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.

After AD: Before and after the Führer

Or:

The fall of the New Constantinople

In the thread on Judeo reductionism, Roger commented today:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Novelist Harold Covington in uniform

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

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

Ex Gladio Libertas!
Anno Hitleris 68

The word “hate”

Excerpted from “The Morality of Hatred” by Peter Anthony,
an article originally posted at Stormfront:

In an age where perception equals reality, the enemies of our race have thrived on their portrayal of our cause as one of “hate” and “intolerance” for far too long.

Knowing the natural propensity of humans to gravitate toward the positive rather than the negative, our enemies, in this topsy-turvy world, have succeeded in calling the good bad and the bad good, and have achieved a monumental propaganda victory by getting the vast majority of the public to believe it.

By simply stepping forward (through their control of the media, churches, and other outlets) and declaring what is moral and what is immoral for all the world to hear, they have seized the moral high-ground on all societal issues, especially those dealing with race and culture; consequentially all those who wish to be moral will seek to obey what has been dictated from on high, not knowing or suspecting that the source of that information could be flawed or motivated by something other than goodwill.

Unfortunately, most people have not developed the adequate hindsight necessary to understand how today’s morality has changed from that of history; that indeed most of the famous people of history, from Plato to Thomas Jefferson, would be considered far from moral by today’s societal standards.

There can be no greater morality than that of the survival of the white race, and yet this is the first age where those who espouse this viewpoint are widely viewed as evil and immoral—haters. Seventy years ago, a politician had a hard time getting elected in the South without Klan support. When the Klan marched, they marched in broad daylight down the streets of major cities to the cheers of an adoring public. At a rally today, fifty or so Klansmen need police protection from the hundreds and thousands of jeering fools. While this has much to do with the declining state of the overall quality of our movement, it also reflects the sheer magnitude of the change in societal values.

The white races, more than any other, historically have been the creators, the developers, and the sustainers of civilization, of culture as we knew it when, across Europe, vast cathedrals pierced the sky over great cities where white men and women carried out the struggle of their daily lives by striving to make them better through innovation, invention, and plain hard work.

In short they built a world, from the ground up, using nothing but their minds and their work hardened hands. They spread from sea to sea, then across the sea and back again. When Magellan circled the earth and Cortés conquered the Aztecs with a handful against thousands, while Gutenberg was inventing movable type so the Bible could be read by millions—others were ensconced in the same primitive, aboriginal state of life which existed thousands of years before.

The truth is not hatred, but the truth. In an age when chivalry was the norm, when behemoth castles dotted beautiful countrysides brimming with bountiful harvest, nothing was more sacred than honor—nothing more priceless than to be counted among the Godly. Today—we have lost our very souls. Today we are shadows of the men we once were. Instead of going West, we go to the nearest Blockbuster and watch a movie about it starring some Jew.

Am I called a hater for loving my family more than the family of another? If I prefer my wife over another, does this mean I hate all other women? And yet this is the logic our enemies often use when they accuse us of hatred for loving or preferring our racial family more than another.

The enemy has taken this noblest of all ideals, that of the preservation of God’s creation, and turned it into something twisted and evil. They have taken what is perfectly natural and right, the innate propensity of people to prefer their racial kindred, and called it “hatred” and “bigotry.”

There is nothing wrong with hatred, if properly placed, but on the whole our movement is not and never has been about hatred. It is about building a new society based on the natural and historic order of things.

Get ready for Armageddon

Further to what I said a couple of days ago about the documentary End of the Road:

I have decided to promote this entry as a sticky post that will remain for a while at the top of WDH for two fundamental reasons:

(1) The following passage of William Pierce’s “Why the West Will Go Under” made a dent in my mind, and I am truly concerned about the fate of those white nationalists who will still be living in big cities after the dollar crashes.

Pierce wrote:

The problem is not to cull out the mongrels, the Judaized, the degenerates, the moral prostitutes from a healthy mass, so that the cull can be destroyed and the mass saved. The problem is to pick the few who embody the best of what the West once was and to take the necessary measures to see that that which they embody does not perish with the mass.

Saving the few racially conscious from the coming apocalypse ought to be our most obvious goal.

(2) As some of my visitors know, presently I am living in a mostly non-white country that, I believe, will become an anti-white killing zone after the crash insofar as most of the nation’s reserves are backed on American dollars. It is true that I am trying to sell a property to be able to reach escape velocity from a large city’s gravitational field. But I am finding out that it is a hard sell and, as soon as I feel that the crash is around the corner, I’ll get a one-way ticket to any place in Europe—even if I have not sold that immovable piece of real estate.

Ideal would be moving to Iceland: an Aryan country with no colored immigration and with a people of such sound mind that they recently rebelled against the international banking system. But that is only a dream. In the real world I must try to keep myself alive after the crash even if my standard of living plunges from my current comfort zone to elemental survivalism. After all, everything is better than the risk of becoming a street target for a flash-mob or any of the millions of starving people in cities that will fall into total chaos a few months after the dollar collapses.

If any visitor of this blog can think of any overseas working opportunity for me, or any sort of humanitarian shelter or even plans for extreme survivalism such as those we see on television—adventurers in wild, remote and desolate places—, let me know. I am anxious to join a survivalist team of individuals that don’t want to take chances in large cities plagued with non-white swarms. Of course, if pro-white revolutionary activity starts anywhere in the West I’d leave my city shelter, country cave, desert or whatever and join’em! I am not afraid of suffering a violent death during a pro-white revolution. But it would be preposterous to die of starvation if the crash surprises me in a Third World metropolis when my life could be more useful for a higher purpose.

Keep Pierce’s words in mind whenever you think about your own fate: “The problem is to pick the few who embody the best of what the West once was and to take the necessary measures to see that that which they embody does not perish with the mass.” The video embedded above is the bad news for the masses. The good news is that the times to end the long interregnum after the Second Word War are, finally, coming. For those who are still skeptical that the dollar will collapse I suggest watching the full documentary End of the Road as a pay-per-view:

http://muvi.es/w1660/115382

Postscript:

I am sorry that I have sent a couple of interesting comments to the trash can, but this sticky post only makes sense under the assumption that the crash will indeed happen during Obama’s administration. If you want to argue that it won’t happen (or any other related subject, even that it will happen), please do it at the previous thread on the above documentary, here. In this thread I only want to discuss desperate survival strategies with those who, like me, don’t want to take any chances in one of the colored big cities of today’s West.

Ten principles of ethno-nationalism

 Reblogged from Hammer & Anvil:

1. All nationalism, implying a specific ethno-racial peoples, a distinctive homeland, and relative means of governance, i.e. the state, is ethno-nationalism. There are no exceptions.
2. A specific ethno-racial peoples is the culmination of their genetic and cultural histories and traditions, and of the influence of environment and total ecology. Beneath the suffocation of technocratic culture, people are of geographical place. There is no nature-nurture schism.

Read more… 401 more words

It is always interesting to read Sebastian Ernst Ronin’s latest essays.

Kemp on Australia

Excerpted from
March of the Titans:
A History of the White Race
by Arthur Kemp:


Australia and New Zealand were virtually unique amongst the European colonies in the sense that they were the only new lands to where large numbers of Black slaves were never imported. The result was a successful colony comprised overwhelmingly of Whites (with only a small fraction of original non-White natives) which established a record for stability and progress virtually unmatched in history.

“White Australia” policy started in 1856

The development of the mining industry saw for the first time the importation of non-White laborers: Chinese immigrants started arriving after the discovery of gold, and their appearance created alarm amongst the Whites. Eventually in 1856, the state of Victoria formally passed a law prohibiting Chinese persons from entering its territory.

The government of the colony of Queensland started importing Polynesians to work on sugarcane plantations in the early 1860s; a public outcry followed, and the Polynesians were quickly sent back and their jobs were taken by White workers.

The Victoria Chinese exclusion law was then taken up by every other colony in Australia, being extended to include all non-Whites everywhere. This policy of excluding all immigrants except those belonging to the White race became known formally as the “White Australia Policy” and had the overwhelming support of all the colonists.

It was precisely the common acceptance of the White Australia policy which finally drew the various colonies of Australia into political unity, as it underlined the need for common immigration laws.

Rapid progress due to population make-up

All the while, Australia continued to progress as fast as any other modern European country, despite the country only being as young as it was. Almost overnight, White European culture and technology was implemented in Australia and it soon became the superpower of the region, easily dwarfing its much-longer-inhabited neighboring islands.

The rapid rate of Australia’s growth—given its relative youth—is possibly one of the most powerful arguments that can be made for the racial interpretation of history and of how environment is not the overriding factor. There are many Third World lands with greater natural resources, particularly in Africa, which have been inhabited for far longer than Australia, yet they are woefully behind the latter country in development. There can be only one explanation for this differentiation—namely the nature of the population, and not the environment.

Internally, Australia’s racial population make-up hardly changed during the first part of the 20th Century—only Whites were allowed into the country, and this policy combined with a natural reproduction rate created a steady increase of the numbers of Whites.

Homogeneity, key to stability

Australia’s development is notable for its stability, in stark contrast to every other part of the new world settled by White colonists. The key difference between Australia and the Americas or Africa, has been the massive degree of homogeneity amongst the inhabitants of Australia. It has never caused the Australians to become involved in horrendous civil wars nor to face the social unrest and racial violence that has dogged all the other settlements.

The development of Australia into a modern First World country contrasts dramatically with the progress of colonies in South America: although the settlements in South America preceded those in Australia by hundreds of years, Australia is nonetheless far more developed than almost all of South America.

If time, geography or other environmental factors were the sole determinant of the development of a society, it would be fairly logical to assume that a colony dating from approximately 1500 (for example Cuba) would be more developed than a colony dating from approximately 1800 (Australia).

The fact that the levels of development in these two countries differ so vastly can only be ascribed to the populations of these regions, and to no other factor. This is particularly so if it is borne in mind that, by any measure, Australia is a far less hospitable place than most of South America.

This stability has allowed Australia to develop as fast as any nation on earth: and the country is classed as First World even though in reality it was only created during the early part of the 18th century—truly a remarkable example of the truth that a society is a reflection of the people living in it, rather than a product of the environment.

White Australia policy abandoned

In a move which has seen Australia’s non-White population surge in numbers, the White Australia policy was only formally struck from the statute books in 1966 by a Liberal party government under Robert Menzies: unofficially it remained in force well into the 1970s.

Note:

For excerpts of all chapters of Kemp’s book see: here.

On Christianity

During the turbulent and eventful fifth century the Germans largely completed their conquest of the West. In the early years of that century German tribesmen, who had been raiding the coast of Roman Britain for many years, began a permanent invasion of the southeastern portion of the island, a development which was eventually to lead to a Germanic Britain.

In 476 Odoacer, an Ostrogothic chieftain who had become a general of Rome’s armies, deposed the last Roman emperor and ruled in his own name as king of Italy. Meanwhile the Visigoths were expanding their holdings in Gaul and completing their conquest of Spain, except for the northwestern region already held by their Suebian cousins and an enclave in the Pyrenees occupied by a remnant of the aboriginal Mediterranean inhabitants of the peninsula, the Basques.

And throughout the latter part of the century the Franks, the Alemanni, and the Burgundians were consolidating their own holds on the former Roman province of Gaul, establishing new kingdoms and laying the basis for the new European civilization of the Middle Ages. Everywhere in the West the old, decaying civilization centered on the Mediterranean gave way to the vigorous White barbarians from the North.

Oriental Infection. But the Germans did not make their conquest of the Roman world without becoming infected by some of the diseases which flourished so unwholesomely in Rome during her last days. Foremost among these was an infection which the Romans themselves had caught during the first century, a consequence of their own conquest of the Levant. It had begun as an offshoot of Judaism, had established itself in Jerusalem and a few other spots in the eastern Mediterranean area, and had traveled to Rome with Jewish merchants and speculators, who had long found that city an attractive center of operations.

It eventually became known to the world as Christianity, but for more than two centuries it festered in the sewers and catacombs of Rome, along with dozens of other alien religious sects from the Levant; its first adherents were Rome’s slaves, a cosmopolitan lot from all the lands conquered by the Romans. It was a religion designed to appeal to slaves: blessed are the poor, the meek, the wretched, the despised, it told them, for you shall inherit the earth from the strong, the brave, the proud, and the mighty; there will be pie in the sky for all believers, and the rest will suffer eternal torment. It appealed directly to a sense of envy and resentment of the weak against the strong.

Edict of Milan. By the end of the third century Christianity had become the most popular as well as the most militant of the Oriental sects flourishing among the largely non-Roman inhabitants of the decaying Roman Empire. Even as late as the first years of the fourth century, under Emperor Diocletian, the Roman government was still making efforts to keep the Christians under control, but in 313 a new emperor, Constantine, decided that, if you can’t lick ’em, join ’em, and he issued an imperial edict legitimizing Christianity.

Although one of Constantine’s successors, Julian, attempted to reverse the continuing Christianization of the Roman Empire a few years later, it was already too late: the Goths, who made up the bulk of Rome’s armies by this time, had caught the infection from one of their own slaves, a Christian captive whom they called Wulfila. Wulfila was a tireless and effective missionary, and the Goths were an uprooted and unsettled people, among whom the new religion took hold easily. Wulfila’s translation of the Bible into Gothic greatly speeded up the process.

Conversion of the Franks. Before the end of the fourth century Christianity had also spread to the Vandals, Burgundians, Lombards, Gepids, and several other German tribes. A little over a century later the powerful nation of the Franks was converted. By the beginning of the second quarter of the sixth century, the only non-Christian Whites left were the Bavarians, Thuringians, Saxons, Frisians, Danes, Swedes, and Norse among the Germans—and virtually all the Balts and Slavs.

One can only understand the rapid spread of Christianity during the fourth and fifth centuries by realizing that, for all practical purposes, it had no opposition. That is, there was no other organized, militant, proselytizing church competing effectively with the Christian church.

Athanaric the Goth. The Christians had many individual opponents, of course: among the Romans several of the more responsible and civic-minded emperors, such as Diocletian, as well as what was left of the tradition-minded aristocracy; and among the Germans many farsighted leaders who resisted the imposition of an alien creed on their people and the abandonment of their ancient traditions. Athanaric, the great Gothic chieftain who led his people across the Danube in 376 to save them from the invading Huns, was notable in this regard.

Athanaric and the other traditionalists failed to halt the spread of Christianity, because they were only individuals. Although there were pagan priests, the traditional German religion never really had a church associated with it. It consisted in a body of beliefs, tales, and practices passed from generation to generation, but it had no centralized organization like Christianity.

Folk-religion. German religion was a folk-religion, which grew organically out of the people and out of the land they occupied. The boundary between a tribe’s most ancient historical legends and its religious myths, between its long-dead heroes and chieftains and its gods, was blurred at best. Because German religion belonged to the people and the land, it was not a proselytizing religion; the German attitude was that other peoples and races likewise had their own folk-religions, and it would be unnatural to impose one race’s religion on another race.

And because German religion was rooted in the land as well as in the people, it lost some of its viability when the people were uprooted from their land. It is no coincidence that the conversions of the Goths, Vandals, Burgundians, Lombards, Franks, and many other German tribes took place during the Voelkerwanderung, a period of strife, disorientation, and misery for many of those involved: a period when whole nations lost not only their ancient homelands but also their very identities.

Fire and Sword. After the Voelkerwanderung ended in the sixth century, the Christianization of the remaining pagan peoples of Europe proceeded much more slowly—and generally by fire and sword rather than by peaceful missionary effort. Whereas the Franks had become Christians more or less painlessly when their king Clovis (Chlodweg) converted for political reasons at the end of the fifth century, it was another 300 years before the Frankish king Charlemagne (Karl the Great) was able to bring about the conversion of his Saxon neighbors, and he accomplished that only by butchering half of them in a series of genocidal wars.

Early Christianity, in contrast to German religion, was as utterly intolerant as the Judaism from which it sprang. Even Roman religion, which, as an official state religion, equated religious observance with patriotism, tolerated the existence of other sects, so long as they did not threaten the state. But the early Christians were inspired by a fanatical hatred of all opposing creeds.

Also in contrast to German and Roman religion, Christianity, despite its specifically Jewish roots, claimed to be a universal (i.e., “catholic”) creed, equally applicable to Germans, Romans, Jews, Huns, and Negroes.

The Christians took the Jewish tribal god Yahweh, or Jehovah, and universalized him. Originally he seems to have been a deity associated with one of the dormant volcanoes of the Arabian peninsula, a god so distinctly Semitic that he had a binding business contract (“covenant”) with his followers: if the Jews would remain faithful and obedient to him, he would deliver all the wealth of the non-Jewish peoples of the world into their hands. Observant Jews even today remind themselves of this by fastening mezuzoth to the door frames of their homes, wherein the verses from their Torah spelling out the Jews’ side of their larcenous deal with Yahweh are inscribed (Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21; Yahweh’s reciprocal obligations are in the verses immediately following).

Nevertheless, the early Christian church, armed with an effective organization and a proselytizing fervor, and armored with a supreme contempt for everything non-Christian, was able to supplant Jupiter and Wotan alike with Yahweh.

The Germans, however, recreated the Semitic Yahweh in the image of their own Wotan, even as they accepted the new faith. The entire Christian ritual and doctrine, in fact, were to a large extent “Aryanized” by the Germans to suit their own inner nature and lifestyle. They played down the slave-religion aspects of Christianity (“the meek shall inherit the earth”) and emphasized the aspects which appealed to them (“I come bearing not peace, but a sword”). The incoherence and the multitude of internal inconsistencies of the doctrine made this sort of eclecticism easy.

Yule, Easter, Harvest Festival. In general, the Germans accepted without difficulty the Christian rituals—especially those which, like Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving were deliberately redesigned to correspond to pagan rituals and festivals of long standing—and the myths (parthenogenesis, turning water into wine, curing the blind, resurrection from the dead, etc.), and they ignored the ethics (turn the other cheek, all men are brothers, etc.).

A Frank of the seventh or eighth century would tremble in superstitious awe before some fragment of bone or vial of dried blood which the Church had declared a sacred relic with miracle-working powers—but if you smote him on the cheek you would have a fight on your hands, not another cheek turned.

As for the brotherhood of man and equality in the eyes of the Lord, the Germans had no time for such nonsense; when confronted with non-Whites, they instinctively reached for the nearest lethal weapon. They made mincemeat out of the Avars, who were cousins to the Huns, in the seventh century, and the Christianized Franks or Goths of that era would know exactly what to do with a few hundred thousand rioting American Blacks; they would, in fact, positively relish the opportunity to do what needed doing.

It could not have been expected to be otherwise. In the first place, a totally alien religion cannot be imposed on a spiritually healthy people—and the Germans were still essentially healthy, despite the dislocations caused by the Voelkerwanderung. Christianity had to be modified to suit their nature—at least, temporarily. In the second place, the average German did not have to come to grips with the alien moral imperatives of the Sermon on the Mount. All he had to do was learn when to genuflect; wrestling with Holy Writ was exclusively the problem of the clergy.

It was not until the Reformation, in the sixteenth century, that the laity began studying the Bible and thinking seriously about its contents. Even then, however, the tendency was to interpret alien teachings in a way that left them more or less compatible with natural tendencies.

Slave Morality. But Christian ethics—the slave morality preached in the Roman catacombs—was like a time bomb ticking away in Europe—a Trojan horse brought inside the fortress, waiting for its season. That season came, and the damage was done. Today Christianity is one of the most active forces working from within to destroy the White race.

From the Christian churches came the notion of “the White man’s burden,” along with the missionaries who saw in every African cannibal or Chinese coolie a soul to be saved, of equal value in the eyes of Jehovah to any White soul. It is entirely a Christian impulse—at least, on the part of the average American voter, if not the government—which sends American food and medical supplies to keep alive swarming millions of Asiatics, Africans, and Latins every time they have a famine, so that they can continue to outbreed Whites.

The otherworldly emphasis on individual salvation, on an individual relationship between Creator and creature which relegates the relationship between individual and race, tribe, and community to insignificance; the inversion of natural values inherent in the exalting of the botched, the unclean, and the poor in spirit in the Sermon on the Mount—the injunction to “resist not evil”—all are prescriptions for racial suicide. Indeed, had a fiendishly clever enemy set out to concoct a set of doctrines intended to lead the White race to its destruction, he could hardly have done better.

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.

Moses Replaces Hermann. Not the least of the damage done by the Christianization of Europe was the gradual replacement of White tradition, legend, and imagery by that of the Jews. Instead of specifically Celtic or German or Slavic heroes, the Church’s saints, many of them Levantines, were held up to the young for emulation; instead of the feats of Hermann or Vercingetorix, children were taught of the doings of Moses and David. Europeans’ artistic inspiration was turned away from the depiction of their own rich heritage and used to glorify that of an alien race; Semitic proverbs and figures of speech took precedence over those of Indo-European provenance; Europeans even abandoned the names of their ancestors and began giving Jewish names to their children: Samuel and Sarah, John and Joan, Michael and Mary, Daniel and Deborah.

Despite all these long-term consequences of Christianity, however, the immediate symptoms of the infection which the conquering Germans picked up from the defeated Romans were hardly noticeable; White morals and manners, motivations and behavior remained much as they had been, for they were rooted in the genes—but now they had a new rationale.

Today’s Christian Patriots. And it is only fair to note that even today a fairly substantial minority of White men and women who still think of themselves as Christians have not allowed their sounder instincts to be corrupted by doctrines suited to a following of mongrelized slaves. They ignore the Jewish origins of Christianity and justify their instinctive dislike and distrust of Jews with the fact that the Jews, in demanding that Jesus be killed, became a race forever accursed (“His blood be on us and on our children”).

They interpret the divine injunction of brotherhood as applying only to Whites. Like the Franks of the Middle Ages, they believe what suits them and conveniently forget or invent their own interpretation for the rest. Were they the Christian mainstream today, the religion would not be the racial menace that it is. Unfortunately, however, they are not; virtually none are actively affiliated with any of the larger, established Christian churches.

 

_____________________________

The above is my abridgement of chapter 18 of William Pierce’s history of the white race, Who We Are. These days I have been reproducing abridged chapters of Pierce’s book at WDH’s addenda: here.

Towards White Zionism

Essay-review of Separation and its Discontents:
Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism

by Cesar Tort

I’ve just read the second book of Professor Kevin MacDonald’s study on Jewry, and I must say that it is my favorite book of his trilogy, that I read within a timeframe of two-and-a-half years.

To me, the moral of Separation and its Discontents (hereafter SAID) is that the current decline of the West was caused because the white man did not replace, in due time, the collectivism of the Catholic Church—Christendom was basically immune to Jewish subversion—with another collectivist strategy, like the one in National Socialist Germany.

The reading of SAID made me discover that the critique of universalism and individualism predates the blogs that awakened me in the last few years. MacDonald wrote:

Western societies, unlike prototypical Jewish cultures, do not have a primitive concern with racial purity. Rather, concern about racial purity emerges only in the late stages of Jewish-gentile group conflict…

Despite a great deal of commonality among Western anti-Semitic movements [i.e., Christianity and NS], there was a great difference between the universalistic, assimilatory tendencies of traditional Western Christianity and the exclusivistic, racialist program of National Socialism. Indeed, we have seen that beginning in the 19th century an important aspect of German anti-Semitic ideology was a criticism of Western universalism and the development of peculiarly German conceptions of Christianity. A critical component of official National Socialist ideology, as represented in the thought of Alfred Rosenberg, was the idea that “the twin forces of disintegration, namely universalism and individualism, act in perpetual conflict with the Germanic concept of race.” In this regard, National Socialism was indeed profoundly anti-Western. In rejecting both universalism and individualism, National Socialism resembled, much more closely than did medieval Western collectivist Christianity, its mirror image rival, Judaism. [page 196]

In a previous chapter MacDonald had written:

We shall see that with the rise of the National Socialist movement in Germany, the universalist themes of Western Christianity were completely overthrown in favor of a full-blown racialist ideology of the ingroup. In Chapter 5 I will argue that National Socialism is a true mirror-image of Judaism. Not surprisingly, it was also the most dangerous enemy that Judaism has confronted in its entire existence. [page 133]

If MacDonald is right, and I believe he is, this alone demonstrates that even white nationalists are behaving, to use James Bowery’s term, like “extended phenotypes” of Jews, especially the Anglo-Saxons. In fact, I believe that if the white race goes extinct, Anglo-Saxons will be blamed by the surviving Chinese or Muslim historians in a future that views the Germanic movement as Europe’s last chance to win her centuries-old battle against Jewry.

Just one example. In a 2010 open thread on Hitler at Occidental Dissent (excerpts here) some white nationalists were calling Hitler a “beast” and claimed that their founding fathers were a “raging festival of awesome” superiority compared to Nazism. This ignores that the American Constitution mandates individualism, egalitarianism and a liberty with economic interests over racial interests. Those people who called Hitler a “beast” in his birthday added that Occidental Dissent, which is not a neonazi site, “is disgraced by his picture and a posting saluting him.”

Such commenters are totally unaware of the fact that the Allied forces committed more serious crimes before and after the Second World War than those attributed to the Nazis during the heat of war. This is why I will never tire of repeating that, before any serious discussion of white interests can even take place one should read Hellstorm, the very first book of my list. It makes absolutely no sense trying to discuss our current woes if even white nationalists are plugged in the matrix of Jew-controlled media and the postwar narrative of the academia. By siding the current narrative about Germany, they completely ignore the most elemental facts of our history.

Unlike the common Anglo-Saxon, only by understanding the Jewish problem, and the ways that the Germans reacted against it in the century when we were born, it is possible to comprehend the current mess. One of the most fascinating hypothesis advanced in SAID provides much food for thought. MacDonald wrote, “I propose that the Christian church in late antiquity was in its very essence the embodiment of a powerful anti-Semitic movement…” (page 112).

This is something I had never heard of, and reminds me my first readings of psychohistory and Lloyd deMause’s insights on why the Christ archetype galvanized the population of the ancient world, although MacDonald’s hypothesis is totally distinct and is presented from an altogether distant point of view. But after digesting what both deMause and MacDonald say, for the first time I feel I am starting to comprehend facets of Christianity that would have never occurred to me from a conventional reading to history. If MacDonald is right, the Roman Catholic Church was the earliest attempt toward a type of society that we may call collectivism for European-derived peoples.

Although Christianity always held universalist ideals at its core, it nonetheless fulfilled its role of impeding (like the Muslim nations) that Judaism became a destructive force for the indigenous culture of the late Roman Empire and the Early Middle Ages. One of the facts that I learnt in SAID is that most restrictions enacted against the Jews, initiated in the period from Eusebius to Justinian, were still active throughout Christendom until the French Revolution hit the continent with all its fury. It was precisely the so-called “Enlightenment” what inspired the founding fathers of the United States of America. And contrary to those “white nationalists” who insult Hitler and the movement he created, the mortal sin of the French Revolution—the emancipation of Jewry—was not properly atoned in Europe until the arrival of a specifically racial ideology. Alas, the traitors, the Judaized Anglo-Saxons, did everything in their power to obliterate a nascent, competing worldview. The 20th century should have been the German century, not the Jewish century!

But not only Nazi Germany has been demonized in the public mind. The Inquisition is widely seen as a black page in the history of the Church even by the most Catholic individuals that I know. In contrast to the popular view, MacDonald presents us with a radical reevaluation of what was precisely the role of the Inquisition. On page 147 he states: “I here develop the view that the Spanish Inquisition was fundamentally an authoritarian, collectivist, and exclusionary movement that resulted from resource and reproductive competition with Jews, and particularly crypto-Jews posing as Christians.”

In fact, thanks to the Inquisition, for three-hundred years (1521-1821), before the movement of independence that gave birth to “Mexico,” New Spain was Judenfrei.

♣

While reading SAID I could not escape the thought, as I wrote in a notebook, that “whites are brutes” because “unlike the Jews and with the exception of William Pierce and Arthur Kemp, very few have a notion of who we are” (the title of Pierce’s book). And I added that I had seen a television program featuring New York Hassidic Jews celebrating, in one of their holydays, their victory over the ancient Greeks who tried to assimilate them. I wrote: “When do we celebrate the victory of Antiochus IV over the Jews, or Titus’s conquest of Jerusalem?

Bust of Antiochus IV

We cannot celebrate these victories precisely for the reason that both Kemp and Pierce explained so well: neither the Greeks nor the Romans exist today. (And incidentally, what about celebrating the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492?) What we call contemporary Greeks or Romans are the product of centuries of blood mixing that devalued not only the genotype of the original Indo-European population, but their extended phenotype as well: the Greco-Roman ethos and the pagan, classical mythology. Those Greeks and Romans who embraced Christianity were a totally different breed compared to the pure Aryans of Sparta or the austere Romans of the pre-imperial Republic.

MacDonald himself acknowledges on page 190 that “the Jews have continued as a creative race into the present, while the Greeks gradually merged with the barbarians and lost their distinctiveness—a point remarkably similar to Chamberlain’s ‘chaos of peoples’ in which the decline of the ancient world is attributed to loss of racial purity.” Conversely, I would say that since the Jews have conserved their genotype almost intact throughout the millennia they are able to celebrate their Maccabean revolt… in New York as if it was yesterday! In other words, had we Meditarraneans preserved our genes intact, we might still be celebrating Antiochus’ victories over the tribe. Or at least if we knew our history with the same passion that Jews know theirs, we might still be celebrating the fall of the temple of Jerusalem in 70 AD, or the more recent expulsion of the tribe from the Iberian peninsula.

What conventional historians ignore is that, once the Church lost its power to sell whites a peculiar narrative after the late 18th and early 19th centuries, our overwhelming individualism put us at the mercy of a collectivist tribe. Fortunately, since the dollar will crash and divine justice will finally befall upon the treasonous individualists that empowered the tribe and murdered their ancestors, there is hope that some of us will lean towards White Zionism in a post-crashed world. On page 10 MacDonald says that “in congruence with the results of social identity research, anti-Semitism is expected to be most prominent among those most in competition with the Jews and during times of economic crisis…”

I hope he is right, and although most fans of MacDonald treasure The Culture of Critique as their favorite of the trilogy, I like SAID most because, despite the crime of the age committed by the Allies, there will still be one last chance for the white peoples to reclaim their civilization against the alien invasion, and MacDonald’s work may help us understand white collectivism.

I would even venture to surmise that, pace Alex Linder and other pro-white libertarians, collectivism might be exactly what we need, though at present it does not has to be necessarily Christian or even religious. In order to defeat the tribe a revaluation of the collectivist movement that thrived in Germany when my parents were kids could be considered.

Chechar’s ten must-reads

1. Hellstorm (excerpts here)

Hellstorm is the first book in my list for the reasons explained below this post. Whites will not regain a proper self-esteem unless and until the big lies of omission about the Second World War are exposed with all our heart and being. If the Allied crime is not understood, assimilated and atoned for, my prediction is that the white people will perish.

2. Who We Are (excerpts here)

3. March of the Titans (excerpts here)

It is not enough to know the real history of the century when we were born, as well as the astronomic lies of omission of the academia and the media about the wars. The fact is that, unlike the other races—brown, black and yellow—in the last millennia whites have managed to find themselves as an endangered species more than once, and this has paramount importance to understand our times. I find it incredible that only a few white nationalists have been interested in the history of their race; proof of it is that these two splendid books by Arthur Kemp and William Pierce are not the main bestsellers in the community. (Unlike Kemp’s 2011 edition of March of the Titans, Pierce’s Who We Are is not available in book form—he died before sending the manuscript to the printers.)

4. A People that Shall Dwell Alone

5. Separation and its Discontents

6. The Culture of Critique (prologue here)

The Jewish problem is one of the greatest problems in the western world, and, pace counter-jihadists and other naïve conservatives, no man can be considered mature until he has striven to face it. Therefore, besides readable and very entertaining histories of the white race, a specific study on the Jewish question is fundamental. The above books comprise Kevin MacDonald’s magnum opus on Jewry.

MacDonald’s preface to The Culture of Critique (see link above), which he wrote four years after finishing the trilogy, can be read as a didactic introduction to the whole trilogy.

Presently I am reading the sections of the second book on how otherwise individualist whites elaborated collectivist group strategies in the form of the Early Medieval Church and, more recently, the (aborted) National Socialist movement in Germany. These are mirror images of Judaism as a reaction to a perceived group conflict, precisely what the blogger Svigor has been calling “towards white Zionism.” Although MacDonald’s study is academic, what I am reading now in Separation and its Discontents is pretty captivating. It seems to me that a future movement of white collectivism inspired in these precedents is the only way to racial preservation.

7. The Turner Diaries (excerpts here)

8. The Brigade (excerpts here)

Objective scholarship is not enough to get the picture of what white nationalism is. We also need a thoroughgoing subjective vision, what I call soul-building. We need novels depicting future reactions or group conflicts against the tribe, other non-white invaders and the white traitors. William Pierce’s Turner Diaries inaugurated a literary genre that fills the gap. For those who have no stomach for Pierce’s extermination fantasies I would recommend the best novel of Harold Covington’s quintet, The Brigade, an absolute treat.


9. Toward the White Republic (excerpts here)

This collection of essays authored by Michael O’Meara is the best pamphlet to date on white nationalism. Like the Hellstorm book, we can even send gifts of this slim book to our friends and acquaintances. Unlike most white nationalists, O’Meara is a genuine revolutionary, not a mere reactionary. It is a shame that after being fired by the academia for political incorrectness, as far as I know Professor O’Meara has not found a sponsor within the white movement.


10. Collected essays by F.R. Devlin (example here)

The last “book” of my list has not been published all together, not even online. It’s an imaginary book in my mind containing the best essays of F. Roger Devlin on how feminism has been destroying our morals, our white genotype, phenotype and even our extended phenotype in the latest decades. (Yes: I am old enough to remember the times when the institution of marriage was rock-solid among my relatives.) Those editors in the white movement who are promoting homosexuality ought to mend their ways and, instead of publishing books claiming that “homophobia” is part of the Jewish culture of critique, they should be collecting Devlin’s essays under a single cover. (I confess that hetero-sexual family values are exactly the conscious and unconscious force that drives my mind into the white movement.)

I wish that Devlin’s Collected essays as well as Pierce’s Who We Are be published in hardcovers before the currency crash (coming under Obama’s second term) makes unaffordable any gathering of the best pro-white literature in the market.

Enjoy the reading! After the dollar crashes and the internet is censored you will regret not having a home library!

We’re definitively doing it to ourselves

A quotation from John Martínez’s:

“Why Christianity and not Judaism
is the Enemy #1 of the White Race”

(in Portuguese)

“Blaming Christianity is a sort of taboo topic in most of the English-speaking White Nationalist blogosphere.”

—Tom Sunic

It is a taboo topic in the whole WN blogosphere, Chechar.

These folks are ready to speak the unspeakable about race differences and the Jewish Problem. But they refuse to take the final step and face the fact that, if it was not for Christianity, perhaps we would not have to be discussing all of these problems now because they might not have happened in the first place.

How can someone advocate for the dignity and self-reliance of the White race while operating within a non-White, Levantine cult?

How can these people expose the Jews and their race supremacist cult while worshipping a Jew (!) and making extensive use of the Jewish mythology and the Jewish Weltanschauung?

It is mind-boggling…

My view about the core problems facing the White race today is that Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Communism are Semitic and therefore alien, extraneous ideologies that should be consigned to the trashcan of History. The differences I see among them nowadays are close to irrelevant as far as our interests are concerned.

Bluegrass comments here:

America was the preeminent racialist country before any European equivalent arose, but it was always held back from completely securing the existence of the European race by the mitigating power of our Christian foundation.

No Christianity means no Puritan proselytizing and universalism within the American psyche, which means no ideological foundation to tolerate the presence of Africans, Indians, or any non-White immigration.

Christianity always made it “uncouth” to be overly racialist. European America was able to implicitly secure the genetic stock through immigration restrictions, segregation, and what have you, but it was always a precarious position.

This semi-implicit racialism, always pervaded by the Christian sense that it was not necessarily the most dignified of ideologies, was easily destroyed by the Jewish culture of critique.

From then on, without the sounder minds to shepherd the flock our universalism (Coolidge etc) took hold and our religion became the realization of the proposition nation.

Of course, to realize that dream the destruction of White genetics has become a necessary sacrifice.

A personal note:

When I was translating to Spanish “Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy,” chapter 7 of Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, I suspended the translation when I hit this 1924 sentence about Israel Zangwill:

Mr. Zangwill spoke chiefly on the immigration question, declaring that if Jews persisted in a strenuous opposition to the restricted immigration there would be no restriction. “If you create enough fuss against this Nordic nonsense,” he said, “you will defeat this legislation. You must make a fight against this bill; tell them they are destroying American ideals. Most fortifications are of cardboard, and if you press against them, they give way.” [emphasis added]

If most fortifications in 1924, when supposedly American ethnocentricity was still very robust, were “of cardboard,” I told to myself, there must be an underlying factor that prevents us from defending our ethny, a primary infection.

Most nationalists act under the assumption that the Jewish Problem is the primary infection. My working hypothesis is that the JP, if compared to the most common HIV-related infections, is not the virus that is killing us but something like a bacterial disease such as tuberculosis, pneumonia or septicaemia: a deadly opportunistic infection that the HIV virus allowed to thrive.

Kill all the bacteria if you want. I have no problem with that. But if we want to save ourselves from extinction we really must go after the primary virus that weakened our defenses in the first place.

Jewry is Enemy #2.
For my collection of articles
dealing with Enemy #1 see here.