What ‘The Turner Diaries’ is all about

by William Pierce

It is important for us to understand that one person is not a Methodist and another a Catholic and a third a Marxist as the result of any rational process—at least, not in the vast majority of cases, although there are individual exceptions.

That is, one is not a Methodist because one sat down and studied the Methodist doctrine, compared it with other doctrines, and decided that Methodism was what made the most sense. One is a Methodist, generally, because one’s parents and neighbors were—that is, out of an entirely unreasoning desire to conform, to believe what one perceives that one is expected to believe. John Wesley undoubtedly was an exception to this rule, but very few other Methodists have been.

There has been strong resistance to accepting the implications of this important facet of human behavior. People seem to want to believe that we are all quite rational, when most of us aren’t. For our purposes, the implication of the fact that most people are governed far more by herd instinct than by reason is this: Insofar as the general public is concerned, truth cannot fight its own battles. As long as Norman Lear, the Jewish television producer, has more kilowatts for reaching the public than we do, it will be his view of history and, more important, his view of what is moral rather than ours which will be generally accepted and which will govern the political process.

This means that we can realistically expect our educational efforts to be effective with only a rather small minority of our fellow citizens. We cannot expect to make a partisan for our cause out of the average man or woman who perceives, even unconsciously, that our cause is not popular, no matter how many books or leaflets we may coax that person into reading. We win only two types of people: One is the person who is already alienated to a certain extent from Mr. Lear’s world and does not fully feel himself a part of the herd to which Mr. Lear is preaching with his cleverly designed television sermons. Unfortunately, in many cases people are alienated for reasons which are entirely or partly wrong from our point of view. That is why protest movements and revolutionary movements always pick up lots of defective people. On the other hand, alienation is certain to remain a growth industry, as they say, and one can hope to see many more essentially healthy people becoming alienated from the mainstream in the years ahead.

The second type of person we are able to win with an educational effort at this time is the person who is one of those rare exceptions to the general rule, a person who is strongly motivated by ideas as well as by instinct, and who has already been groping in our direction. Our effect with such a person is primarily to help him clarify his ideas and to lead him more rapidly to their logical conclusions.

This contrast between idealistic motivation and herd instinct tell us only part of the story as to why people behave the way they do. The rest of the story takes us into the realm of values. Consider your average man or woman, your ordinary White American: what, other than herd instinct, determines his behavior—in particular, the way he votes?

Well, he generally likes to be warm, dry, and comfortable. He likes to eat. He likes sex. He likes to feel secure. He likes to be entertained. He likes to own shiny things, such as automobiles, boats, houses, new golf clubs, and jewelry. And that’s about it. If these desires of his are gratified, then he is satisfied. If he thinks a politician will satisfy him, he’ll vote for the man.

Now, if this average citizen hears that Blacks are rioting and killing Whites somewhere 1,000 miles away he will be annoyed—if Norman Lear hasn’t already affected his mind too much and he still has healthy instincts. When he hears that hundreds of thousands of non-White aliens are pouring into the country, again he’ll be annoyed. All these things are, to a greater or lesser extent, perceived as threats at the instinctual level. They trigger his normal territorial or xenophobic reflexes. But unless the threat becomes very direct and very personal—unless the riot is in his neighborhood, unless a member of his immediate family marries a non-White, or unless he receives a special tax bill in the mail to provide welfare payment for more immigrants—the annoyance remains minor. It does not override his desire to be satisfied.

When it comes time to vote, if one candidate is in favor of forced busing or more boat people and a second candidate is against these things—and if all other factors are equal—then he’ll vote for the second man. But all the other factors are never equal. And if the pro-busing man has a nice smile and a warm personality that makes the voter feel more secure, while the anti-busing man wants to raise the charge for fishing licenses, say, and the voter likes to fish, then he’ll vote for the pro-busing candidate nine times out of ten.

That is why a state like Minnesota, which has one of the racially healthiest populations in the country, could keep sending a piece of filth like the late Hubert Humphrey back to the U.S. Senate term after term. Old Hubert could stand up in the Senate and support forced busing, forced housing, forced hiring, and everything else that most Minnesotans didn’t favor—except, of course, those Minnesotans already convinced by Norman Lear that they should favor those things—and then Hubert could make up for it all by going for bigger farm price supports than his opponent and by being, as they say in New York, a mensch. And the good folks of Minnesota would re-elect him.

Many people don’t like the view of human behavior I am presenting to you, because it is mechanistic; it reduces man to no more than another animal. And I’ll admit that it is an oversimplified view. But it is nevertheless a fact that man is an animal, and that fact accounts for 99 per cent of his behavior. In particular, it accounts for the way he votes. That’s why democracy is such a catastrophe.

I said the fact that man is an animal explains 99 per cent of his behavior, and anyone who wants to change the world in any way must take that fact into account. But it is the other one per cent of human motivation that I’m more interested in and that the Alliance is more interested in. It’s the other one per cent that explains why Earl Turner, the hero of The Turner Diaries, did the things he did.

Earl Turner was a man whose priorities were different from those of your average American voter. Earl Turner liked to be warm and dry and to have a full belly, just like everyone else. He enjoyed sex. And, presumably, he liked to own shiny things. But when Blacks killed Whites 1,000 miles away, it wasn’t just a minor annoyance to him. He had a larger view of the world and of his race and of his relationship to them. He could abstract what was a minor, personal threat to your average voter, and he could relate that abstraction to his view of the world.

When Earl Turner saw a racially mixed couple on the street, the sight did more than arouse a twinge of xenophobia or offend his sense of beauty. Unlike your average voter, he saw all the implications of that mixed couple. He saw mongrel children and mongrel grandchildren; he saw a race defiled. He saw a threat not just to himself, but to the whole upward course of life; a threat not just to his race, but to what his race could become.

And it was this that was important to Earl Turner: it was this that counted more than being satisfied, more than owning shiny things. And that’s why he didn’t behave like your average voter. His priorities were different.

Actually, there are two concepts here. First, Earl Turner had the capacity for abstraction, for taking an idea out of a specific set of circumstances and putting it into a more general context: for converting an idea into an ideal. That is a capacity which distinguishes our race from Blacks, in general, but it is still a capacity which relatively few Whites have to any significant degree.

And, second, there are values, the choice of which things count most. For most people the things that come first, even if they have the capacity for abstraction, are entirely personal. It is only for a minority within a minority that the long-range things are the ones that count. Only the very few can feel that it is more important that strength and beauty and wisdom prevail and become stronger and more beautiful and wiser with each succeeding generation than it is that any individual—or a million individuals—have full bellies.

In The Turner Diaries the real struggle was not so much one of a revolutionary band against the government as it was of one set of values against another set. Earl Turner and his Organization were the champions of a life-centered set of values, a set of values in which the central reality is not the individual, but all of Life: the Cosmos, in its entire temporal extension. Opposed to them were not only the values of the government and the media and the plutocrats, but also the individual-centered set of values of mass man, of the average voter. And in The Turner Diaries the life-centered values won, and those values then ruled. And the whole world was changed: its government, its racial composition, its art and industry, it life-styles, and all its priorities.

Human nature didn’t change—that is, the mentality and the values of the average White person didn’t change, because those are things which can only be changed over the course of generations, through the evolutionary process. But a different set of values, the values of an elite minority, gained precedence over the values of man. That’s what The Turner Diaries is all about.

And as I said earlier, it’s not a plan or a blueprint. The details—the bombings and assassinations, the nuclear war and its aftermath—are all fiction. But the struggle for dominance between the two sets of values portrayed in the book is not fiction. That’s real. And it is in this regard that Earl Turner’s Organization is the model for the National Alliance.

We are concerned, then, not only with education, with helping people clarify their thoughts and reach the proper conclusions, but also with embodying and institutionalizing a set of fundamental values and a view of the world. We are convinced that, unless our values prevail and rule, unless it is our world view which determines the shape of the future by setting men’s priorities and guiding them in their decisions, then there will be no future—that is, no future worth mentioning, because it will be a retrograde future, and our race will not be a part of it. And, in fact, the only valid reason why our race should survive is that it is the bearer of the values that we are determined shall prevail. For life loses its intrinsic value when its only motive is to increase its quantity, when its only goal is satiety.

The value of every form of life—of every race—of every individual—is not that it is an end in itself but that it is a means to a higher end. The value of a man’s life is not to be found in the degree to which he enjoys himself or in the amount of wealth or power he accumulates—and it especially is not to be found in the so-called good he does by making life more comfortable for others. It is to be found only in the extent to which he helps prepare the way for a higher, a more fully conscious life than his own.

Earl Turner understood that and acted accordingly and we must do the same.

____________

The above material has been excerpted from a portion of Pierce’s address at the Estonian House in New York City. The original title was ‘Whose Values Shall Rule?’ which appeared in the National Alliance Bulletin of June, 1980.

Published in: on October 18, 2019 at 6:15 am  Comments (20)  

Jokers

Joker is a love letter to mass shooters’.

Andrew Anglin

Yesterday I said I would take a few days off but today Greg Johnson once again said the same thing about one of the latest Jokers on his list:

Finally, Balliet’s “solution” to his rage and alienation—killing innocent people—just makes the racial situation worse rather than better. We will surely learn a lot more about his ideas and affiliations in the coming months. But based on what we know now, we can say that his actions certainly resemble those of racially-motivated spree killers like Brenton Tarrant (whom he was obviously imitating), John Earnest, Robert Bowers, Dylann Roof, Anders Behring Breivik, Wade Michael Page, and Frazier Glenn Miller, all of whom are products of what I call “Old Right” thinking.

By the “Old Right,” I mean classical Fascism and National Socialism and their contemporary imitators who believe that White Nationalism can be advanced through such means as one-party politics, terrorism, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide.

The fatal mistake with Johnson’s reasoning is to invent an animal that doesn’t exist, the ‘New Right’: a little movement in his head of clearly neochristian inspiration that will supposedly create the ethnostate without bloodshed.

I have already said it and it is worth iterating it: The correct point of view is not that of neochristians like Johnson, but that of the antichristian William Pierce who tried to dissuade Bob Mathews (as there are not even remotely enough soldiers to start a guerrilla war). But that doesn’t mean that, once Bob committed his premature act, Pierce condemned him (he didn’t).

William Pierce died at the beginning of the century. His legacy is so extraordinarily lucid—a true genius—that I will add my Monday entry, ‘Why the West Will Go Under’, one of his articles, as the Parting Word for the final pages of The Fair Race. Just compare Pierce’s ‘parting word’ with what Johnson writes today!

Also, I will add more pages from Pierce’s Who We Are to the section of that abbreviated book which also appears in The Fair Race. That means that the version that will be ready this month of The Fair Race, with these last two additions, has reached the top of 730 pages. (The Lulu printing press does not print more than 730 pages under a single cover, so I can’t add any more texts once more.)

What I want to convey is that the right message to deter people who want to fight is simple: Wait until the proper societal conditions arise! The real world is not like the movies in which Arthur Fleck (a poor guy destroyed by his mom) ignites a street revolution! Don’t act like Fleck believing that a legion of clowns will follow you, as you saw in Joker! Read instead the PDFs of The West’s Darkest Hour. Seek first how the kingdom’s dollar will crash and all these things will be given to you!

Simply put, the right path for would-be revolutionaries is the one Pierce showed us: Stop! But read The Turner Diaries. The path of the true Aryan is not the path of Johnson and his neochristian readers.

Published in: on October 10, 2019 at 2:41 pm  Comments (8)  

Great personalities defend eugenics, 7

by Evropa Soberana

 
José Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955), Spanish philosopher and writer. Perhaps because he studied in Germany, we can read ideas in the eugenic line from a philosophical point of view.

If Spain wants to resurrect, a formidable appetite of all perfections must take hold of her. The great misfortune of Spanish history has been the lack of egregious minorities and the undisturbed empire of the masses. Therefore, from now on, an imperative should govern the spirits and guide the wills: the selection imperative.

There are no other means of ethnic purification and improvement than that eternal instrument of a will operating selectively. Using it as a chisel, we have to start forging a new type of Spanish man.

Political improvements are not enough: much deeper work is needed to produce the refinement of the race (Invertebrate Spain).

 
Below, Conklin on the cover of Time Magazine, July 3, 1939.

Edwin G. Conklin (1863-1952), biologist, zoologist and American professor, head of the Department of Biology at Princeton University. The quotation below has a lot to contribute in the fight against the pernicious individualism that ravages our time and that underlies, together with self-centeredness, at the bottom of most people who oppose eugenics and strong political and authoritarian regimes.

The freedom of the individual is to society what the freedom of the cell is to the human being. (The Direction of Human Evolution, 1921.)

 
Margaret Sanger (1879-1966), American nurse and precursor of some feminist currents that I don’t find very funny. She is notable for advocating ‘birth control’ and the controversy for opening a clinic in Brooklyn, an area of New York inhabited by Jews, blacks and Italians, with the intention to diminish their birth rates. The police closed the clinic and Sanger was imprisoned for thirty days. She was a friend of Stoddard and also the girlfriend of Havelock Ellis and H. G. Wells, both pro-eugenicists.

Sanger pointed out that one of the reasons for the high birth rate of the worst human elements is that ‘sexual control’ decreases the more it descends on the evolutionary scale, setting the example of Australian aborigines who, according to her, were the lowest human race; a step away from the chimpanzee, and the only reason they didn’t ‘get sexual satisfaction in the streets’ was because of police repression.

Sanger’s problem was that she saw badly the high birth-rate in general and also large families, when precisely what the First World needs is an overflowing birth, while the Third World must reduce their birth rate greatly, with the aim of favouring a constructive colonisation of areas that are now Third World because they are inhabited by inept races.

 
Lothrop Stoddard (1883-1950), political scientist, journalist, historian and American anthropologist. Lothrop was a friend of at least two American presidents, and he had a great influence along with his colleague Madison Grant in laying the foundations of immigration policy and in defining the need for white supremacy. Anti-communist, he wrote key racial books like The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, his most known book; The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under Man, and the pamphlet ‘A Gallery of Jewish Types’.

From a neutral point of view, he testified about a few months stay in the Third Reich in his book Into the Darkness: Nazi Germany Today, in which his admiration is manifest for the German people and the eugenic policies that were carried out in Germany. Until the end, he maintained that the greatest danger to civilisation was neither the ‘reds’ nor the ‘Germans’ but the dark races.

The glitter of civilization has so blinded us to the inner truth of things that we have long believed that, as a civilization progressed, the quality of the human stock concerned in building it progressed too. In other words, we have imagined that we saw an improving race, whereas all we actually saw was a race expressing itself under improving conditions.

A dangerous delusion, this! Especially for us, whose civilization is the most complex the world has ever seen, and whose burden is, therefore, the heaviest ever borne. If past civilizations have crushed men beneath the load, what may happen to our civilization, and ourselves? (The Revolt Against Civilization, chapter I.)

These two phases of race betterment clearly require totally different methods. The multiplication of superiors is a process of race building; the elimination of inferiors is a process of race cleansing. These processes are termed “Positive” and “Negative” eugenics, respectively. (The Revolt Against Civilization, chapter 8, ‘Neo-Aristocracy’.)

Racial impoverishment is the plague of civilization. This insidious disease, with its twin symptoms the extirpation of superior strains and the multiplication of inferiors, has ravaged humanity like a consuming fire, reducing the proudest societies to charred and squalid ruin. (The Revolt Against Civilization, chapter 3, ‘The Nemesis of the Inferior’.)

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s Note: In my hatnote on the first entry of this series, about a few words from the prologue of Evropa Soberana I wrote: ‘These words are key to understanding what I have been calling “the extermination of the Neanderthals”, and I hope that the abridged translation of this long essay, published six years ago in Spanish and that I will be translating this month, sheds light on the subject’.

The same can be said of the above Stoddard quote and the Laughlin quote below. The only difference is that I use more inflammatory language than that of Soberana, Laughlin or Stoddard because I believe that, in the darkest hour of the West, our language must be like fire.

It is almost seventy years since Stoddard passed away and, although his books now seem the work of a Cassandra, in 1950 it did not seem that the white race was heading for sunset.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Harry H. Laughlin (1880-1943) had different priorities for European immigration. He prioritised the Germanic peoples: ‘Teutons’ (North Germans), Anglo-Saxons, Scandinavians and Dutch. At the bottom, the Chinese. Hitler was inspired by his eugenic laws to elaborate on the ‘racial hygiene’ of the Reich.

In his time Laughlin advocated the need to sterilise ten percent of all American society, those considered of lower biological quality. He became president of the Pioneer Fund, a group established in 1937 to finance research projects in matters of race, genetics and eugenics.

The sum of human freedom and human happiness will be greatly promoted, in the long run, by eugenical processes which call for the elimination of degenerate and handicapped strains, from the racial stocks, and the increase of numbers of citizens highly endowed by nature with splendid mental, physical and moral qualities. The state, then, must exercise its undoubted right and duty to control human reproduction along the lines of race betterment, and so doing is fully justified in putting into effect such measures as, in keeping with the Bill of Rights and human principles, will bring about the desired ends. (Eugenical Sterilization in the United States, 1922, p. 339.)

 
Misael Bañuelos (1887-1954), a Spanish doctor, gynaecologist and a Nordicist who drew attention about a certain Asian and African influence in the Iberian Peninsula. He was also a professor in the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Valladolid.

Influenced by eugenicists and American and German Nordicists, as well as the racial authors (Gobineau, De Lapouge, Chamberlain, Grant, Günther, Rosenberg), he thought that the salvation of the West consisted of taking care of the race; that only the nationalist governments were in a position to carry out such a task and that, among them, the Government of Nazi Germany ‘is the only one that has understood, in all its transcendence, the value of blood and the race’. In pre-war Spain, Bañuelos was one of the men who unconditionally admired Hitler.

When linking by marriage, the family must always take into account the value of a new relative belonging to a racial group of superior selection, that s/he may be a beautiful specimen of their race and also well endowed intellectually and morally. That is worth more than thousands of pesetas that families usually grant when it comes to linking by marriage. (Antropología de los Españoles, pages 133-34.)

 

Below, original plates of Darwin and Mendel from Volume 1, Issue 1 of the American Breeders Magazine, 1910.

The American Genetic Association, formerly the American Breeders’ Association, founded in 1903, was active in eugenic research, in the promulgation of certain laws and the regulation of American immigration. This committee was responsible for letting large numbers of individuals of Germanic descent into the country [1]. The Association included, among its ranks, men as prominent as Charles Davenport, David S. Jordan, Alexander Graham Bell, Edward L. Thorndike, Henry H. Goddard, Walter E. Fernald, and the founders of the Immigration Restriction League Robert DeCourcy Ward and Prescott F. Hall.

The time is ripe for a strong public movement to stem the tide of threatened racial degeneracy… America needs to protect herself against indiscriminate immigration, criminal degenerates, and… race suicide. (1910 Committee of Eugenics letter sent to prominent citizens requesting support and militancy. The letter also warned about the ‘destruction of the white race’ if it did not follow a preservation policy.)

__________

[1] Understandably, the American immigration policy was once praised by Adolf Hitler himself, who saw America as a Germanic stronghold, and its measures as the precursors of racial hygiene of the Third Reich.

Published in: on August 13, 2019 at 8:30 pm  Comments Off on Great personalities defend eugenics, 7  

Western Christian Civilisation – terminal stage

Destruction by Thomas Cole ~ 1835-1836

I have said that white nationalism has developed a myopic diagnosis of white decline: the Jewish question. I have also complained that American white nationalists have not published Who We Are by Pierce, and sell it as a bestseller, to expand such myopic diagnosis into a more accurate worldview. He who introduces the history of the white race encounters patterns that cannot be seen in most nationalist websites.

One of the most conspicuous elements of this pattern is the history of Christianity. And I do not mean only the destruction of the classical world by Christian fanatics in the 4th and 5th centuries. I refer to the Zeitgeist born in the West after such destruction.

In today’s world of florid psychosis, it seems that the fashion to empower transgender people has nothing to do with the Christian Zeitgeist. But this is precisely where the nationalist perspective appears to me as myopic. A few months ago I wrote ‘On Empowering Birds Feeding on Corpses’, where I try to explain that the most psychotic aspects of today’s egalitarianism can be traced back to a 14th-century Franciscan movement that wanted to carry the message of Jesus, in all its purity, to medieval Italy.

The Church of Rome was not tolerant with the egalitarian faction that took the gospel to the letter, and ended up chasing the Fraticelli as heretics. (For an entertaining narrative of that historical drama read The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco: a novel as didactic about the 14th century as Julian by Gore Vidal depicts the 4th century.)

Nobody could have predicted in the Middle Ages that the latent Fraticelli ideals were going to have their historical opportunity once the power of the Church was removed. But that was exactly what happened, centuries later, with the French Revolution.

As the readers of this site already know, the egalitarian ideals of the Enlightenment, implemented by force during and after the French Revolution, were inspired precisely by the gospel message. It may seem incredible to say, but even the most anti-clerical Jacobins subscribed the commandments preached by the fictional character called ‘Jesus’, created by the Jewish and Judaizing Hellenic authors of the New Testament. (*)

If we compare what the West is currently suffering with cancer, we can say that the first cancer cells arose since, in the 2nd century, a faction of Judaism, which Julian would call ‘the Galileans’, began to infiltrate the Gentile world in the outer provinces of the Roman Empire. The infection came to power with Constantine and the Roman emperors who followed him, despite Julian’s best efforts in his brief reign.

The noble spirit of the Aryan managed to tame, in the Middle Ages, the most ethno-suicidal aspects of this Levantine cult that was even imposed on the northern barbarians by force. But it was not until the Reformation and Counter-Reformation when they murdered, again, the revived pagan spirit of the Renaissance when the holy book of the Jews began to be taken seriously, especially in the Protestant world.

Nothing could be more suicidal than worshiping the sacred book of the Jews, insofar as both the Old Testament and the Talmud are sworn enemies of the Gentiles, especially the white man because He represents the best of the Gentile world. But worst of all happened when this virus mutated from its religious phase to its secular phase.

The Western world of today is nothing but an ideological heir to the ideals of the Enlightenment. The so-called enlightened philosophers did not greet Reason, to use the language of the time, and much less the French revolutionaries. Those who truly began to greet Reason since the twilight of the Greco-Roman world were the eugenicists that we have been advertising in my most recent translations of Evropa Soberana. Only they broke away from the Christian dogma that ‘All men are equal before the eyes of God’, or the neo-Christian or secular version of the gospel, that ‘All men are equal before the law’.

The crux is that ‘All men are equal before the law’ has mutated, since the 1960s, as All men and women are ontologically equal: the final or end-stage cancer that currently kills the West.

As the Cassandra named Alexis de Tocqueville foresaw, the virus of equality always demands more equality. It is like a meme that multiplies itself to the absurd. And the absurd has come today not only with the demand that we must consider transgender people our equals, but trans children as well. But per Tocqueville’s observation this last metastasis won’t end with trans children! There are already Western countries that have legalised zoophilia and, in some of them, there are proposals to legalise pedophilia and even necrophilia…

Through this final metastasis, this runaway egalitarianism, the West is already sentenced and it will die. There’s no question about it. Or to say it more precisely, Western Christian Civilisation, which is in its terminal stage, will die soon as a conservative Swede predicted.

But the point is that everything had its origin in the radical message of Jesus: a message that seemed sublime to me at sixteen but that, at sixty, I see it as Semitic poison for the white man. As I said in ‘On Empowering Birds Feeding on Corpses’, the season of the horse of Troy of which Pierce wrote, that is to say the complete inversion of Aryan values into Gospel-inspired values, has finally arrived.

____________

(*) Whoever believes that Jesus was not a literary creation, but a man of flesh and blood, would do well to familiarise himself with the work of Richard Carrier.

Advice to would-be revolutionaries

In his last article against white nationalist terrorism, Greg Johnson said: ‘Yes, Crusius did something evil…’ Despite claims to the contrary, self-styled secular Johnson, who used to deliver Christian homilies in a San Francisco church, has never given up Christian ethics:

By the “Old Right,” I mean classical Fascism and National Socialism and their contemporary imitators who believe that White Nationalism can be advanced through such means as one party-politics, terrorism, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide.

This was the way forward for every triumphant movement, including the conquests of Rome, Christianity, Islam, the Iberian conquests in the Americas and communism. What is Johnson suggesting here? That conquest is possible through purely pacifist means?

Today’s Old Right scene is rife with fantasies of race war, lone-wolf attacks on non-whites, and heroic last stands that end in a hail of police bullets. Intelligent and honorable people have emerged from this milieu. But there have been more than a few spree-killers as well. This kind of violence is worse than a crime. It is a mistake. It does nothing to advance our cause and much to set us back.

Inspiring books like the novels of Pierce and Covington are important. But just as Pierce tried to dissuade Bob Mathews, I would try to dissuade would-be revolutionaries of doing something premature. Mathews could have done much more harm to the System if he stayed alive.

(1) We must be alert to the signs of mental instability and inclinations toward violence and rigorously screen out such people, (2) we need to draw clear, unambiguous intellectual lines between New Right and Old Right approaches, and (3) if anyone makes concrete threats of committing such acts in our circles, we need to be the ones to call the police.

Pierce tried to dissuade Matthews but he didn’t call the police. Obviously, the moral standards of Pierce and Johnson are different.

But Johnson has a point. In fact, I would like to add something about my recent post challenging Charles Manson fans to tell me in what way Manson’s actions are good for the 14 words.

The only major commenter who has recently tried to rationalise Manson’s behaviour is Robert Morgan on Unz Review. A visitor to this site, Adunai, has recently tried to discuss with Morgan on that site. Morgan seems to believe that Manson’s motivations were to try to create a racial war in the United States. According to two sources in the Wikipedia article about Manson, this allegation has been questioned. Since Wikipedia is anti-white, if Manson had really been an inveterate racist his racism would have been fully supported by good sources in that article.

Here is my hypothesis as to why intelligent racists like Morgan and others are attracted to such failed figures as Manson: Many of them—as Manson himself—have suffered hell like the one I suffered as a teenager. But precisely because I have written 1,600 pages in three books trying to understand what the hell happened in my life, a painful literary adventure started in 1988 that ended this year, I’m not hanging on spurious heroes. Rather, I try to help white nationalism in a very different way.

I refer to a profound diagnosis of the darkest hour in the West. The monocausal diagnosis accepted in white nationalism is, in my opinion, myopic: the Jews are responsible. I do not deny the JQ. I simply expand it into the CQ: the Judeo-Christian question. That is to say: I still believe that the theoretical basis of, say, a MacDonald on the group survival strategy of Jewry is correct. What I add to MacDonald’s myopic perspective is the meta-perspective that whites are infected with Judeo-Christian axiology. A perfect example of such axiological infection is Johnson’s use of the word ‘evil’ above (MacDonald himself has said that white nationalism is not about conquering, for instance, Mexico).

So, while I agree with Johnson that it is not time to jump into the revolution, I disagree with the Christian and Neochristian mindset that prevails in white nationalism and the alt-right.

My contribution to the movement is basically axiological. As long as they do not revalue their values, the Judeo-Christian system will continue to beat them. Johnson is right that it is not yet time for politics but for metapolitics. What he and the others fail to understand is that they have to throw away all residue of love for the Other if they want to recover the West.

This is my advice to the desperate man who wants to do revolutionary politics today instead of patient metapolitics: read The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour that appears on the sidebar. If you don’t want to buy it, read the articles on this site where all the content of that book appears. As the last line in the Hamlet play says, ‘The rest is silence’.

Morgan vs. Ryckaert

 
Franklin Ryckaert: Racism= harming people of another race because of their race. Race realism = realizing that races are inherently different and avoiding risky situations with people of other races.

Robert Morgan: Or in other words, racists do what ‘race realists’ would do if they had the courage.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: Franklin Ryckaert exemplifies what is wrong with white nationalism and the alt-right.

Per the Old Testament and the Talmud, Jews must exterminate the Gentiles.

Per the New Testament, Gentiles are commanded, instead, to love the Other including Jews and non-whites.

White nationalists and alt-righters don’t obey the Führer. They obey the Jew who wrote the New Testament: prolefeed for us Gentiles.

It is just that simple.

Whites are condemned to become extinct unless they transvalue Ryckaert’s et al values back to pre-Christian mores. But nationalists won’t do it. They’re self-righteously addicted to their (((drug)))…

A new religion for whites, 4

by Kevin Alfred Strom

Today we continue our exploration of an awakening—an awakening that began with Charles Darwin, exploded into life in the ideas of Shaw and Nietzsche, and found its highest expression in the entirely new kind of human society pioneered by Adolf Hitler in National Socialist Germany. It is an awakening that has just begun.

When we left off last week, we were discussing the nature of Judaism and its offshoots, especially Christianity, and their gods—their crude anthropocentrism, their refusal to acknowledge the evolutionary nature of Life and the Universe, their irrationality, and their utter unsuitability as moral guides to help us do what must be done in order to survive—their total inability to lead us ever upward toward the stars.

Today we will learn that even those who believe they have cast off the superstitions of the Abrahamic faiths—“secular humanists,” atheists, Marxists, most libertarians, liberal elitists—are in truth still in bondage to the poisonous ideas that sprang from Judaism. Instead of leading us upward, toward our evolutionary destiny, they wallow in the mire of a nonexistent “human equality” and waste our time, our energy, and our very lives in pursuit of ignoble goals such as making sure that every arguably human wastrel has a full belly and a large-screen television.

Life, my friends—your life—can be much, much different than the shallow mockery of life offered by these blind men and liars.

Our text for this week is by the National Socialist writer and mystic, Savitri Devi, taken from her book Impeachment of Man.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Man-Centered Creeds versus Racial-
Hierarchical Reality (continued)

by Savitri Devi

But when later Jews proclaimed him to be the God of all mankind; when he crept into Christianity as the Heavenly Father of Christ and the First Person of the Holy Trinity; and into Islam as the One God revealed to man through his last and definitive mouthpiece, the Prophet Mohammed; and finally, when he colored the ideology of the humanitarian theists—and even atheists—as the unavoidable remnant of a tradition hard to die, then the conception of him became more and more irrational. There was less and less any reason for his solicitude to stop at mankind. Yet it did stop there. There was, more and more, every reason for him to evolve into a truly universal God of all life. Yet he did not evolve that way. He could not drop the long-cherished propensity of picking out a fraction of his creation and blessing it with a special blessing, to the exclusion of the rest. That fraction of the great Universe had once been the Jewish people. It was now the human race—a trifling improvement, if one ponders over it from an astronomical (that is to say, from what we can imagine to be the only truly divine) angle of vision.

The great creeds of the world west of India remained man-centered, it would seem, because they never could free themselves entirely from the marks of their particular tribal origin among the sons of Abraham. The Jews never were a race that one could accuse of giving animals too great a place in its everyday life and thoughts. Christ, who came “to fulfil” the Jewish law and prophecies (not to introduce into the world a different, more rational, and truly kindlier trend of thought) appears never to have bothered his head about the dumb creatures. We speak, of course, of Christ as the Christian Gospels present him to us. That Christ—we have no means whatsoever of finding out whether a “truer” one ever lived—never performed a miracle, never even intervened in a natural manner, in favor of any beast, as his contemporary, Apollonius of Tyana, not to speak of any more ancient and illustrious Master such as the blessed Buddha, is supposed to have done. He never spoke of God’s love for animals save to assert that He loved human beings a fortiori, much more. He never mentioned nor implied man’s duties towards them, though he did not omit to mention, and to stress, other duties.

If the Gospels are to be taken as they are written, then his dealings with nonhuman sentient creatures consisted, on one occasion, of sending some evil spirits into a herd of swine, that they might no longer torment a man, and, another time, of making his disciples, who were mostly fishermen by profession, as every one knows, catch an incredible quantity of fish in their nets. In both cases his intention was obviously to benefit human beings at the expense of the creatures, swine, or fish. As for plants, it is true that he admired the lilies of the fields; but it is no less true that he cursed a fig tree for not producing figs out of season and caused it to wither, so that his disciples might understand the power of faith and prayer. Fervent English or German Christians, who love animals and trees, may retort that nobody knows exactly all that Jesus actually said, and that the gospels contain the story of only a few of his numberless miracles. That may be. But as there are no records of his life save the Gospels, we have to be content with what is revealed therein. Moreover, Christianity as an historical growth is centered around the person of Christ as the Gospels describe him. And, as Norman Douglas has timely remarked, it remains a fact that the little progress accomplished in recent years in the countries of northwestern Europe and in America, as regards kindness to dumb beasts, was realized in spite of Christianity, and not because of it.

To say, as some do, that every word of the Christian Gospels has an esoteric meaning, and that “swine” and “fishes” and the “barren fig tree” are intended there to designate anything but real live creatures, would hardly make things better. It would still be true that kindness to animals is not spoken of in the teaching of Jesus as it has come down to us, while other virtues, in particular kindness to people, are highly recommended. And the development of historical Christianity would remain, in all its details, what we know it to be…

That people whose outlook is conditioned by biblical tradition should put a great stress upon the special place of man in the scheme of life; that they should insist on man’s sufferings, and on the necessity of man’s happiness, without apparently giving as much as a thought to the other living creatures, one can understand. They follow the Book to which they may or may not add some secondary scriptures based upon it. They cannot be expected to go beyond what is prescribed in it or in those later scriptures.

But there are, in the West, ever since the Middle Ages, increasing numbers of people who dare to do without the Book altogether; who openly reject all divine revelation as unprovable, and who see in their conscience the only source of their moral judgements and their only guide in moral matters. It is remarkable that these people, free from the fetters of any established faith, still retain the outlook of their fathers as regards man’s relation to animals and to living nature in general. Free Thought, while rightly brushing aside all man-centered metaphysics; while replacing the man-centered conceptions of the Universe by a magnificent vision of order and beauty on a cosmic scale—a scientific vision, more inspiring than anything that religious imagination had ever invented, and in which man is but a negligible detail—Free Thought, we say, omitted entirely to do away with the equally outdated man-centered scale of values, inherited from those religions that sprang from Judaism. Sons of Greek rationalism, as regards their intellectual outlook, the Westerners who boast of no longer being Christians—and the few advanced young men of Turkey and Persia, and of the rest of the Near and Middle East, who boast of no longer being orthodox Muslims—remain, as regards their scale of moral values, the sons of a deep-rooted religious tradition which goes back as far as some of the oldest fragments of the Jewish Scriptures: the tradition according to which man, created in God’s own image, is the only living being born for eternity, and has a value altogether out of proportion with that of any other animal species.

There has been, it is true, in the West, in recent years—nay, there is, for nothing which is in harmony with the Laws of Life can ever be completely suppressed—a non-Christian (one should even say an anti-Christian) and definitely more than political school of thought which courageously denounced this age-old yet erroneous tradition, and set up a different scale of values and different standards of behaviour. [Here Savitri Devi is referring to National Socialism.—Editor] It accepted the principle of the rights of animals, and set a beautiful dog above a degenerate man. It replaced the false ideal of “human brotherhood,” by the true one of a naturally hierarchised mankind harmoniously integrated into the naturally hierarchised Realm of life, and, as a logical corollary of this, it boldly preached the return to the mystic of genuine nationalism rooted in healthy race-consciousness, and the resurrection of the old national gods of fertility and of battle (or the exaltation of their philosophical equivalents) which many a Greek “thinker” and some of the Jewish prophets themselves had already discarded—politely speaking: “transcended”—in decadent Antiquity. And its racialist values, solidly founded upon the rock of divine reality, and intelligently defended as they were, in comparison with the traditional man-centered ones inherited, in Europe, from Christianity, are, and cannot but remain, whatever may be the material fate of their great Exponent [Adolf Hitler—Ed.] and of the regime he created, the only unassailable values of the contemporary and future world. But it is, for the time being, a “crime” to mention them, let alone to uphold them—and their whole recent setting—in broad daylight.

The opposite ideologies, more in keeping with the general tendencies of modern Free Thought from the Renaissance onwards, have only broken off apparently with the man-centered faiths. In fact, our international Socialists and our Communists, while pushing God and the supernatural out of their field of vision, are more Christian-like than the Christian Churches ever were. He who said, “Love they neighbor as thyself” has to-day no sincerer and more thorough disciples than those zealots whose foremost concern is to give every human being a comfortable life and all possibilities of development, through the intensive and systematic exploitation by all of the resources of the material world, animate and inanimate, for man’s betterment. Communism, that new religion—for it is a sort of religion—exalting the common man; that philosophy of the rights of humanity as the privileged species, is the natural logical outcome of real Christianity. It is the Christian doctrine of the labor of love for one’s neighbors, freed from the overburdening weight of Christian theology…

And that is not all. Even Christian theology will perhaps not always remain as totally worthless to them as our Communist friends often think. It may be, one day, that they will bring themselves to use it. And, if ever they do, who will blame them but those nominal Christians who have forgotten the out and out “proletarian” character of their Master and of his first disciples? The myth of the God of mankind taking flesh in the son of the carpenter of Nazareth may well be interpreted as a symbol foreshadowing the deification of the working majority of men—of the “masses”; of man in general—in our times…

The generous “morality” derived from modem Free Thought is no better than that based upon the time-honored man-centered creeds that have their origin in Jewish tradition. It is a morality centered—like the old Chinese morality, wherever true Buddhism and Taoism have not modified it—around “the dignity of all men” and human society as the supreme fact, the one reality that the individual has to respect and to live for; a morality which ignores everything of man’s affiliation with the rest of living Nature, and looks upon sentient creatures as having no value except inasmuch as they are exploitable by man for the “higher” purpose of his health, comfort, clothing, amusement, etc. The moral creed of the Free Thinker today is a man-centered creed…

We believe that there is a different way of looking at things—a different way, in comparison with which this man-centered outlook appears as childish, mean, and barbaric as the philosophy of any man-eating tribe might seem, when compared with that of the Christian saints, or even of the sincerest ideologists of modern international Socialism or Communism.

NOTE

The title of these excerpts is editorial; the text was originally prepared and edited by Irmin Vinson of the Racial Nationalist Library.

Prostrated anti-Semites


Sometimes it is important to focus on a detail of a masterpiece of Christian art; for example, close-ups of Jesus’ feet and hands nailed to the cross. Here we see the contorted feet of Grünewald: a painter of the badly named ‘German Renaissance’. Grünewald ignored the Greco-Roman world of the Italian Renaissance to continue the style of late Central European medieval art.

In the Gates of Vienna discussion forum, ten years ago a Swede commented that all Westerners are now either Christians or liberals. I would paraphrase that statement by saying that every white is either Christian or neo-Christian. This includes the alt-right atheists, unable to let Christian ethics go. Even most anti-Semites remain prostrated before the contorted feet of the crucified Jew.

For that reason I do not even comment on The Occidental Observer anymore. But I am very amused that a few who have broken away with such ethics try to argue with Christians and neo-Christians on The Occidental Observer and Unz Review. In this site I have collected many comments from Robert Morgan, but I have also expressed my differences with him regarding technology.

Well: a regular visitor to The West’s Darkest Hour has been discussing technology with Morgan (here). Morgan is anti-Christian. Adunai, another anti-Christian, has also discussed with others in that webzine. What Adunai replied to one of these Christians reminds me of something that caught my attention from the first time I read Nietzsche, more than forty years ago.

Nietzsche said that while he rejected the universal love ethic that the New Testament preached, he loved the Old Testament because, unlike the gospel, the ancient Hebrews fulfilled Darwinian laws.

Obviously I’m rephrasing Nietzsche, but in essence he said that. What now has piqued my attention is that white nationalists who have not broken with the religion of their parents see things the other way around: they accept the New Testament and reject the Old. They do not realise that, with this, they have fallen into the trap that the Semitic authors of the New Testament set up for them: to use the fairness of the fair race to invert the values of that race. I refer to the transit from a culture when handsome Greco-Roman statues were so much admired to Grünewald’s feet.

Next, Adunai’s responses to Morgan and others on Unz Review:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Robert Morgan said: Civilization too is a revolt against Nature.

Adunai responded: How so? The very definition of humans is a bit anti-Nature, but nothing’s wrong with that. Man invented fire and scorched woods with it—like any other form of life, he wants to kill everything around himself. Humans destroy species in Amazonia, they breed out pathetic mutants such as dogs, cows and wheat—all to consume and to enslave, in order to ensure their own survival.

The problem only arises when their super-animal intelligence bugs out and accepts the anti-Nature inside themselves, the anti-human suicide—see Christianity. No other animal would fall for the schizophrenia of a virgin mother of a resurrected corpse, and for a god that gives ‘life’ as a reward for death. But no other animal has invented a space rocket either.

It’s just hard for humans to accept a science-inspired atheist Darwinian worldview. But I believe it to be possible—see the DPR of Korea.

P.S. It’s a shame Laurent Guyénot is a 9/11 truther. How can one see through the madness of Christianity, and yet swallow the lies of truthers?
 

A commenter said: It is obvious that the OT is just Jew mystical garbage filled with tribal hate.

Adunai responded: You are so Christian, you see the good part of the Bible as the bad one. That tribal hate you speak of is precisely what we need! What we must admire and put into myth! What every single healthy nation has lived with.

Currently, you hate Jews for being racist. That’s insane. No wonder Jews despise Christians—just like a scientist ‘despises’ the poison he has created, he will not drink it himself. Think War—Harm Your Enemies—Produce Children.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘Technological innovation tore those barriers down. With the barriers down and races mingling freely, discrete human races and discrete cultures are doomed’.

Adunai responded: I never understood this position. Hadn’t it be for the Christian axiology, the White race would have cleansed all of Africa, Asia and America of the non-White nations as early as in the 1890s. Or for sure in the 1950s, with the advent of atomic weapons.

Why do you focus so firmly on the technologies failing to see it as a tool Whites have used as they have seen fit? The problem is not the technology, it is purely the axiology. Technology only allowed the HIV to transition into the AIDS.

But for all I care, it’s only for the better. Better to deal with this menace sooner than later. Europe had little hope in 317, even less in 732 and 800 (when the Franks failed to kill the Church). The French, industrial and green revolutions do not change that.

In short, I disagree with your pessimism concerning technology.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘Further, you seem to be very much in the “free will” / man is a special creation camp (basically a Biblical point of view), and as I said above, I’m a determinist, so I believe free will is an illusion’.

Adunai responded: So, you believe the Whites’ conversion to Christianity to have been unavoidable? That is pessimistic.

Of course, there is something in the Aryan’s psyche that has failed him—see Buddhism in India. There is also the deep contradiction that I see between man as an animal and his newfound intelligence and introspection, his ability to commit suicide, his ability to hate all life. It is in our Nature to destroy Nature, and that is healthy, but can inspire Christianity as a side-effect.

But I am an optimist and I disagree that the White man was born irredeemably defective, that the Jew is our perfect parasite. Because if it is so, or at least cannot be fought against, then all hope is lost, or worse yet, never existed to begin with.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘Therefore, when you say something like “whites could have” done this, that, or the other thing, it makes no sense to me. They had what they thought were very good reasons for not doing it, or in effect had no choice’.

Adunai responded: Whites could have made a party that tried to curtail the destruction by technology. Oh wait, they did—namely, the NSDAP. Even the last anti-Christian emperor was born after 317.

What I’m saying is that Whites could have denied Christianity in the 4th, 8th, 16th or 20th century, but chose not to. They could have mastered technology, for with the right axiology, it would have spelled certain doom for all non-White nations on Earth, and not at all led to any race-mixing—but under Christianity, it did provoke suicide. You can only see technology under Christianity, and you think it’s the only way [red emphasis by Ed.].

When you see a car, you see a Negro arriving in Finland. When I see a car, I see Whites arriving in Egypt in 1910 and genociding all the locals. We had the first shot.
 

A commenter said: ‘Given the US Constitution, Eisenhower’s desegregation orders made sense’.

Adunai responded: Yes… Then why won’t you tear down that stupid White-hating Christian document? Why are you trying to rationalize it?

Desegregation is diametrically opposite of the genocide of blacks. Desegregation = death of Whites. Desegregation makes sense due to the Constitution and its idealist Christian egalitarianism… To hell with the Constitution!
 

A comemnter said: ‘Congo Rats are rated as repugnant in reliable tests of racial attractiveness’.

Adunai responded: Who cares how attractive Negroes are? Are you a faggot? Because only faggot feminists think in this way.

The real culprit is White men, and White men alone. It is the White men that allow their daughters marry non-Whites. Not women. Not the attractiveness of said non-Whites. It’s the Christian malware in your head.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘In the context of your example, what I’ve said is that if the negroes had had no way to get to Finland, they wouldn’t be there, and this seems to me inarguable’.

Adunai responded: It is not. Because a non-Christian technological civilization would not have given Negroes access to their technology to begin with. And would have exterminated them in a short while, as predicted by Darwin.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘I agree that in your imaginary world…’

Adunai responded: The world without Christianity. It happened in a localized version in Germany.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘The struggle for survival and human nature determine how it will be employed’.

Adunai responded: No, they don’t. The White race does not struggle for survival. The reason is still unclear, but I blame Christianity first and foremost. You don’t have an issue with doing likewise when it’s about the 1860s America, but when it’s about more recent times, it’s suddenly technology. I fail to see the connection.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘…and almost never have they been killed off completely, even in non-Christian societies. They have usually been assimilated into the conquering race’.

Adunai responded: There were different kinds of conquest in history. The conquest of Europe by Aryans, by Rome, by Mongols. Some were genocidal, others not. Some were empires, others loose confederations of savages.

What is different now? Science. Knowledge of the world. Materialist philosophy that clearly states the supremacy of genetics in the genesis of culture. The issue is not technology—it would only have helped the extermination. The issue is that the idealist poison of Christianity seeped so deep into the Aryan soul that any hope for the materialist worldview was vanquished in 1945 under the double sign of Christianity and Bolshevism.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘The struggle for survival will force this outcome, because if you don’t use slaves in this way, then your enemies that do will become wealthier than you, more powerful, and eventually overwhelm you. This is how, in the real world, human nature and the struggle for survival determine outcomes’.

Adunai responded: I don’t deny it. But how does the industrial civilization relate to it? I say that its advances in sciences would have made race-mixing the highest taboo and race war the noblest goal in any non-Christian society. Industry would only have amplified the desire to healthy life in a population. But in our case, technology has amplified the death wish.

You want to remove industry—then what? A return to pre-industrial society will not bar crude empires from spawning that can and will race-mix anyway. Too rotten to keep healthy values, yet not bright enough to develop racial science and fission weapons. Where’s a good future in that?

Do you put all your hope on the hypothetical barbarians that will burn Rome time and time again? Our pre-industrial Rome ate a good chunk of Europe, mind you—and even all of central Germany might have been romanized and judaized. Mongols and Turks demolished all Aryan culture in Kazakhstan. Vikings interbred with Eskimos in Iceland. What would stop Aryans from perishing in a non-technological world? I posit that only the power of chemical and atomic bonds can assure the existence of the European race once and for all.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Morgan is obviously violating Occam’s razor by multiplying entities (technology) when the Xtian inversion of values alone explains the West’s darkest hour beautifully.

MacDonald the lapsed Catholic?

(Robert Morgan’s most recent comments)

 
Johnny Rottenborough: “[MacDonald] considers Christianity’s role as a major source of Jewish hatred [for whites].”

Sadly, erroneous and ridiculous as it is, what you say is true. MacDonald the lapsed (?) Catholic does consider Christianity a source of white racial solidarity. Christianity, a doctrine created and spread among whites by Jews, which has convinced whites that one Jew in particular is God and that Jews are a special race “chosen” by God, and further teaches that all men are equally creations of God and equal before him; Christianity, whose doctrines and adherents vandalized and collapsed white civilization once before already—this is what MacDonald thinks defended whites, and can continue to defend them!

One would think that his scientific pretensions would require him to explain how this symbiosis came about, and when and how it ended, if it ended. Weren’t Jews in competition with whites then the same as they are today? Doesn’t early Christianity fit the prototype of what, in The Culture of Critique he identifies as a Jewish movements designed to subvert whites? It has all the features: a charismatic, authoritarian Jewish leader, some white figureheads, a “moral, intellectual, and social vision”, etc. How did this wonderful gift received from Jews end up collapsing white civilization in the ancient world, and should it really surprise anyone that its doctrinal features may collapse white civilization again? Not a word from MacDonald on any of this. And his followers are too stupid to notice the omission!

Johnny Rottenborough: “Whites offer Jews a home …”

Why do they do that? And doesn’t choosing to do that make whites responsible for the consequences? After all, if I invite a known arsonist to stay in my house, and he burns it down, it’s at least as much my fault as his.

At this point in the exchange, I suspect there is likely to be some babble about “pathological altruism”, “white guilt”, etc. But really, those aren’t very good excuses, both sickeningly self-laudatory and ad hoc, seemingly tailor-made to exonerate whites and paint them as helpless victims. If they do describe real phenomena though, and are not just figments of MacDonald’s imagination, it should be noted they are things that only developed post-Christianity. MacDonald however not only passes over in silence this connection to the Christian religion, but has been unable to point to even a single instance of white guilt or pathological altruism in white civilization before Christianity. So much for them being part of whites’ “evolutionary psychology!”

Anon: “He doesn’t talk about technology beyond dancing around it since like other ‘White Nationalist’ spokesman he has a narrative of ‘Whites’ as both masters of the world and also hapless victims of the Jews. He won’t talk about the disaster technology and other feats Whitey have wrought since he doesn’t want to consider that just maybe Whitey’s state is at least a bit self-inflicted.”

Yes, you’ve put it succinctly. As I see it, there are two fundamental problems with MacDonald’s attempts to apply evolutionary theory in the context of whites’ interactions with Jews.

  1. By failing to consider unintended consequences of technological development as a cause of white cultural and racial decline, and focusing exclusively on Jews and their alleged “group evolutionary strategy” to manipulate whites, MacDonald presents a worldview that leaves whites with no responsibility for their own actions; they become just “hapless victims” of Jewish machinations. On the other hand, when it comes to things of which he approves, such as whites building world empires or technological “progress” generally, then in his view whites suddenly become responsible for their own actions again. This applies to technological development of all kinds, so long as we are talking only about its “good” effects.
  1. The second problem is allied to the first. MacDonald simply doesn’t go back far enough in history and carry his theory to its logical conclusion. For example, his big book The Culture of Critique focuses only on the twentieth century. But if whites and Jews are in Darwinian competition with each other, then haven’t they always been so? And if so, what does that say about Christianity, whites’ adoption of it, and the liberal ideologies that later arose from it? Were whites’ responsible for their actions then, or were they just as much helpless victims of Jewish manipulation then as he claims they are now? Like the role unanticipated side effects of technological development have played in the white decline, MacDonald doesn’t really want to talk about Christianity’s role either. Nietzsche, Revilo Oliver, and others have put forward the theory that Christianity, a cult which arose from Hellenized Judaism, was developed with the specific intent to undermine white civilization. MacDonald has never addressed this issue as far as I know, and it’s fairly easy to see why. Adopting the pose of an impartial scientist, he claims that Christianity can’t be to blame for the white decline, since it was the religion of whites at what he sees as their peak. If he posits that Jews are responsible for “manipulating” whites into becoming Christian, his theory breaks down into incoherence. Having agreed that in the singular case of Christianity Jews and whites formed a symbiosis that was, in his view, to the great benefit of whites, would commit him to having to explain how that symbiosis broke down, or indeed, if it ever has broken down, and doesn’t still continue; and that, apparently, is something he has no wish to try to do.

Editor’s note: I omitted this comment. My only difference with Morgan is that, as I see it, Asians imitate westerners in everything decadent (technology, capitalism, etc.) but not in suicidal mass immigration. Obviously, the Asians are not infected with Christian and neo-Christian (i.e. secular) altruism, nor they have a Jewish problem. That’s why I focus more on axiology than on technology.

Published in: on June 18, 2019 at 10:24 am  Comments (23)  

Lincoln refutes monocausalism

Editor’s note: This is a corollary to ‘Is Kevin MacDonald a charlatan?’ It seems a falsehood, but a single 340-word comment from Robert Morgan in the comments section of a discussion forum has more value than the scholarly essays published that same day in all alt-right sites!

How is that possible? For the same reason that in Copernicus’ time a single text by him was worth more than all the texts of Ptolemaic astronomy still in vogue at the beginning of the 16th century.

As seen in the texts of the Nazi leadership, including some SS pamphlets and the Führer’s intimate talks, the Germans were aware of the Judeo-Christian problem. Both Judaism and the Christian churches were equally mentioned as the foe.

American white nationalism has represented a regression toward geocentrism, so to speak. Unlike Europeans, a substantial number of Americans cling to their parents’ Christianity, thus the Copernican revolution in the American psyche that could have been born with a seminal book, Who We Are by Pierce, never happened. (In recent threads of discussion I’ve complained that Pierce’s story of the white race—and remember the power of stories—is no longer available in the market.)

Make no mistake: within their life spans, adult American racists won’t be cured of their schizophrenia (anti-Semites who obey the ethno-suicidal commandment of a Jew). It is imperative that sites like The West’s Darkest Hour start to convince racist teenagers that the white nationalist movement represents a gigantic cognitive regression compared to National Socialism.

Morgan, who apparently is American, has tried to communicate with his countrymen but the self-righteousness of the latter prevents them from seeing a simple truth. The main argument of Morgan in his unsuccessful attempts to communicate with them is that Lincoln and the American Civil War refute the notion that the Jewish quarter is solely responsible for white decline, as if whites were not free agents. (Remember: the civil war happened when Jews had not taken over the American media yet.)

The following is just a portion of Morgan’s relatively recent discussions in a forum:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

“The civil war, and it’s aftermath, never intended these inferiors to live amongst us as equals, they are this nation’s biggest liability…”

Sure. It was a complete accident. (/sarc)

“Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man; this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position; discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.” —Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln-Douglas debates, 1858).

“As Abraham Lincoln said in his speeches, it was never his intent to let these feral animals loose in society.”

Nope. In his last speech before being assassinated he proposed making them citizens and giving them the vote.

“The amount of constituency, so to speak, on which the new Louisiana government rests, would be more satisfactory to all, if it contained fifty, thirty, or even twenty thousand, instead of only about twelve thousand, as it does. It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. … The colored man too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it, than by running backward over them? —Abraham Lincoln, last public address, Washington, D.C., April 11, 1865.

“Lincoln … betrayed his own people. If you read his earlier speech with Douglas, he sure didn’t sound like the Lincoln you are quoting.”

That’s right. He betrayed the white race. I agree that he said some contradictory things, such as the quote you give in rebuttal, but the conclusion you should draw from this is simply that he was a liar. He was such an accomplished liar, in fact, that he still has fans like you defending him even after the horrendous consequences of his betrayal have become apparent.

“However, in his heart of hearts, he knew the negro would never fit in. There was a movement to resettle them in Africa, but to the detriment of our civilization, it never happened.”

Don’t pretend to know what was in his heart of hearts. Judge him on his behavior. He was more responsible than any other man for the racial disaster that has overtaken America. The “movement” to resettle negroes elsewhere never got off the ground because it was a joke from the outset.

“Looking in hindsight which is 20/20, do you think he would propose doing anything with these people other than removing them from our shores? I don’t!”

Apparently you are unaware that it was only voluntary self-deportation that was ever under discussion. Nobody, including Lincoln, ever spoke in terms of forcibly rounding up all the negroes and deporting them whether they wanted to go or not.

Organizations such as the American Colonization Society were set up to assist those who volunteered to depart, but never even broached the idea of forcibly removing them.

“Very intelligent and served as soldiers are qualifiers. How many negroes were very intelligent, and how many served as soldiers, Dr. Morgan? If he were for universal suffrage, why didn’t he say so?”

There were hundreds of thousands of negroes who served in the Union Army, and they weren’t any more intelligent than the ones infesting America today. He didn’t say he was for universal suffrage because he was a liar, and knew the idea wouldn’t have been acceptable to his audience. Remember that at the time, even white women didn’t have the vote.

“America was once an unapologetically white nation…”

I have to disagree with this. There was never a time, even in colonial days, when America was without at least a substantial undercurrent of white self-contempt. Abolitionists of the day, adhering to an egalitarianism inspired by their Christianity, regarded race-based slavery as an abomination. In fact, free blacks were legally equal to whites in several of the original colonies, and were extended the franchise in some. This undercurrent of white self-contempt ultimately resulted in the Civil War, at the end of which blacks were made the legal equals of whites nationwide; and this at a time when the country was virtually 100% white and Christian. This act of racial self-abnegation is still without parallel, even in modern times.

* * *

Having studied this issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that preserving their own race is very low on the list of white Americans’ priorities, if it registers at all. Mostly, the opposite is true. The common opinion among them is that any concern for preserving the white race is “racist”, akin to Nazism, and deeply Evil. Of course, without a conscious effort to preserve their race, it’s obviously not going to survive.

Consequently, American whites accept their own looming racial extinction with apparent equanimity. They have approved it directly through their own actions, and indirectly through laws passed by their representatives, for over a hundred and fifty years. They’ve had plenty of time to reverse course, and haven’t done so. Again and again, white dissidents have stepped forward to warn them, and they have been ignored or destroyed. All their efforts have done is underscore the fact that saving a race of people that doesn’t want to be saved is an exercise in futility [editor’s emphasis]. I must conclude that if there is hope, it won’t be found in politics.

“I’ve got news for you snowflakes. A majority of white Americans before 1970 were bigoted.”

Sure they were! That’s why, immediately after slaughtering hundreds of thousands of each other in the Civil War, they gave negroes citizenship, legal equality, and the vote.

It’s interesting to me though that the idea that most whites were bigoted prior to (fill in the year) seems to be a persistent delusion of right wingers on the left half of the IQ bell curve.

I’ve seen it asserted many times. But if “traditionalists” haven’t controlled America’s race policies since the Civil War, what the hell is the “tradition” you think you are defending? The only tradition America has with regard to race is a constant implementation of ever more race-blind egalitarianism. That is what the majority of whites approved for the last 150 years, and continue to approve.

Published in: on June 7, 2019 at 11:34 am  Comments (2)