Vanguardist retort

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

The following is Linder’s deconstruction at VNN Forum of what Leon Haller said at Majority Rights. It exemplifies my view about why the mainstreamer side of white nationalism is deluded. No ellipsis added between unquoted sentences:

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

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

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Socialist] Euros think that some labourite working class somewhere will constitute it, but I think that view is decades out of date, if it was ever valid.

Linder: Wrong on two levels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haller: We must be as moderate as possible.

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

What about Latin America?

Hi Chechar,

You were born in Mexico, right? Is it worthwhile to distribute anti-ZOG propaganda to Spanish-speaking Latin Americans? Anti-Americanism seems popular enough in Latin America, but do they know who is secretly in power? Even if they aren’t white, do you think we could gain “allies” in Mexico?

Venezuela seems to be predicting a showdown with ZOG. They have recently begun trying to move their gold reserves back into the country and have condemned the overthrow of the Libyan government.

Do you have any thoughts?


Sam Davidson

*   *   *

Dear Sam,

Sophisticated Latin Americans don’t know almost anything about ZOG (in my life I’ve only met a handful of them conscious of the Jewish Question). I like what Chávez is doing with the gold, but like Evo Morales he’s a rabid anti-white. Indians, mulattos and mestizos can be our allies only in the sense that Arabs can be allies in our common war against Jewry. Most criollos (Iberian whites living here) have become as body-snatched pods as their northern, WASP counterparts. Mexico is beyond repair unless…

1) the dollar crashes and the US goes down, down, down…

2) desperate niggers start behaving pretty naughtily in a crashed America

3) an ethnostate is formed somewhere in Northam after a bloody war and, finally,

4) the new Aryan nation grows strong enough—e.g., as in Covington’s latest novel, Freedom’s Sons—to conquer Mexico with the ease that Cortés conquered the Aztec Empire half a millennium ago.

I’ve translated to English a couple of my articles about Mexico, and although I am translating MacDonald’s CofC the Spaniards are my main target audience in my blog in Spanish. Latin America in general and Mexico in particular have degenerated so horribly after my childhood that my only hope is to escape from this hell as soon as possible.


Published in: on August 27, 2011 at 9:02 pm  Comments (3)  

The US: the greatest threat to the white race

Michael O’Meara’s long 2004 article in The Occidental Quarterly, “Boreas Rising: White Nationalism and the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis,” has been published online at Counter Currents (here, here and here). I’m reproducing only some basic excerpts. No ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs:

For a half century, we nationalists stood with the “West” in its struggle against the Asiatic Marxism of the Soviet bloc. There was little problem then distinguishing between our friends and our foes, for all evil was situated in the collectivist East and all virtue in the liberal West. Today, things are much less clear. Not only has the Second American War on Iraq revealed a profound geopolitical divide within the West, the social-political order associated with it now subverts our patrimony in ways no apparatchik ever imagined. Indeed, it seems hardly exaggerated to claim that Western elites (those who Samuel Huntington calls the “dead souls”) have come to pose the single greatest threat to our people’s existence.

For some, this threat was discovered only after 1989. Yet as early as the late forties, a handful of white nationalists, mainly in Europe, but with the American Francis Parker Yockey at their head, realized that Washington’s postwar order, not the Soviet Union, represented the greater danger to the white biosphere. Over the years, particularly since the fall of Communism, this realization has spread, so that a large part of Europe’s nationalist vanguard no longer supports the West, only Europe, and considers the West’s leader its chief enemy.

For these nationalists, the United States is a kind of anti-Europe, hostile not only to its motherland, but to its own white population. The Managerial Revolution of the thirties, Jewish influence in the media and the academy, the rise of the national security state and the military-industrial complex have all had a hand in fostering this anti-Europeanism, but for our transatlantic cousins its roots reach back to the start of our national epic. America’s Calvinist settlers, they point out, saw themselves as latter-day Israelites, who fled Egypt (Europe) for the Promised Land. Their shining city on the hill, founded on Old Testament, not Old World, antecedents, was to serve as a beacon to the rest of humanity. America began—and thus became itself—by casting off its European heritage.

Then, in the eighteenth century, this anti-Europeanism took political form, as the generation of 1776 fashioned a new state based on Lockean/Enlightenment principles, which were grafted onto the earlier Calvinist ones. As these liberal modernist principles came to fruition in the twentieth century, once the Christian vestiges of the country’s “Anglo-Protestant core” were shed, they helped legitimate the missionary cosmopolitanism of its corporate, one-world elites, and, worse, those extracultural, anti-organic, and hedonistic influences hostile to the European soul of the country’s white population.

Our present malaise, I would argue, stems less from these ideological influences (however retarding) than from a more recent development—the Second World War—whose world-transforming effects were responsible for distorting and inverting our already tenuous relationship to Europe. For once our motherland was conquered and occupied (what the apologists of the present regime ironically refer to as its “liberation”) and once the new postwar system of transnational capital was put in place, a New Class of powers with a vested interest in de-Europeanizing America’s white population was allowed to assume command of American life.

Whether pursued by Republicans or Democrats, this liberal internationalist agenda, with its emphasis on the antitraditional and anti-Aryan forces of free trade, free markets, and open societies, has been a bane to white people everywhere—for it wars against “the fundamental value of blood and race as creators of true civilization.”

America’s future

Germany was virtually remade by the Americans after 1945 and throughout the Cold War remained subservient to them.

Since the rise to world power of the United States, white America has been in decline. For most of the twentieth century, but especially since the end of the Second World War, the country’s overlords have taken one step after another to de-Europeanize its white population. To this end, white culture and identity have been socially re-engineered. White communities, schools, and businesses have been forced to integrate with races previously considered inferior and inimical. And, for the last forty years, whites have been expected to replace themselves with Third World immigrants.

The small, isolated pockets of white resistance confront a seemingly impossible task—similar to the one King Canute faced when he tried to hold back the ocean tide. Because of this, I would argue that only a catastrophe will save white America. Only a catastrophic collapse of the political, institutional, and cultural systems associated with imperial America—call it the managerial state, liberal democracy, corporate capitalism, the NWO, or whatever label you prefer—holds out any possibility that a small, racially conscious vanguard of white Americans will succeed in defending their people’s existence.

The real dangers threatening the country are totally ignored: the dangers posed by the mestizo and Asiatic colonization of our lands, the growth of U.S. Muslim communities, the denationalization of the economy and the looming fiscal crisis of the state, the Zionist domination of the political and information systems, the replacement of truth with propaganda and disinformation, the deculturation and miscegenation of our people. That for the first time in American history Europe is not the focus of U.S. strategic thinking, but rather Israel, should say it all.

However this crisis plays out, America and Europe seem set on a collision course. If the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis continues to affect the continent and shift power out of the Atlanticist camp, this cannot but destabilize the United States, for without its omnipotent dollar and its domination of global markets, it will no longer be able to consume more than it produces, to live on credit, to afford the social-welfare measures that buy off the Africans and tame the Mexicans, to sustain the social-engineering schemes discriminating against the talents and energies of its white majority, to afford the police, the drugs, the TVs, and the computer toys that narcotize its cretinized masses.

The American, German, and French states—none of these entities any longer represent the descendants of those who founded them. As Sam Francis puts it, “the state has become the enemy of the nation.” And as a thousand years of European history demonstrate, whenever the state and the nation come into conflict, the latter inevitably proves the stronger. I think it is no exaggeration to claim that only on the ruins of the existing political order will white America be reborn—and reborn not as another constitutional “nation-state” which elevates abstract rights above biocultural imperatives, but as a northern imperium of white peoples who, as Bismarck exhorted, “think with their blood.”

Let us prepare for the coming collapse.

Ron Paul’s House speech

The February 15, 2006 speech from Ron Paul (R) before the US House of Representatives gives insight into how the dollar evolved to become the world’s fiat currency. Since five years later the situation is far worse, considering the recent stock exchange news Ron Paul’s speech is worth re-listening (here, here and here). Once the dollar crashes the Wilsonian World Order will very probably fall apart. The US won’t be anymore the unchallenged superpower or world police.

The bad news: China will be number one, an extremely shocking and humiliating discontinuity for the white psyche that has never been experience by Western civilization, not even by the Romans after the fall of the Roman Empire.

The good news: Since the US is the most serious enemy of the white race (see e.g., one of O’Meara’s articles here), after the dollar crashes the US troops will have to leave Germany, and a major overhaul of our values and myths of World War II will be in order.

But I am getting ahead of the story… For the moment let’s just pay attention to the text of Ron Paul’s speech:


The End of Dollar Hegemony

A hundred years ago it was called “dollar diplomacy.” After World War II, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, that policy evolved into “dollar hegemony.” But after all these many years of great success, our dollar dominance is coming to an end.

It has been said, rightly, that he who holds the gold makes the rules. In earlier times it was readily accepted that fair and honest trade required an exchange for something of real value.

First it was simply barter of goods. Then it was discovered that gold held a universal attraction, and was a convenient substitute for more cumbersome barter transactions. Not only did gold facilitate exchange of goods and services, it served as a store of value for those who wanted to save for a rainy day.

Though money developed naturally in the marketplace, as governments grew in power they assumed monopoly control over money. Sometimes governments succeeded in guaranteeing the quality and purity of gold, but in time governments learned to outspend their revenues. New or higher taxes always incurred the disapproval of the people, so it wasn’t long before Kings and Caesars learned how to inflate their currencies by reducing the amount of gold in each coin—always hoping their subjects wouldn’t discover the fraud. But the people always did, and they strenuously objected.

This helped pressure leaders to seek more gold by conquering other nations. The people became accustomed to living beyond their means, and enjoyed the circuses and bread. Financing extravagances by conquering foreign lands seemed a logical alternative to working harder and producing more. Besides, conquering nations not only brought home gold, they brought home slaves as well. Taxing the people in conquered territories also provided an incentive to build empires. This system of government worked well for a while, but the moral decline of the people led to an unwillingness to produce for themselves. There was a limit to the number of countries that could be sacked for their wealth, and this always brought empires to an end. When gold no longer could be obtained, their military might crumbled. In those days those who held the gold truly wrote the rules and lived well.

That general rule has held fast throughout the ages. When gold was used, and the rules protected honest commerce, productive nations thrived. Whenever wealthy nations—those with powerful armies and gold—strived only for empire and easy fortunes to support welfare at home, those nations failed.

Today the principles are the same, but the process is quite different. Gold no longer is the currency of the realm; paper is. The truth now is: “He who prints the money makes the rules”—at least for the time being. Although gold is not used, the goals are the same: compel foreign countries to produce and subsidize the country with military superiority and control over the monetary printing presses.

Since printing paper money is nothing short of counterfeiting, the issuer of the international currency must always be the country with the military might to guarantee control over the system. This magnificent scheme seems the perfect system for obtaining perpetual wealth for the country that issues the de facto world currency. The one problem, however, is that such a system destroys the character of the counterfeiting nation’s people—just as was the case when gold was the currency and it was obtained by conquering other nations. And this destroys the incentive to save and produce, while encouraging debt and runaway welfare.

The pressure at home to inflate the currency comes from the corporate welfare recipients, as well as those who demand handouts as compensation for their needs and perceived injuries by others. In both cases personal responsibility for one’s actions is rejected.

When paper money is rejected, or when gold runs out, wealth and political stability are lost. The country then must go from living beyond its means to living beneath its means, until the economic and political systems adjust to the new rules—rules no longer written by those who ran the now defunct printing press.

“Dollar Diplomacy,” a policy instituted by William Howard Taft and his Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, was designed to enhance U.S. commercial investments in Latin America and the Far East. McKinley concocted a war against Spain in 1898, and [Teddy] Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine preceded Taft’s aggressive approach to using the U.S. dollar and diplomatic influence to secure U.S. investments abroad. This earned the popular title of “Dollar Diplomacy.” The significance of Roosevelt’s change was that our intervention now could be justified by the mere “appearance” that a country of interest to us was politically or fiscally vulnerable to European control. Not only did we claim a right, but even an official U.S. government “obligation” to protect our commercial interests from Europeans.

This new policy came on the heels of the “gunboat” diplomacy of the late 19th century, and it meant we could buy influence before resorting to the threat of force. By the time the “dollar diplomacy” of William Howard Taft was clearly articulated, the seeds of American empire were planted. And they were destined to grow in the fertile political soil of a country that lost its love and respect for the republic bequeathed to us by the authors of the Constitution. And indeed they did. It wasn’t too long before dollar “diplomacy” became dollar “hegemony” in the second half of the 20th century.

This transition only could have occurred with a dramatic change in monetary policy and the nature of the dollar itself.

Congress created the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Between then and 1971 the principle of sound money was systematically undermined. Between 1913 and 1971, the Federal Reserve found it much easier to expand the money supply at will for financing war or manipulating the economy with little resistance from Congress—while benefiting the special interests that influence government.

Dollar dominance got a huge boost after World War II. We were spared the destruction that so many other nations suffered, and our coffers were filled with the world’s gold. But the world chose not to return to the discipline of the gold standard, and the politicians applauded. Printing money to pay the bills was a lot more popular than taxing or restraining unnecessary spending. In spite of the short-term benefits, imbalances were institutionalized for decades to come.

The 1944 Bretton Woods agreement solidified the dollar as the preeminent world reserve currency, replacing the British pound. Due to our political and military muscle, and because we had a huge amount of physical gold, the world readily accepted our dollar (defined as 1/35th of an ounce of gold) as the world’s reserve currency. The dollar was said to be “as good as gold,” and convertible to all foreign central banks at that rate. For American citizens, however, it remained illegal to own. This was a gold-exchange standard that from inception was doomed to fail.

The U.S. did exactly what many predicted she would do. She printed more dollars for which there was no gold backing. But the world was content to accept those dollars for more than 25 years with little question—until the French and others in the late 1960s demanded we fulfill our promise to pay one ounce of gold for each $35 they delivered to the U.S. Treasury. This resulted in a huge gold drain that brought an end to a very poorly devised pseudo-gold standard.

It all ended on August 15, 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window and refused to pay out any of our remaining 280 million ounces of gold. In essence, we declared our insolvency and everyone recognized some other monetary system had to be devised in order to bring stability to the markets.

Amazingly, a new system was devised which allowed the U.S. to operate the printing presses for the world reserve currency with no restraints placed on it—not even a pretense of gold convertibility, none whatsoever! Though the new policy was even more deeply flawed, it nevertheless opened the door for dollar hegemony to spread.

Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence “backed” the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup. This arrangement helped ignite the radical Islamic movement among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as dollar influence flourished.

This post-Bretton Woods system was much more fragile than the system that existed between 1945 and 1971. Though the dollar/oil arrangement was helpful, it was not nearly as stable as the pseudo gold standard under Bretton Woods. It certainly was less stable than the gold standard of the late 19th century.

During the 1970s the dollar nearly collapsed, as oil prices surged and gold skyrocketed to $800 an ounce. By 1979 interest rates of 21% were required to rescue the system. The pressure on the dollar in the 1970s, in spite of the benefits accrued to it, reflected reckless budget deficits and monetary inflation during the 1960s. The markets were not fooled by LBJ’s claim that we could afford both “guns and butter.”

Once again the dollar was rescued, and this ushered in the age of true dollar hegemony lasting from the early 1980s to the present. With tremendous cooperation coming from the central banks and international commercial banks, the dollar was accepted as if it were gold.

Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, on several occasions before the House Banking Committee, answered my challenges to him about his previously held favorable views on gold by claiming that he and other central bankers had gotten paper money—i.e. the dollar system—to respond as if it were gold. Each time I strongly disagreed, and pointed out that if they had achieved such a feat they would have defied centuries of economic history regarding the need for money to be something of real value. He smugly and confidently concurred with this.

In recent years central banks and various financial institutions, all with vested interests in maintaining a workable fiat dollar standard, were not secretive about selling and loaning large amounts of gold to the market even while decreasing gold prices raised serious questions about the wisdom of such a policy. They never admitted to gold price fixing, but the evidence is abundant that they believed if the gold price fell it would convey a sense of confidence to the market, confidence that they indeed had achieved amazing success in turning paper into gold.

Increasing gold prices historically are viewed as an indicator of distrust in paper currency. This recent effort was not a whole lot different than the U.S. Treasury selling gold at $35 an ounce in the 1960s, in an attempt to convince the world the dollar was sound and as good as gold. Even during the Depression, one of Roosevelt’s first acts was to remove free market gold pricing as an indication of a flawed monetary system by making it illegal for American citizens to own gold. Economic law eventually limited that effort, as it did in the early 1970s when our Treasury and the IMF tried to fix the price of gold by dumping tons into the market to dampen the enthusiasm of those seeking a safe haven for a falling dollar after gold ownership was re-legalized.

Once again the effort between 1980 and 2000 to fool the market as to the true value of the dollar proved unsuccessful. In the past 5 years the dollar has been devalued in terms of gold by more than 50%. You just can’t fool all the people all the time, even with the power of the mighty printing press and money creating system of the Federal Reserve.

Even with all the shortcomings of the fiat monetary system, dollar influence thrived. The results seemed beneficial, but gross distortions built into the system remained. And true to form, Washington politicians are only too anxious to solve the problems cropping up with window dressing, while failing to understand and deal with the underlying flawed policy. Protectionism, fixing exchange rates, punitive tariffs, politically motivated sanctions, corporate subsidies, international trade management, price controls, interest rate and wage controls, super-nationalist sentiments, threats of force, and even war are resorted to—all to solve the problems artificially created by deeply flawed monetary and economic systems.

In the short run, the issuer of a fiat reserve currency can accrue great economic benefits. In the long run, it poses a threat to the country issuing the world currency. In this case that’s the United States. As long as foreign countries take our dollars in return for real goods, we come out ahead. This is a benefit many in Congress fail to recognize, as they bash China for maintaining a positive trade balance with us. But this leads to a loss of manufacturing jobs to overseas markets, as we become more dependent on others and less self-sufficient. Foreign countries accumulate our dollars due to their high savings rates, and graciously loan them back to us at low interest rates to finance our excessive consumption.

It sounds like a great deal for everyone, except the time will come when our dollars—due to their depreciation—will be received less enthusiastically or even be rejected by foreign countries. That could create a whole new ballgame and force us to pay a price for living beyond our means and our production. The shift in sentiment regarding the dollar has already started, but the worst is yet to come.

The agreement with OPEC in the 1970s to price oil in dollars has provided tremendous artificial strength to the dollar as the preeminent reserve currency. This has created a universal demand for the dollar, and soaks up the huge number of new dollars generated each year. Last year alone M3 increased over $700 billion.

The artificial demand for our dollar, along with our military might, places us in the unique position to “rule” the world without productive work or savings, and without limits on consumer spending or deficits. The problem is, it can’t last.

Price inflation is raising its ugly head, and the NASDAQ bubble—generated by easy money—has burst. The housing bubble likewise created is deflating. Gold prices have doubled, and federal spending is out of sight with zero political will to rein it in. The trade deficit last year was over $728 billion. A $2 trillion war is raging, and plans are being laid to expand the war into Iran and possibly Syria. The only restraining force will be the world’s rejection of the dollar. It’s bound to come and create conditions worse than 1979-1980, which required 21% interest rates to correct. But everything possible will be done to protect the dollar in the meantime. We have a shared interest with those who hold our dollars to keep the whole charade going.

Greenspan, in his first speech after leaving the Fed, said that gold prices were up because of concern about terrorism, and not because of monetary concerns or because he created too many dollars during his tenure. Gold has to be discredited and the dollar propped up. Even when the dollar comes under serious attack by market forces, the central banks and the IMF surely will do everything conceivable to soak up the dollars in hope of restoring stability. Eventually they will fail.

Most importantly, the dollar/oil relationship has to be maintained to keep the dollar as a preeminent currency. Any attack on this relationship will be forcefully challenged—as it already has been.

In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein—though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.

It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned.

In 2001, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA.

After these attempts to nudge the Euro toward replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency were met with resistance, the sharp fall of the dollar against the Euro was reversed. These events may well have played a significant role in maintaining dollar dominance.

It’s become clear the U.S. administration was sympathetic to those who plotted the overthrow of Chavez, and was embarrassed by its failure. The fact that Chavez was democratically elected had little influence on which side we supported.

Now, a new attempt is being made against the petrodollar system. Iran, another member of the “axis of evil,” has announced her plans to initiate an oil bourse in March of this year. Guess what, the oil sales will be priced Euros, not dollars.

Most Americans forget how our policies have systematically and needlessly antagonized the Iranians over the years. In 1953 the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadeqh, and install the authoritarian Shah, who was friendly to the U.S. The Iranians were still fuming over this when the hostages were seized in 1979. Our alliance with Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran in the early 1980s did not help matters, and obviously did not do much for our relationship with Saddam Hussein. The administration announcement in 2001 that Iran was part of the axis of evil didn’t do much to improve the diplomatic relationship between our two countries. Recent threats over nuclear power, while ignoring the fact that they are surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons, doesn’t seem to register with those who continue to provoke Iran. With what most Muslims perceive as our war against Islam, and this recent history, there’s little wonder why Iran might choose to harm America by undermining the dollar. Iran, like Iraq, has zero capability to attack us. But that didn’t stop us from turning Saddam Hussein into a modern day Hitler ready to take over the world. Now Iran, especially since she’s made plans for pricing oil in Euros, has been on the receiving end of a propaganda war not unlike that waged against Iraq before our invasion.

It’s not likely that maintaining dollar supremacy was the only motivating factor for the war against Iraq, nor for agitating against Iran. Though the real reasons for going to war are complex, we now know the reasons given before the war started, like the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s connection to 9/11, were false. The dollar’s importance is obvious, but this does not diminish the influence of the distinct plans laid out years ago by the neo-conservatives to remake the Middle East. Israel’s influence, as well as that of the Christian Zionists, likewise played a role in prosecuting this war. Protecting “our” oil supplies has influenced our Middle East policy for decades.

But the truth is that paying the bills for this aggressive intervention is impossible the old fashioned way, with more taxes, more savings, and more production by the American people. Much of the expense of the Persian Gulf War in 1991 was shouldered by many of our willing allies. That’s not so today. Now, more than ever, the dollar hegemony—it’s dominance as the world reserve currency—is required to finance our huge war expenditures. This $2 trillion never-ending war must be paid for, one way or another. Dollar hegemony provides the vehicle to do just that.

For the most part the true victims aren’t aware of how they pay the bills. The license to create money out of thin air allows the bills to be paid through price inflation. American citizens, as well as average citizens of Japan, China, and other countries suffer from price inflation, which represents the “tax” that pays the bills for our military adventures. That is until the fraud is discovered, and the foreign producers decide not to take dollars nor hold them very long in payment for their goods. Everything possible is done to prevent the fraud of the monetary system from being exposed to the masses who suffer from it. If oil markets replace dollars with Euros, it would in time curtail our ability to continue to print, without restraint, the world’s reserve currency.

It is an unbelievable benefit to us to import valuable goods and export depreciating dollars. The exporting countries have become addicted to our purchases for their economic growth. This dependency makes them allies in continuing the fraud, and their participation keeps the dollar’s value artificially high. If this system were workable long term, American citizens would never have to work again. We too could enjoy “bread and circuses” just as the Romans did, but their gold finally ran out and the inability of Rome to continue to plunder conquered nations brought an end to her empire.

The same thing will happen to us if we don’t change our ways. Though we don’t occupy foreign countries to directly plunder, we nevertheless have spread our troops across 130 nations of the world. Our intense effort to spread our power in the oil-rich Middle East is not a coincidence. But unlike the old days, we don’t declare direct ownership of the natural resources—we just insist that we can buy what we want and pay for it with our paper money. Any country that challenges our authority does so at great risk.

Once again Congress has bought into the war propaganda against Iran, just as it did against Iraq. Arguments are now made for attacking Iran economically, and militarily if necessary. These arguments are all based on the same false reasons given for the ill-fated and costly occupation of Iraq.

Our whole economic system depends on continuing the current monetary arrangement, which means recycling the dollar is crucial. Currently, we borrow over $700 billion every year from our gracious benefactors, who work hard and take our paper for their goods. Then we borrow all the money we need to secure the empire (DOD budget $450 billion) plus more. The military might we enjoy becomes the “backing” of our currency. There are no other countries that can challenge our military superiority, and therefore they have little choice but to accept the dollars we declare are today’s “gold.” This is why countries that challenge the system—like Iraq, Iran and Venezuela—become targets of our plans for regime change.

Ironically, dollar superiority depends on our strong military, and our strong military depends on the dollar. As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit become.

But real threats come from our political adversaries who are incapable of confronting us militarily, yet are not bashful about confronting us economically. That’s why we see the new challenge from Iran being taken so seriously. The urgent arguments about Iran posing a military threat to the security of the United States are no more plausible than the false charges levied against Iraq. Yet there is no effort to resist this march to confrontation by those who grandstand for political reasons against the Iraq war.

It seems that the people and Congress are easily persuaded by the jingoism of the preemptive war promoters. It’s only after the cost in human life and dollars are tallied up that the people object to unwise militarism. The strange thing is that the failure in Iraq is now apparent to a large majority of American people, yet they and Congress are acquiescing to the call for a needless and dangerous confrontation with Iran. But then again, our failure to find Osama bin Laden and destroy his network did not dissuade us from taking on the Iraqis in a war totally unrelated to 9/11.

Concern for pricing oil only in dollars helps explain our willingness to drop everything and teach Saddam Hussein a lesson for his defiance in demanding Euros for oil.

And once again there’s this urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros.

Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.

The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better.

Published in: on August 20, 2011 at 11:30 am  Comments (5)  

Linder on Breivik

Here’s Alex Linder’s take on Anders Breivik from his VNN Forum (source). No ellipsis added between unquoted sentences or quotations from other VNN commenters:

There’s a soft side and a hard side.

The soft side is VNN/F, all White websites, any kind of educational outreach, a potential White HS [home schooling] curriculum (that does not exist and no one shows interest in creating).

The hard side is killing the enemy.

* * *

The people agree with us but are scared of the consequences of being called haters.

Who calls us haters, extremists and the rest of the litany? The communists, socialists, leftists, illiberals, feminists, journalists. But who creates the terms and frames and entire ideo-structure? The jews do. They set the agenda. The determine the framework. They raise the issue and define the contestants. They define what is inside the pale and what is outside.

They cut it so everyone opposed to them is sick ‘n’ evil. There is no middle. You cannot be opposed to their agenda and retain your integrity in their eyes, and more importantly, in their mass media.

How do you fight this? On the hard stuff, you simply kill them off. If their technical prowess is such that they can break up cells by early detection, thanks to their owning the FBI and other spy agencies, then obviously those who would take them out must act alone or with one or two people they’d trust with their lives to keep their mouth shut, since their lives are indeed what’s at stake if they screw up, and very likely even if they don’t screw up.

Once a man is willing to risk it all, a lot can be done from the hard side. That’s what Breivik’s act demonstrates. It’s not part of a larger plan, obviously, for the reasons I just stated—the enemy is able to prevent enemy networks from being established, as far as we can tell, judging by what we’ve seen since WWII. So his act was propaganda of the deed. Ably executed, and with an ideological backdrop and context he made sure to circulate, so that all could see his actions as part of a wider strategy, waiting for others to pitch in and push along.

Rounder correctly said that the jews are all in while the goyim who serve them are mostly opportunists. That means, as he said, and I’ve observed the same myself, the goyim are more lightly guarded. Jews have been racial criminals, shifty-eyed parasites, for 2,000+ years. It’s what they know. It’s what they are. They don’t have another way to be. All their eggs are in one basket, and as Twain advised, they are guarding that basket. They don’t have any plan B fallback option. They expect to be attacked. After all, they know what they’re doing! Jews are some of the most detail-oriented, microscopically-observant, mini-movement obsessed people on earth. They not only know what they are doing to us, and know they obtain racial advantage from their tricks, they positively enjoy degrading our culture and torturing our people. That’s the psychological and political truth: jews obtain a near-sexual joy from torturing our people.

These jews must be exterminated at some point—all European-jew history screams with one voice that any other way of treating the threat they present will not work because it cannot work. Jews can no more change the nature of their race than termites can stop eating wood. Only the catholic christ cult dogma that jews are just men like any other defined only by their non-conversion to the One True Way keeps us from seeing what is obvious.

The point is for any hard-siders, the goyim serve the jews not because they like the jews (no matter what it’s in their interest to claim in public), but because they fear the jews and like the benefits that sucking up to and serving the jews gets them. All that means to those who don’t like the existing order is that if there were anywhere near equal and opposite pressure on these weaklings and sellouts—they would find some pretext to flee quickly to the other side.

Remember always the basic lie of the jews, their fundamental conceit: that they rather than we speak for our community. They can get away with this monstrous imposture because they have suborned too many of our elite; they have created and surrounded themselves with goypuppets; and they control the official voices that most white humans biologically incline to respect and listen to and follow. But if the loudspeakers are taken out of their hands, and a new voice comes over them—the people will follow that which in their hearts they genuinely prefer, and default to white normal with no small relief! And the jews well know this. If they were actually self-deceptive about what they’re doing, they would believe their own bullshit and not worry about “hate” and “extremism.” But they do worry about it, enough to lie about its existence, to turn white normal into hate, and to root out and scream down or set up anyone who dares to resist.

The jews are the ringleaders, but in pure numbers, most of their frontmen and lower-level servants are raceless, self-interested goyim. An example: Rush Limbaugh used to criticize homos. One time a bunch of homos arranged to show up at his late TV show, and when he started going off, they started screaming at him. After that, he basically never criticized homos again. He yielded to a pretty small bit of verbal/economic pressure.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”—John F. Kennedy. Breivik’s actions are a perfect example of what JFK was talking about.

You lying judeo-communists filling our clean, successful, calm Norway with violent stupid third-world rapists and murderers can call us “haters,” “extremists,” and “racists,” and all the other filth terms in your liar’s lexicon all day long—but you are the real haters, the real killers, and the real usurpers. And you are going to get exactly what you deserve. Itz coming.


You said you want critical responses, so here’s mine.

And that’s a big part of my beef with Breivik and other similar stunts. There’s nothing to run to. It’s not scary if it’s a one-off. Anybody can be gotten to. That’s not news.

It most certainly is news. When was that last time anyone did in literally dozens of White enemies in two fell swoops—expertly planned, competently carried out? I’ve never seen it in my lifetime—and if you’re going to mistakenly refer to Oklahoma City, please remember that was a government sting operation, produced by our enemy, not by our guys. McVeigh didn’t actuate the plan, and McVeigh was never, at any point in his life, a racialist. All ZOG lies. Remember Solzhenitsyn’s quote:

To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die. There is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time, and betrayal. —Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Breivik sacrificed his future to save his nation. He acted heroically. He had other choices, but chose the most difficult of them. He showed what is possible, not just technically but spiritually. He showed that despite everything we’ve learned from jewish sitcoms and public schools that sex, money and material goods are not what life is all about—at least not to some people. Because Breivik had it all—looks, money, youth, a shining future. Yet none of that mattered to him as much as the spiritual need to defend his own people. That is manly. That is heroic. That is Western. That is white.

“Nothing new here.” In a sense you’re right. Something very old here. Not everyone thinks “it’s all good” and abandons his waking interstice to sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll.

It doesn’t have to be the entire populace—maybe 5%, maybe 10%—some threshold. Within that percentage, you are recognized as legitimate, despite the shit hurled against you by your opponent. You can’t win hearts and minds by first blowing people away—even people who deserve it. You haven’t at that point established any accepted opposition.

You’re talking about Mao’s guerrilla war tactics. It makes no sense to judge Breivik by that standard because he wasn’t part of a cell, to all appearances, no matter what he said.

I would separate the discussion into two parts: 1) what was Breivik’s intent, and what did he achieve, by that measure? 2) how would hypothetical “hardists” be wise to act if they want to rid the West of the judeo-communist elite murdering our nations?

First you establish your core. It’s unassailable. Then, perhaps, one could use political violence—to establish among the fence sitters that you do in fact mean business. But you can’t do that until you can’t be quashed, until your core is large enough to withstand the blowback. Surviving that, you expand the core with the influx of fence-sitters who are now believers. It’s a feedback loop to your favor.

Sure… but this is obvious, and you’re discussing it at a level that’s too abstract to be useful.

“Establish your core.” Yeah, ok. What does that mean? Not in theory, but in actuality. How are you going to do that in an age in which virtually all communications are collected and analyzed; and seemingly most actual physical movements are videotaped?

Forming a physical core seems a rather difficult thing to do, if there is any outward sign this core is bent on physical fighting (or really, anything more than virtual whining). We know the history of the White movement in the 20th century. It’s nothing but a history of being set up and infiltrated and destroyed. Do you know how to change this? Do you have the technical solution, or the organizational solution?

And Breivik’s target… How was that helpful?

That’s been answered. Apparently you don’t agree with the answer, but if you have a better one, you haven’t stated it.

Norway is a country of 5 million. It is run by socialists bent on doing in the Nordic nature of the country and turning into another third-world shithole. A good portion of the rising generation of leaders of its main party has been taken out in a single calendar day. “How is that helpful?” I should think the answer is pretty obvious.

Imagine the electorate. Cow-like. Obtuse. That’s who votes. That’s who you’re winning over.

Ok, so you’re driving off the usual “we have to appeal to people, we have to win them over.” But that is wrong. The way to look at it is what I said in my post above: assume the people are with us, based on the fact that, well, they are. The reason they don’t follow us or vote for us is because they quite rationally fear the consequences of loss of status and livelihood. What will get rid of that fear? Eliminating the people who are causing it: the corrupt elite who will not allow their political monopoly on power to be voted out of office.

That’s the whole argument, which you’re simply avoiding, defaulting to the typical WN [white nationalist] conservative view: that we’re just another electoral option, who must gamely persevere in a rigged game until we finally somehow win at 3-card monte. Breivik ain’t playing the rigged game. He’s not playing democratic politics, he’s playing the same game the totalitarians-pretending-to-be-democrats are: he’s playing ultimate politics. There are no rules. The battle goes to the winner, and no one asks how victory was achieved. And all that is life itself, which all operates on that principle, no matter what the religious fool, to be redundant, asserts out of his ignorant cowardice about god and morals.

How can “we” win if we’re called haters, thrown in jail for making arguments, and denied access to the main media on the same basis as the people occupying the government? There is no way. We cannot win. Breivik shows there’s a way that, potentially at least, we can win. Not one of those dead judeo-socialist nits will ever admit a Somali into Oslo; lead a campaign to normalize sexual perversion in Trondheim public schools; order the bailiff to seize the children from the parents who have taught it that Norway belongs to light-eyed, flaxen-haired Scandinavians. That is victory. However small, it is victory.

Humans are a profoundly imitative species. Breivik knows that. It’s why he did what he did. One reason anyway.

The facade of the System oppressing Whites is democratic. Deliberately is created the illusion that things-as-they-are be the result of neutral machinery, rather than a nasty dark tyranny inside a big-grinnin’ Richard Nixon bankrobbing mask. But when you try to get a little o’ that tasty democratic process (laws, courts, established procedures, mass media access) for your own White self to create fundamental change in favor of your people, the gigantic majority… why, you find that the works are jammed, and your call isn’t put through. No matter how many times you redial.

Breivik called the System’s bluff. He played not the game the oppressed are supposed to play, but the game the actual rulers of the country are playing: “Just win, baby!” as NFL jew Davis once put it. The System does not like that. It damages its facade, it shows it’s not invincible, it puts ideas in the heads of onlookers who just maybe are tired of getting mugged and harassed by the mud monsters the leftists keep bringing into the city centers. All bad for the jewish-left trying to nation-wreck Norway.

Now you go out and blow away a bunch of sitting ducks on an island.

What connection does Bjorg dipshit, out on his fjord, make of that? Nothing positive. “But they were the new cadre of destroyers!” Yes they were. “They deserved it!” Can’t argue with you.

But the vast majority of the white public does not and will never understand that. It’s intangible. It’s too intellectual. The crowd doesn’t get that, and never will.

The crowd understands exactly what it needs to: the reason Breivik did what he did. The fact that he killed a lot of enemy.

This, as the economists say, exerts downward pressure on the number of jusos (young socialists) who might want to be part of next summer’s fun-in-the-sun commie indoctrination camp, and it exerts upward pressure on any enheartened by the idea that, hey, maybe I could kill a few punk-ass hate-communists too!

If it were put to a vote whether Norway should open its borders to Africa and the rest of the Third World, would the majority vote to do that, or to retain Norway’s boundaries and character? The majority would vote for the latter. So the argument breaks Breivik’s way. The majority is made up of people who have to step lightly in their biggest cities; who have daughters and sisters and friends who have been robbed, raped and harassed by the monkeys the socialists let in. They are intelligent enough to grasp what Breivik meant by his act, whether they agree with it or not. That’s all that matters. Of course one act won’t win the population over into active resistance, no more than the first pickaxe blow splits the boulder. But it does make the public opens its eyes, look around, sniff the wind, wonder just what might be going on here. Put the first little shiver of doubt in the ruling party, and make the herd nervous that maybe, just maybe, there’s going to be a battle for authority.

Now, sink a ship of dusky invaders crossing the Skagerrak, and simultaneously blow away the immigration ministry where these “liberal” kids are working—even Bjorg can figure that out, and almost certainly applaud.

Except the whole problem is how passive whites have become, especially in the Nordic countries. If Breivik killed a bunch of niggers or muslims, they would fight back with great vengeance, which would be blamed on him. Instead he went after the whiteskin leaders of the passives—and all they will ever do is hold a candlelight vigil. Which they already have. Yeah, they’ll make noise about taking away butter knives and requiring a journalist license to use nouns and adjectives outside the Official Vocabulary List, but that means nothing. Norway already has no freedoms worth mentioning. Multiply zero as many times as you want, and the result is the same.

The most important right of all is the one that no man can rescind: the right to fight back against your enemy.

The hard part is building the core. You can’t begin to think of anything serious on the macro scale before you’ve accomplished this. You must win hearts and minds. There’s no equation (that I’m aware of). Maybe there will be after we’re through. It’s chaotic.

You’re confusing two different things. The need to have a base for a guerrilla war, per Mao’s doctrine, and the need for WN to spread their message. We can’t win hearts and minds in the mass way you’re talking about without control of tv, and that is the same thing as saying we’ve won the revolution. It simply doesn’t have anything to do with violence; they’re two separate considerations. We have to assume people are with us, which is biologically true, as we represent white normality, and work to reduce the fear that prevents them from associating and working with us politically. Striking physical blows at the enemy reduces their fear of ZOG, since they see right before their eyes ZOG elitists being blown away.

You think some Norwegian journalists and bureaucrats aren’t going to think twice after this event? Or after it happens a few more times? Of course they will. It’s human nature. If all the blows are struck by one side against the other, then who the heck wants to join the losing side? But if the blows begin to run both ways, why, then it becomes a much more interesting question. Joining with the pro-Norway forces, if they prove they’re serious, as Breivik has, begins to become a serious option in the eyes of the people. Who of course fall into the usual bell curve of cowardice/bravery. Bravery not only attracts the brave, it emboldens the less brave. It shifts the bravery curve to the right—it increases the amount of bravery, just as men literally generate more testosterone when they triumph at something. That’s how men are.

Our side is so bitchy and whiny because all we do is take take take blows and never deliver them, except in our cutesy little typings. Well, this guy, altho not technically one of us, did deliver a blow. ZOG/Norway has indeed been hurt by Breivik’s action.

Stuff like a homeschool curriculum feeds into this. Not sexy. But part of it. Winning hearts and minds. Winning women. Winning children.

Yes—it creates actual community, mental and physical. But it’s entirely a different and smaller order than controlling tv, which is the only real way to effect mass mind change. That means, you’re never going to build up a large enough community to get the support for violence through homeschooling, so it’s not part of that discussion. WHS is just something that should be done for its own sake, as part of the soft agenda. The average white is with us in the sense I’ve said many times. That is a political fact. But that “with us” doesn’t mean anything until we’re in position to leverage it, which means we have a political force that speaks for it cogently (offers it defense, racial aid, and a plausible new system to counter/replace ZOG’s). WHS is for growing a hard seedcore of people who aren’t just white but White—white not just racially but White politically, socially, consciously, organically and life-contextually. The parallel would be to conservative christians building HS networks and setting up HS colleges and law schools—they’ve created a full, if small, parallel culture to the ZOG mainstream culture, even if they’ve yielded (or never had opposed) the ZOG ideology on the central points (equalitarianism, loosely).

The first 5%: It’s a meat grinder. It isn’t pretty. For the vast majority who lead in this period, who play a role that will have been pivotal later on, there will be no glory, no accolades. That’s just the way it is.

So I really don’t want to read about Breivik being a hero or a genius. He isn’t. Smart guy? Generally… apparently. He gets a big mark for having balls, that I grant.

But so what? What base has he built? Don’t give me any brain-dead “starting a fire” crap. He wouldn’t have had occasion to recognize (to his immense credit) the imminent danger posed to Norway by non-white immigration if his society were amenable to righting itself by the act he committed.

You’re conflating two different things. There is a hell of a lot more than 5% of Norway that doesn’t want muds let in to ruin the country.

You’re saying that Norway can’t begin to physically resist until 10% are hard-core, ideologically solid, professionally and personally networked racial nationalists. My counter to that is you’re forgetting the size of the country, and the demographics. There’s 5m people, and about 500k mud invaders, and more coming daily. There isn’t enough time to do what you describe. The muds will overwhelm before any ideologically solid base can be built.

Rather, resistance must base on never having control of mass media, but being on the side of the Norwegian majority, which does not want Oslo turned into Lagos. Based on that unchanging passive support, others following Breivik must through their deeds and organization convert passive feelings into positive action. Taking out a bunch of the vile and murderous and nation-wrecking enemy seems to me a pretty darn good way to do that.

After all, as the Italians say, “eating makes appetite.”

Trainspotter comment

His latest comment at Majority Rights


Apologies for the length, but I got carried away.

Leon Haller: “The problem of white survival is rapidly passing from a philosophical to a military one.”

Well put. Indeed, it is already a military problem, in the sense that it is impossible to imagine our current system and form of government taking the steps necessary to cleanse our lands. As a practical matter, things have progressed well beyond that. I believe that Powell understood as much back then, that if things weren’t nipped in the bud very quickly, it would be too late. Too late, that is, for a peaceful electoral solution. Not too late for other approaches.

While not advocating anything, if we could skip into direct cleansing of our lands (the “military” solution), that would have obvious benefits. But without the necessary philosophical foundation, it’s simply not going to happen. There has to be a significant segment (it won’t require a majority, or even close) of the white population that becomes convinced that force is both moral and necessary in order to restore their ancestral homelands. Right now, we aren’t there yet. We don’t even have a proper sense of ourselves, of what we are, much less a firm conviction that it is proper to use force in order to secure our existence. Until that changes, our fortunes will not improve, at least not outwardly.

In fact, the anti-white philosophical revolution is still making progress in some areas, though atrophying in others. For example, the highest-ranking military officers are now incredibly politically correct, often shockingly so. (I don’t mention that to imply that the “military” solution must necessarily come from a formal, currently constituted military force). I doubt they are even faking it anymore. Our enemies have long feared a rogue military, and this fear has been evident for generations—see Dr. Strangelove as discussed by Yggdrasil. They have acted upon their fears and turned the military into pathetic, docile and subservient dogs. Goodbye old paint, and tradition and honor while you’re at it.

Point is that the philosophical foundational work cannot be skipped. There is no way around it. I’d love to be proven wrong on that, but I won’t be. Our enemies worked on spreading their ideas in the first half of the twentieth century, and by the latter half they had altered the worldview of a significant portion of the white population. They then were able to reap the benefits. Of course, we have to do our job with far fewer resources, and we will not be allowed to march through the institutions. But we have emerging technologies to work with, a cause that is just, and a little thing called truth on our side. In any event, we’re not gods capable of producing manna from heaven, so we must work with what is available.

As an example that I’ve written about quite a bit, I’ve personally observed the spread of libertarian ideas in our society, and while not nearly as suppressed as white nationalism, they accomplished much of it online or using other means that are available to us. There was no massive march through the institutions, etc., so there is more than one way to skin a cat. Point is that ideas can in fact spread with fairly minimal money and institutional support. You need some, but not as much as most would think.

I think one problem with white nationalists is that they have never really experienced the successful spreading of an idea with only limited means. As a former libertarian, I have experienced this. I understand how it is done, and as esoteric as some of our conversations are, I’m telling you that we’re doing it right here, right now. The usual suspects can snicker all they like, but this is one way that it works—and it does work.

As to White Zion, I’m interested in learning more. Once you guys get a site up, I’ll check it out. It’s good to have out of the box thinking, and on a related note I must admit that I’ve become more sympathetic to the Northwest idea as time has gone on (I realize your WZ concept is very different). But at the end of the day, unless whites regain a worldview in which they are willing to fight for their survival, I don’t expect much to come of anything.

Yet I have optimism on this point: I believe regaining a sense of ourselves is in fact going to happen. In fact, I believe it to be happening as we speak, though like other ideas that do not meet system approval, much of the progress is unseen, and will only manifest itself later—and then very quickly (the Ron Paul phenom was the result of decades of foundational work, in which most libertarians were viewed as weirdos, something from Mars, or a Larouchie). White nationalism is in fact coming along, though this won’t be obvious for some time. I’ve said it again and again: the ideas are progressing, and other than obvious system suppression, the biggest thing holding us back is the tolerance of kooks and liars—but even they can only slow, not stop the progress.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that a peaceful solution, within the bounds of the present system rules, is now impossible. But then again, it has been so for decades, it’s just that most of us hadn’t realized it yet (enemy ideas snuck up on us too, spreading over the course of decades, but with their full evil only apparent fairly recently, except to the far sighted few).

So, in a sense, the Rubicon has already been crossed. On one level at least, does it really matter whether the non-white percentage in one of our lands is ten percent, as opposed to twenty or thirty? Well before they reached ten percent, it became damn near impossible for our present system to eject them peacefully. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t try to stem the incoming tide as much as we can. We should, and it may be possible to do that to a limited extent with the present system and mainstream parties. But at the end of the day, it will still take force to remove the alien colonizers. Slowing the tide only gives us some extra breathing space (and not much of that), it does not solve the fundamental problem.

The tragedy of it all is that the longer it takes for the conflict to come to a head in the form of a civil war in Europe (or elsewhere), the greater the suffering and loss of life will be—on both sides. The faster our ideas spread, on the other hand, the less costly the ultimate conflict.

The conflict could take many forms, but I now believe it to be inevitable. At the risk of sounding overly dramatic, it is out of this crucible that a new world will be born, assuming that we win, and I firmly believe that we will.

For now it is the battle of the mind, not the sword. For everything a season.

Published in: on August 14, 2011 at 8:11 pm  Comments (4)  

Weimar US

A few entries ago I embedded a video by Peter Schiff but today, which is my birthday, I indulged myself in watching lots of YouTube videos on the coming financial Armageddon:

The US dollar will be like wall paper

The day the dollar died

Schiff explains magnificently the dollar collapse

Even for those prepared this is the scenario after the collapse

Of the white nationalist intellectuals of today, none has influenced me more than the editing tastes of Greg Johnson, who recently said in a Tom Sunic radio interview that the metapolitical work should have started fifty years ago.

Alas, if Schiff and several other economists are right, it looks like the US will enter the convergence of catastrophes predicted by Guillaume Faye —financial, ethnic, nationalist and a civil wars— sooner than expected, which means that there will be no time for metapolitical structures as planned by Johnson and others.

I have no friends in the Third World country where I am living for the moment. And at my relatively advanced age of 53 I even allowed myself the luxury of rejecting a recent marriage proposal because the lady… is not sufficiently white. Furthermore, since those whom I am biologically related to have betrayed me and my ideals I’ll soon say good-bye to them forever.

But this is a day to celebrate my birthday in the gloomy solitude of my bedroom.


P.S. A little piece of advice:

Become self sufficient

Get a gun

Grow food

Get survival gear

Get out the cities

Get gold and silver now

Published in: on August 12, 2011 at 5:59 pm  Comments (7)  

The UK race riots

(A most embarrasing scene in the recent London riots…)

“In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”
—Enoch Powell, Rivers of Blood speech.

Enoch Powell was right. But the System killed the messenger. The Labour government with its insane immigration policies is guilty of a colossal crime against its own people. In the most recent thread about the UK race riots at The Occidental Observer:

Mark said…

@ “The events we see in the UK and in Wisconsin will continue until White men defy the laws of the land and start conducting guerrilla warfare against our enemies. No amount of blogging or book review writing is going to change a thing.”

Jon Wood said…

Mark: Thank God! Someone finally said it!

The reason we are all stuck in this blog to intellectualise about this crisis, is because that is what we have allowed ourselves to be reduced to. We are allowed to ‘talk’, but even then, blogs such as this are compelled by law to impose limits on what people can say. In particular there is a widespread prohibition in most Western countries against any statement which could be construed as inciting hatred against a particular race, ethnic group or ‘people’, unless it’s about whites.

So, we are really stuffed unless people can break free of what is clearly a determination to prevent white people from forming a ‘meeting of minds’ with the purpose of getting our act together.

On the issue of the media coverage of the UK race riots (yes, that’s what they are!), it has been quiet amazing to watch the lunatic left internationalists going into verbal overdrive on every media outlet. It’s almost funny, if it were not so serious, to watch these morons prattle on with one social theory after the other. And, and, and! Not once has the racial element been acknowledged.

The racial element to these riots is right at the core of the issue, and everyone knows about it, but no one in the media will speak its name.

I said…

Mark and Jon: you just nailed it. Time to order The Brigade from Amazon and start to think seriously…

Published in: on August 10, 2011 at 12:40 pm  Comments (7)  

The best of us or a master of taqiya?

Fjordman’s dad:
the source of Fjordie’s genes
and loyalties…

I like boasting in the internet about my psychological profiles of some bloggers. But in the case of Fjordman, who has been recently outed as Peder Jensen, it seems that I failed miserably.

According to several sites that have reproduced the physiognomy of Fjordman’s father, who looks like an Ashkenazi Jew, it now seems that Fjordman deceived all of us by making us believe that he was of pure Scandinavian ancestry. If Fjordman’s Jewishness is corroborated in the future, “Hyperborean Talmudist” would have been a more appropriate penname than the one that the Norwegian Peder Jensen chose since he began his blogging career in 2005. A blogger commented:

You would expect a name like Fjordman to be used by a true Viking. I have noticed on French internet political forums that commenters who pose as Frenchmen while defending the Tel Aviv point of view usually go under historical names such as Clovis, Charlemagne, Viking, Gaulois, Vercingetorix… At least, Fjordman is a Norwegian citizen. It would have been funny to find out that he actually lived in Tel Aviv.

Jews have been the main competitors of Whites in the last couple of centuries, which explains why they have had a history of crypsis or passing as gentiles: for example, by changing their first and last names, while in fact they maintain their Jewish identity and loyalty toward their tribe, even the most secularized Jews.

What would happen if a more mainstream source confirms that Peder Jensen is indeed Jewish on his father’s side (I am not talking of being considered Jew by his local synagogue but of his ultimate loyalty)? I believe that Fjordman/Jensen would pass to history as a master of taqiya who bamboozled even his closest friends in the counter-jihad movement.

A few days ago Ned May, better known for his penname of “Baron Bodissey,” wrote a eulogy to Fjordman of which I will quote a couple of sentences:

Fjordman began posting essays at Gates of Vienna in the spring of 2006. I first met him in person about a year later during my trip to Copenhagen. We have encountered each other again over the years during some of my visits to Europe. In the process we became good friends, and remained in correspondence until he made his momentous decision the other day to visit the police…

For the record: Fjordman is the best of us [bold in the original]. He is not just a brilliant scholar and a fine writer, but also the most decent, gentle, and humane person I have ever met. He is a man of utmost integrity, and it shines through in his dealings with others as well as in the millions of words he has written.

A man of utmost integrity? Really? Fjordman announced that, because he wanted to stonewall all discussion on the Jewish Question with people like me at the Baron’s Gates of Vienna, he asked the Baron to close comments on every future essay authored by Fjordie. In the thread of that bizarre announcement the “Baron” commented:

Some of them have even floated the theory that Fjordman himself is a Jew… The Jew-obsessed White Nationalists believe Fjordman is at best a crypto-Jew… Now do you see how absurd your [Cumpa—a commenter who disliked the closing of the comments] preoccupation is, given the above circumstances?

Of course: nationalists are no more “obsessed” with Jews than counter-jihadists are “obsessed” with Muslims. The grim fact is that both, Muslims and Jews, are undermining Western civilization from within. However, the Baron’s words can only mean that, despite his close friendship with Fjordman, Fjordie concealed a vital piece of biographical info from him: his Jewishness!

Vital, because as those who have read The Culture of Critique appreciate, the Jewish intellectual movements that have hurt Western interests have had the nasty little habit of using a gentile face as the perfect PR for an unsuspecting public. Hadn’t the “Baron” Ned May or even myself been so trusting with the Jews we would have paid attention to warnings such as this one last year:

I conclude that Fjordman may not himself be a Norwegian as he claims but rather just another crypto-Jew hiding under a pseudonym that belies his true identity.

Again, we need independent confirmation besides his dad’s pic. But for the moment it is worth citing what other nationalists are starting to write after Fjordman was outed as Peder Jensen. In Raider of Arks, a recently opened blog, Svigor wrote (TBFKA = “the blogger formerly known as”):

This is why I don’t trust people like Jensen, the blogger formerly known as Fjordman… Because they turn out to be f[ucking] liars (if memory serves, TBFKA Fjordman either denied Ashkenazi ancestry, or avoided the question), or cowards, or both… I don’t usually go in for accusing guys like TBFKA Fjordman of being Ashkenazis, for various reasons, but in this case the J’Accuse folks seem to have been right. They’ll definitely be making hay out of this one for years to come.

Contrast Svigor’s J’Accuse with the Baron’s eulogy of Fjordman as “the most decent, gentle, and humane person I have ever met.” In the Raider of Arks thread I commented:

In the past I had banged my head trying to figure out why on earth wasn’t Fjordman willing to advance even a single argument defending his philo-Semitism when challenged. It made no sense!

In various blogs Fjordie never, ever entered the arena on the Jewish Question (JQ). He simply dismissed the subject. Or, like Larry Auster, he merely casted aspersions and attempted to silence those who dared to bring up any aspect of the JQ. In Raider of Arks Svigor replied:

That’s what I was getting at about how to suss them out.

Why is it so important to suss non-gentiles out? Fjordman for one has authored dozens of influential in-depth essays where he ignores the JQ en bloc—an inexplicable phenomenon when we were under the assumption that he was a true Viking. At the same time Fjordman has claimed that “the ‘Jewish threat’ in the 1930s was entirely fictional, whereas the ‘Islamic threat’ now is very real” (“Swedish Welfare State Collapses as Immigrants Wage War,” Brussels Journal, 28 March 2006, reprinted in Fjordie’s book Defeating Eurabia).

Of course, exactly the reverse is true: Jews have caused infinitely more havoc to the West than Muslims in contemporary times, as any knowledgeable person of the JQ knows (see e.g. my collection of blog entries here and here).

This can only mean that the counter-jihadists at Gates of Vienna (GoV) have distorted their minds to see the colors of life as a photographic negative. For instance, a Swedish GoVer friend of Fjordman—another half-Jew?—has labeled nationalists who, in good faith, want to discuss the JQ at GoV as “defecating dogs” (cf. here) when exactly the reverse is true. In the aftermath of the outing of Fjordman, Scott said:

Attacking multiculturalism without attacking Jewish power is like attacking shit on the floor while ignoring the incontinent dog.

Scott has thus revealed into a positive the GoVer’s photographic negative. Attacking Jewish power is necessary because we cannot ignore the role of several Jewish associations in the opening of the gates for massive, non-Aryan immigration into Western countries, especially the United States—precisely what I said at GoV that infuriated Fjordman to the point of requesting the closing of all comments in his future essays.

Half-Jew Takuan Seiyo had done exactly the same thing with his essays at the Brussels Journal: closing his threads when challanged about the JQ.

What should gentiles do with such Jewish arrogance in the counter-jihad movement? Lindsay Wheeler nailed it at Age of Treason:

Baron Bodissey with his blind obsession with things Israel is just a deceived old fool. Steve Sailor is a man without courage. Truth requires Manliness. And the Roman Catholic Church has the “Fear of the Jews.” Without the suppression of the Jews, there is going to be no redress. Jews are hopelessly and intrinsically infected with Messianism. It can’t be helped… I want all to note all these Jews, Lawrence Auster, David Horowitz, Fjordman, et al, are all fomenting “anti-Jihad,” talking about being anti-Muslim. Aren’t Muslims a Semitic people? If there is consistency, wouldn’t Europeans be against all Semites? Why allow one group to reign and run all over free and restrict another? Does that make sense? If one is to be anti-Muslim, one must also be anti-Juden.

The Jews have to be suppressed if we are going to save our culture. Being anti-Jihad (whatever that means), but defending and upholding the freedom of the Jews, is hypocritical. We are being played. We are supposed to act like attack dogs by our Jewish handlers. Fjordman has been outed as one. We have hundreds more.

But the sad truth is that gentile counter-jihadists like the “Baron” Ned May, Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders will continue to adore their beloved Fjordie.

Published in: on August 9, 2011 at 1:05 am  Comments (4)  

“The only way to be heard” according to Breivik

The full quotation from Breivik’s manifesto reads:

“Unfortunately, spectacular actions like these are the only way to be heard.”

Breivik’s action can be understood in a nutshell, as he himself quotes JFK: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”, as shown in this video by David Wood:

Breivik’s manifesto, page 792:

An increasing number of Europeans are opening their eyes to the reality that the democratic struggle through dialogue has been lost.

Page 826:

It is counterproductive, even lethal to waste another five decades on meaningless dialogue while we are continuously losing our demographical advantage.

Still another quote:

Around year 2000 I realised that the democratic struggle against the Islamisation of Europe, European multiculturalism was lost. It had gone too far. It is simply not possible to compete democratically with regimes who import millions of voters.

I may not pull the trigger on unarmed teenagers to make a point, but these are not the words of a mentally unbalanced man.

Published in: on August 7, 2011 at 2:57 pm  Comments (2)