, building white consciousness as an aspect of conservative consciousness—is a natural outgrowth of conservatism (which, in fact, it is).

Linder: Race is the basis of what you’re going to preserve, since culture springs from it. The culture comes from the race. Not the other way around.

To ordinary people, conservatism is whatever comes out of Bill O’Reilly’s mouth, or Rush Limbaughs’. And that’s liberalism on the most basic thing—race. People don’t think, they parrot. You don’t persuade them, you become the authority. To people, who are almost all women, authority is the argument.

Haller: This means in part, especially in America, demonstrating the ethical compatibility between Christianity—the belief system of a clear majority of American conservatives, extending far beyond just the noisier and narrower Bible-thumping Christian “Right”—and policies of white preservation.

Linder: Try this instead: “Niggers are flash mobbing our neighborhoods? Let’s go flash mob some niggers.”

Yeah. That crude. Necessarily. People are not intellectuals. People do not think. We don’t need to argue, we need to bulk up. Verbally and physically—simultaneously.

How did Whites act when they were free and sovereign? They used racial epithets and lynched troublemakers—jew, mud and white. By degree jews stole to power, and made those healthy actions “hate” crimes and enforced taboos against even noticing racial differences, let alone acting on them. We don’t get back to where we were by playing along with the rules of the New Racial Order.

Haller: In much larger part, it means jettisoning, or at the very least muting, those aspects of WN which conservatives will find anathema.

Linder: So crazy it beggars belief. We are to suck up to weaklings to gain political power. How is that possibly a winning strategy? The jews didn’t get power by appealing to people but by kicking their ass, in every possible way. We will only get that power back by kicking their kikey ass. Appealing to mouthbreathing Foxtards as a strategy is, again, so far past ridiculous it makes one question your motives in suggesting it.

Haller: Force a conservative to choose between Christ and Hitler, and 99% of the time, he will choose the former. That is a fact that needs to be dealt with, even by atheist or NS WNs.

Linder: Planted axiom: that it matters what christians or conservatives think. It does not. They’re stupid, scared dogs, and will support who they’re told to by their bought bosses, as all evidence shows. They are irrelevant to the struggle between Whites and jews until the Fox-faux-right, the controlled opposition, is destroyed and the real parties doing battle are seen by everybody, from the 10-watts to the 100-watts, to be WHITES and JEWS. And then the christian-conservative cuntlings will side with the white side because as bad as evil-nazis might be, jew commies are worse. Until that point, what the christ cultists think is irrelevant. They’re just dumb tools and safely ignorable.

Haller: But even if racial fascism is where the Euroright needs to get to, the present paradox is that it will not get there by advertising this fact openly. The key for all white nations is, as I’ve stated previously, gradual radicalization, the insinuation of white consciousness and pro-white policy advocacy into conservative discourse.

Linder: “Gradual radicalization”… Haller, it just doesn’t work like this.

Imagine any successful revolutionary saying the stuff you’re saying. Imagine Hitler talking about subtly influencing people, gradually radicalizing them. Either you’re leading and loud and laughing, or you’re limping, lingering and lamenting. Nothing sneaky or superficial, shallow, subtle can work. It must be plain and strong.

Again, this is so obvious it is hard to believe you actually believe what you’re typing. You’re going insinuate and gradually radicalize conservatives? Really? Maybe if you controlled Fox News. Otherwise, no. And even if you did control Fox, why would you go by degree? You’d just flip policy overnight, and your audience would follow cluelessly.

There’s not one hundredth of Fox viewers who can define conservatism in a way Burke would recognize. They’re intellectual niggers. Conservatism is simply whatever a publicly labeled conservative just said, even if he said the opposite yesterday. And since you don’t have any major media outlets, and every official vector is controlled by the enemy, a policy of insinuation is utterly impossible.

Haller: We must be as moderate as possible.

Linder: And with that, you’re taking over my job. Good friggin’ grief.

What Germany was trying to prevent

Hitler greatly admired the U.S. 1924 Johnson Immigration Act which sharply reduced the number of Jews from Eastern Europe who could get entry into America each year.

As far as Nazi doctrine goes, Alfred Rosenberg said that the swastika was the symbol of White Revolution/Rebirth which must someday save the entire West, including America. Rosenberg had extensive contacts with White Nationalists in every Western country. However, from a military point of view it was not Hitler’s duty to liberate America from Jewish domination. You must remember that the German Reich only had at maximum, including Austria and the Sudetenland, about 100 million people. It is illogical to think that Hitler could have conquered America and we are foolish if we are disappointed in him because he could not do so.

The Third Reich was not just one thing. Yes, Hitler wanted an empire for Germany in Central and Eastern Europe in which the Nordic race would dominate but he also wanted the doctrine of Nazi racialism of the superiority of the White race to spread all over the world. Nazi policies on Slavs were largely tactical, the Slavs had to be labeled “inferior” to justify stealing their territory.

The “Anti-Semitic” doctrine of the Third Reich was sent to Muslim North Africa, the Middle East, South America, and even Japan. There was an Arabic language edition of Mein Kampf printed in Syria in 1938. The Arabic version deleted references to the Nordic race but all non-Jews were taught to guard themselves against the Jews who were the most dangerous foe of mankind. The ruler of Iran Reza Shah Pahlavi established close relations with Nazi Germany. One weekend while I was surfing the internet I found an Iranian website and several Iranians made the statement, “Iran has modern highways because of Hitler, Hitler built our roads.”

What I’m trying to say here is The Third Reich had a doctrine but they knew when certain aspects of that doctrine needed emphasis under different scenarios.

If you are asking if Hitler cared whether America remained dominated by Jews, yes he cared. If the Germans had won WW2 they would have spread Nazi doctrine by radio, film, and television all over the globe and certain parts of America would have come under its influence. As Francis Parker Yockey wrote in Imperium, a political idea needs a state in order to expand across the world. Now if the Third Reich had become a massive Empire from the Atlantic to the Urals, the culture and philosophy of the Empire would have inspired large parts of the Western White world, including South America.

[Commenter reply:]

Good points, Otto. I can see Uncle Wolf’s problem. Imagine trying to tell 1940’s White America that in 50 years their country would be controlled by jew banking and media, overrun by third world scum, race-mixing with niggers, jew-led foreign wars that never end, Whites-only hate crimes, unheard of taxation, debt, usery, black power, mex power and faggot power!

They never would have believed it!

[Commenter reply:]

Yes, you are absolutely right and it’s also the reason why the senior citizens who did grow up in that 1950’s All White America still cling so strongly to the idea of Hitler as Demon. They never needed Hitler to be anything else but evil because they were protected and satisfied in their All White World, but for those of us who did grow up in later decades, either 1980’s or 1990’s see very clearly the minority-oriented Communist Jew chaos that Hitler was trying to prevent long before any of us were even born.

Let the truth be told: America really lost WW2 because they fought on the side of those who would one day enslave them.

______________

Originally posted at VNN Forum in 2004