“In the United States at the ground level, there is no force more powerful in the effort to dispossess white Americans through mass nonwhite immigration than the Christian churches, with the possible exception of the government itself.”
The “white race” has no one to blame, but themselves.
Throughout the latest two millennia most whites have believed in the message of the gospel, and its moral grammar, right? Contrast Hoeff’s quote with the popular mantra in some nationalist circles, “There is nothing inherently wrong with Whites.”
Before jumping angrily to this thread, please take a look at the discussion in the previous thread, preferably by becoming familiar with some of my linked articles there, including my interpretation of the deranged altruism in Wuthering Heights.
Alternatively, see Ben Klassen’s views on Christianity in general and the Sermon on the Mount in particular. Like Hoeff, Klassen maintained that, ultimately, whites are to blame for our current predicaments.
Extracted from a thread of yesterday’s article at American Renaissance:
Even if, as Jared Taylor says, evidence for race differences in IQ becomes obvious in the future it still probably won’t change anything. It won’t necessarily make whites change their minds about immigration. There is something wrong with white people. You can’t reason with them on certain topics. They believe it is immoral to act in white group interests, and IQ tests won’t change their minds.
How come Japan and Israel can preserve their racial majorities? Because they are not insane. White people are insane. Their moral views on race are fixed and these people cannot be reasoned with on moral or intellectual grounds. That’s why I think whites, at least in America, are destined for continued perpetual decline in terms of demographics. Sorry to sound so defeatist.
I blame this suicidal mental sickness on “Christianity”. That religion is equivalent to a gulp of deadly poison, which I believe was deliberately poured into our drinking cup by our most deadly enemy.
Frankly this view shouldn’t be tolerated amongst Western traditionalists. Remember: Christianity is what conquered pagan Europe and drove back the Muslim barbaric.
This race-denying, universalist, “everybody must be equal” cult can corrupt any church, any religion, any political party, any economic system, any think tank. It’s not just Christianity. It is true that the founder of Judeo-Christianity, St. Paul, the former ethno-centric Pharisee Saul of Tarsus, preached race-denying nonsense “that there weren’t any Greeks or Jews”, just those who have accepted Jesus Christ. I look at St. Paul as the first “Neo Conservative” who supposedly “saw the light” on the Road to Damascus.
My 2 cents:
Commenter 3 misses the whole point: No Saul, no Mohamed! No decline of Rome, a decline caused partially by the fact that Constantine sold Greco-Roman culture to the bishops, no Islamic conquests over a very weakened West.
Notice also how Commenter 3 uses newspeak (“pagan”) while referring to our pre-Christian, Indo-European world. Obviously, he has not read the articles by the Spanish writer I have been advertising here.
Manu Rodríguez believes that only Zeus can cure whites from insanity, so to speak. See “Manu’s three must-reads” linked at the sidebar to understand what do we mean.
A most interesting debate followed Matt Parrott’s recent article at Counter Currents about the pros and cons of fascism for the coming ethnostate.
I admire both Julian and Hitler, who ruled without a system of checks and balances. But at the same time we must avoid blundering on colossal scales (Julian’s invading Persia; Hitler’s invading Russia). That’s why at Counter Currents Trainspotter asked me a most pertinent question about the concept of the Two Roman Consuls to avoid such civilization-destroying blunders.
This is the lead paragraph of the current Wikipedia article on Roman consuls:
A consul served in the highest elected political office of the Roman Republic. Each year, two consuls were elected together, to serve for a one-year term. Each consul was given veto power over his colleague and the officials would alternate each month.
However, after the establishment of the Empire, the consuls were merely a figurative representative of Rome’s republican heritage and held very little power and authority, with the Emperor acting as the supreme leader.
If someone deserves to be compared to LOTR’s Isildur he was Julius Caesar. We are barely taught at school the history of the Aryan people called the Celts. Studying their tragic history ought to change our idealized image about Caesar and the beginning of the Roman Empire.
Caesar betrayed the Republic and started what became known as the Roman Empire. The empire fell under the spell of the One Ring, “economics over race,” especially considering that the conquered Celts were whiter than the Romans. (It was the Romans, not the Celts, the ones who by the times of Caesar’s conquest of Gaul had started to miscegenate.)
Last year I was shocked to learn that Caesar practiced a sort of exterminationist anti-whitism. You see nothing of this barbarism in TV series like Rome or the other idealized series on the fall of the empire. But the grim fact is that Caesar killed… one of every four Gauls!
For instance, when his troops occupied the Gaulish town of Avaricum Caesar ordered all 40,000 inhabitants put to death. His conquest of Gaul was exterminationist, with whole tribes, including pure Aryan women and children, being slaughtered.
In William Pierce’s history of the white race we are told that by the autumn of 54 B.C. Caesar had subdued Gaul, having destroyed 800 towns and villages. More than three million (!) Celts were enslaved. And what is much worse, “behind his armies came a horde of Roman-Jewish merchants and speculators,” with “hundreds of thousands of blond, blue-eyed Celtic girls” that marched south in chains. They were “pawed over by greasy, Semitic flesh-merchants in Rome’s slave markets.”
So the century when we were born was not the first time that a “Hellstorm,” which we could define as whites’ enslaving and genociding the cream of their own race, happened in Europe.
From the time of Caesar’s abolition of the Two Consuls system, the fate of Rome was sealed. No Roman Emperor after Caesar ever shared power. All became absolute dictators. No Consul had veto powers even when the emperors became virtually mad (as was the case of Nero). Miscegenating Romans started to forget the republican principles that had made them so strong—disciplina potestas, probitas, severitas, gravitas, pudicitia, pietas and especially the principle that the common good is the highest law: salus populi suprema lex. Instead, they started to behave like American pigs or, to use a Petronius term during the reign of another mad emperor, Caligula, like Trimalchios.
Not Caesar but Brutus should be our model. And the history of Brutus’ ancestors, the founders of the Roman Republic, should be studied starting perhaps with Lucius Junius Brutus.
I told Trainspotter that throughout Plato’s Republic runs the fear that the degenerative Ionian and Athenian lifestyles could potentially ruin the state, and that this propensity of whites to behave like miscegenating pigs in the later stages of civilization could only be prevented by a tough Dorian discipline.
In a nutshell, the coming Fourth Reich must adopt the Two Consuls principle and repudiate all sorts of Caesarism.
Old Testament + New Testament → Christianity
Christianity → White suicide
“What I failed to realize for many years was the depth of the evil and the resistance to individual redemption. Obviously, if people are evil when evil people rule, and good only when good people rule, they are not really good.” –Andrew Hamilton
This morning I reread my “Dies Irae,” the sharpest piece I have written about how I feel about my own species.
In a postscript to that piece I said that Andrew Hamilton’s November article, “Flawed Racism,” was potentially the most worldview-shattering article that has been written to understand the West’s darkest hour “without the knowledge of its readership including the author himself.” By the end of my postscript I added that Hamilton’s words (see epigraph), which include the overwhelming majority of whites, demonstrate that humans “are not really good.”
That Hamilton still doesn’t get the implications of his discovery is manifest in his most recent article, which reminded me what William Pierce always said about the “controlled media” and also Kevin MacDonald’s chapter in The Culture of Critique demonstrating that Jews own it. In today’s article Hamilton writes:
It makes no sense to scratch one’s head, perplexed, wondering, “Why don’t whites wake up?” That’s not the way the world works. Everything boils down to this one-sided power distribution.
Hamilton is afraid of taking a step further and ask the question that Tom Sunic has been asking for some time: “One can naturally concur that Americans are influenced by Jews, but then the question arises as to how did it happen?”
But Hamilton already answered that question in his November essay, which is worth rephrasing here: If whites are evil when evil people rule—Americans watching several hours per day a TV controlled by the subversive tribe—, and good only when good people rule—young Germans in the 1930s reading Hitler’s Youth booklets—, whites are not really good.
That’s the crux of the whole issue in this darkest hour of us.
The fact is that the Jews in America who control the media did not drop from the Moon. Deracinated Anglo-Saxons empowered them. And they did it because, like the rest of whites, they are not good people.
That’s the whole point in a recent post on bicausalism. I used an image of Isildur to show, in a single visual stroke, that if this darkest of all ages is menacing us it’s because our own sin, a pure Aryan sin. The sin that marked a whole Era: allowing the subversive tribe to infect our minds through their holy book offering a new testament as a bait.
I know that the way I have expanded Hamilton’s insightful phrase goes far beyond everything and anything that is acceptable for nationalists and non-nationalists alike: that most people are not good. (Hence my wild, exterminationist fantasies.) But if you really want ultimate answers to ultimate questions, there is no way to avoid philosophizing along unimaginably tough lines.
Now that I have been translating articles and letters of the Spanish blogger Manu Rodríguez for The West’s Darkest Hour a thought arrived to my mind today.
Couldn’t the Protestant, specifically the Puritanical version of Christianity that the Early Founding Fathers brought to this continent be the perfect operating system, complete with an in-built bug, to undermine the Aryan spirit?
Judge it by yourselves my dear readers. It was the Yankees sans Jews the ones who horribly betrayed their kinsmen during the American Civil War on behalf of the Negroes: the seeds of what would happen big time in the next century with American betrayal of Germany on behalf of the Jews.
After all it was the American Puritans, as Tom Sunic demonstrated in his latest book, the ones who introduced Old Testament (OT) values in the Low Culture: something that explains the runaway Zionism in the contemporary evangelical scene. If in addition to the Holy Book of the Jews subtly introduced to the Aryan psyche after the Reformation you add the New Testament’s (NT) non-ethnic but universal message, Love your neighbor, help the poor and disadvantaged, etc., the perfect recipe for Indo-European suicide has been formulated, right?
OT + NT = White suicide
If this interpretation of Western history is correct, Christianity in general, and Murka in particular, must burn to save whites from extinction.
We simply cannot claim that all of our issues
are to be laid on the feet of Jews
Dear Chechar, not all Spaniards think like that. The causes of our decline in the past after the Christianization, and in the present, are due to ourselves. I refer to excerpts published in one of my posts last year:
Already in pre-Socratic times we can see this disregard for a fundamental part of our culture: in the whimsical and superfluous theogonies and cosmogonies of Epicharmus and Pherecydes, which rivaled the traditions collected and transmitted by Homer and Hesiod and confused the people through pseudo-Orphic and Pythagorean preaching about individual souls and religious proposals of “personal” salvation: individualists and universalists. They divided the people and ended up influencing Plato and some philosophers (Xenophanes). Finally, in post-Socratic times, coinciding with the Alexandrian period—culturally chaotic, cosmopolitan—, philosophical ethics circulated from Cynics, Stoics and Epicureans, already fully individualistic and universalist (transnational, stateless doctrines for “all men”) and consistent with the cultural decay of the time. I think that this was a big mistake; this contempt by the Hellenic “intelligentsia” as Nietzsche said. The Greek people lost their right to their autochthonous gods. This “intelligentsia” should have taken care of the native and ancestral legacy.
This attitude just ended up weakening the strength and security that the people had in their own cultural traditions. These traditions, these “worlds” were part of the ancestral collective memory of our people that was devastated, made it like a desert, annihilated by our own philosophers and thinkers. They were in some way responsible for this great loss, for that debacle, for that alienation which resulted in the loss of our cultures when Christianization took over. They neglected their duty, not only the education of the people, but the care and defense of our traditions (our worlds) before the Other. Our people lost their cultural property, or watched it sullied, undervalued, or ridiculed by their own kind.
The thing did not improve in Roman times when the schools of Stoics and Epicureans dominated everywhere in the Empire, and the words of Cato or Cicero could not avoid the dissolution, this disintegration of the cultural symbolic (colectivas) of Greeks and Romans.
The entry of Jewish, Chaldean, Egyptian and Persian sects found a disoriented people; neglected, abandoned, without guidance and their traditions scorned by the “enlightened” classes. They preyed upon the preachers of these sects. It was not only Plato or Christianity. Centuries of neglect and scorn put our people in the hands of these preachers of foreign divinities.
We can do the same reasoning with the traditions of Germans, Celts, Slavs and others. They seemed to be infected by the general attitude that Greeks and Romans had regarding their own cultures, not valued at all. The values, it seems, were elsewhere: in the economic and the military power, or in religions of “personal” salvation coming from the outside, which denoted disintegration and a previous decomposition of these peoples.
Nothing forced the Goths, Lombards, Burgundians and Franks to be Christianized but their greed for power and willingness to take over the remains of the Empire without reflection or discussion of its “ideological” bases, fully Christianized by the 5th century (the century of the Germanic expansions). This was not the case of forced Christianization, centuries later, of the Saxons and Frisians (by Charlemagne), or the politics from the top (the monarchs) as done by the Norwegians (Olaf “The Holy”) and the Slavs (Vladimir, also “The Holy”). The Germans could have been the liberators of Europe, but they put their arms in the service of a foreign faith and an ecclesia (priestly community). This attitude says very clearly how they were indifferent to their own traditions.
It was a betrayal. Our history would have been different if they had remained faithful to the cultural legacy of their ancestors.
Breaking the sacred bonds wrought what it wrought. And from the ominous Christianization of our people we have been suffering this cultural and spiritual alienation that affects us so much; this drift, this going astray, this wandering…
The post-mortem world of the Indo-European cultures has to do with the collective memory of the people. It is a “space” that houses the gods, but also the Fathers, all the ancestors without distinction. This can be seen in the Hittite or Aryan-Vedic world (with Yama, Manu’s brother, and the first mortal); in the Celtic world (remember the original Halloween), or in the Roman world (the Manes). Keeping memory and even worship of the absent, the departed, was part of the education and morals of our ancestors, and was a sign of distinction and nobility against other peoples. The Patricians were those who had Fathers, who kept memory of the Fathers, in the sense already said. Let’s say that this memory was part of the “being” for our Indo-European ancestors.
Forgetfulness or loss of these “spaces” had (and has) bad consequences. Precisely the Christian or Muslim preachers noticed such loss or damaged being; this symbolic amputation among the peoples, and therefore preached (and still preach) their values. The loss or decline or forgetting of these spaces leaves people orphaned and incomplete. This was the picture that the Christian apostles (Jews) found in the area of the Roman Empire: stranded peoples abandoned to their lot; incomplete, empty. They found the right spot to spread their worlds. They found people without “being,” without memory, without identity and already acculturated—by their own kind. Christian acculturation, or later Muslim acculturation, allowed these people to complete their symbolic being—at least spuriously in the outside.
What I’m writing down has a counterpart, a repetition in our contemporary European and Western world. Both are similar circumstances that repeat the cultural deterioration and we see a return to the same religious-cultural “offers”—the everlasting impostors, the usurpers. Not only Christians and the “people of god” (the Hebrew god) lacking a homeland (but with Israel as sacred land), but the “umma”, the stateless Muslim “nation” (though based in Mecca). And also the politicians and the intellectuals: from democratic universalism to proletarian internationalism (Marx’s “workers or proletarians have no fatherland”) to sociologists such as the cosmopolitan Adorno or Marcuse, or Derrida who preaches the philosophy of the philosopher as cosmopolitan and stateless.
It’s the same song again, the same charm, the same lure, the same trap.
You can find similar reasoning in my blogging of the last year (there are 68 pages) and the posts published this year. I would like you to read, at least, those entries.
The subject requires a great deal of debating with the participation of all Aryan nations: a process of self-gnosis that revisited at least our last two millennia, although in my opinion we should start with the cultural deterioration that has its beginning in the pre-Socratic times and reached its climax in imperial Rome (from Caesar on).
Well, Chechar, I don’t take more of your time.
A couple of days ago Kyle Hunt interviewed Tom Sunic: an interview that I’ve just listened. It strongly reminded me my most featured post in this blog today, “The Course of Empire,” a series of paintings that evoke both the fall of Rome and the ongoing fall of the American Empire: both caused by “gluttony” and the “inevitable decay” of the spirit of whites.
Surely there were Semites inside the confines of the Roman Empire. But ultimately the fault lies upon those Western Ring Wraiths, as Tolkien called those empty-eyed men: outer shells of their former selves “who command us to abandon our morals and artistic heritance in pursuit of the gold promised by the Ring.”
Who’s to blame: Sauron or us? Most white nationalists blame Sauron. But a few of them are starting to realize that the fault lies on those men who sold our culture and blood “for thirty pieces of gold to forge our own insignificant rings.” For example, in Hunt’s interview of Sunic this Monday, the Croatian thinker said during the segment dedicated to his parting words:
“Folks let’s stick together: Don’t blame the Other with a capital ‘O’: blame ourselves for all that we are now enduring and experiencing. Don’t blame those other guys. You know whom I mean. They are not responsible: it’s ourselves. It is our petty petty egoism, it’s our trivial disputes what’s hampering us in promoting our cause.”
Speaking of trivial disputes, just disregard the degenerate music chosen by the interviewer before the Sunic interview.
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.
“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.