Still rooted in Americanism

Editors’ note

I have read the article ‘Zero Tolerance’ published on January 13th by Alexander Slavros (“Hangman”). It is incredibly long-winded and Slavros abused the use of bold type, italics and underlying. But he is spot on why we must uproot Americanism. These are my excerpts:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Zero Tolerance for anyone who isn’t a Fascist or National Socialist, for we march alone…

Altright – Entryism tactic?

If the Altright is the continuation of the Third Position and New Right trends, then we are dealing with the now 60 years old argument of “you can’t be an open Nazi!,” an argument that our “allies” will bring up…

The notion that you can’t be an open Fascist/National Socialist has existed ever since the end of the Second World War. It owes itself to the perceived totality of our enemy’s victory… We are likewise repeatedly told that we can’t openly proclaim ourselves to be Fascists/NS because of the “bad image” that entails with the general public… This argument was discredited and utterly destroyed by George Lincoln Rockwell, and if you have read GLR’s This Time the World and White Power then you should be well familiar with the incredible outrage and desperate, exasperated agony one feels when they discover that nothing has changed, that the same non-arguments have existed unchanged for decades…

The major problem of this world is the spiritual depravity that has left people atomized, bereft and alone, dispossessed—this can bring down and suffocate even the strongest of men…

Thus American Conservatism is nothing more than the defense of classical liberalism on which the United States of America had been originally founded… As such, the entirety of the mainstream American “right-wing” is by definition no ally of ours, as it is rooted in everything that we vehemently oppose and see to be at fault in the world. In fact the entirety of the American State exists as a direct enemy to our values and goals. The only valid Fascist/NS action in America is that of the absolutely leveling of the existing State, state culture, its values—in short, the total destruction of “Americanism” as such. Only then can something organic (and thus Fascist/NS) be grown in its place.

“The enemy today is the U.S. Government itself and it is, by every standard of measure, the most evil thing that has ever existed on earth. This, once it has sunk home, should be a good enough indicator of the sort of struggle we have ahead of us.” —James Mason, SIEGE.

USA is not an organic nation, as we’ve already stated; it was founded not as an expression of an organic nation’s character and will, but instead an idealistic experiment of Rationalist thought, rooted in Enlightenment values. Here, the State takes primacy over the vast array of people of different national and racial backgrounds, and imposes on them the values on which it was based, artificial values created from the imagination of men. The American State is a product of Intellect, not of Blood.

“There is no ‘American People,’ only Whites who, for the most part, have lost all racial pride and identity.” —Mason

To conclude: Fascists and National Socialists, including American ones, have no allies in the American “right-wing” scene as they are hopelessly enslaved to an entity that is fundamentally contrary to everything we stand and fight for…

Altright is the quintessential example of everything that our Champions had warned us against… Altright is still deeply rooted in Americanism and thus in liberal logic, but combined with vague racialism, in effect becoming nothing more than Racist Liberalism.

“Comfortable and safe suburban bourgeois Life, Liberty from responsibilities and duties, and the pursuit of Happiness, i.e. hedonistic pleasures and cummies” —that is the true slogan of Americanism, and thus the slogan of the Altright, which only attaches to that a sign reading “no niggers, Jews or other nonwhites allowed!” It comes then as no surprise why so many in the Altright worship the American 50s, when Americanism was strong and the nonwhites were fewer, but they ignore that the 60s had come about as a direct result of the previous decade(s).

The Altright wants to stop the train halfway to its final destination—by addressing some symptoms of the degeneracy, while leaving the core of modernity intact… To call us “fellow travelers” would be as delusional as it would be to say that a priest going to church is a fellow traveler with a sodomite who is going to a gay bathhouse located halfway down the same road.

Only Fascists and National Socialists can declare themselves to be real proponents and defenders of racial values (moreover, to be their sole champions) as opposed to the big, vague tent that is the Altright and its intellectual “racialist sleepwalkers,” whose idea of “active struggle” is as laughable as it is sad evidence of the current state of affairs.

Indeed, Fascism and National-Socialism are the only logical conclusions to any legitimate racial values and racial thinking, whereas Altright “racialism” has more in common with the kind of “redneck racism” imagined by mainstream liberals. They simply hated other races for immediate emotion-driven reasons (not that there’s anything wrong with that, as this is an instinctual manifestation of a deeper Truth) rather than by virtue of having any fundamental reasons rooted in a definitive Worldview…

This is, of course, exactly why the Altright poses no threat to the System and the Jews. To paraphrase an earlier Hitler quote we’ve given: “The value of these people is clearly illustrated in the way they are treated by the System. It finds them ridiculous so it lets these people rant and rave and just laughs at them”…

This whole line of thinking stinks of the kind of weak character types that are afraid of any real action… They’re ultimately trying to cope with the accusation and use the benefits of internet culture to their advantage: “Yeah I guess I’m not totally on board with democracy, that is what Fascists are like right? Guess I am a little fashy, teehee!” This “dumb but cute” high-school girl routine is, of course, infuriating to any real Fascists and National Socialists. Hell, it would seem that some of them don’t even understand that we truly are “literal Nazis.”

There is also a conjoined argument we often hear, that the Swastika is a “German NS” symbol and that overall one should never associate with “German NS” unless they are German themselves. This argument can only come from people who either don’t yet grasp the full scope and nature of the Fascist/NS Worldview… or from cowards.

We come back to the starting segment of our article, “Where we Stand,” to reinvigorate this point and once again shed light on the monumental difference between us and our would be “allies.” Again, the difference between us and them is greater than the difference between them and what they insist is our common enemy. That is to say our “allies” have more in common with our enemies than with us, as they are rooted in the same Liberal and Rationalist thinking.

They share the same ultimate goals, namely those of human safety, comfort and affluence and thus invariably and inevitably hedonism, all these things powered by egoism…

This is why we do not shun away from the Swastika despite all criticism, for it represents the very essence of our struggle and our goals, moreover it is a symbol that is widespread among those of Aryan heritage (throughout all of Europe and among Slavs) and in areas of original Aryan expansion and conquest (certain areas of the Middle East, India, China, etc). If one shies away from the swastika then it is most likely that he is a coward or not an actual Fascist/NS…

The situation in many countries is desperately bad, far worse than what was going on in Weimar Germany, because back then the decay and degeneracy was complimentary with a weak System and decrepit social and economic order. However, today degeneracy is propped up as a wonderful benefit of affluence, it is polished and sold as a commodity that most people do, in fact, buy. The fact is that the USA in particular is a hotbed of degeneracy among White people, and all these degenerates hardly deserve any consideration beyond what they represent in the crudest sense possible: genetic material.

Total Aryan Victory

We’ve thoroughly criticized our would-be “allies” and have shown how little they have in common with us and how much they have in common with our enemies. The distance it takes them to travel to their end destination is so short from where they started, that they might as well have not left at all. However they are unable to realize that, to them it might seem like a big journey, and they would only realize how inconsequential their “strides” are if they knew how far us Fascists and National Socialists intend to travel. We talk about something eternal and Absolute.

The Organic State is meant to put each man in the place he was meant for, according to his personal Truth, so that he may serve it and that which is greater than himself. Your personal Truth is not the same as a selfish interest, for your personal Truth is an expectation that you have to live up to, to that inherent potential hidden within that is called Destiny (utilizing Francis Parker Yockey’s definition).

It is when man tries to immediately serve himself, his petty immediate interests and welfare, that he begins to act as a rogue against the natural order around him, upsetting it and only growing ever more frustrated that he cannot find happiness in his ceaseless rebellion against the “oppressive” forces that make up his nature.

Any form of liberal society is thus fundamentally incompatible with our goals, any society that is rooted in pursuit of self-interest and hedonism that passes for “happiness” today and is concerned with standards of living as the alpha and omega of all things is what we seek to root out in its entirety, for this society will only produce the kind of loathsome subhuman parasites that will inevitably subvert any and all Truth in the pursuit of their insatiable and bestial desires, from which blood purity cannot protect alone.

The time for empty talk is fast approaching its end, and the coming Race War will make it impossible for the rats to pretend as to their real motivations, and the bloody nature of the struggle ahead is a terrifying prospect for them, as all conflict purifies of weakness.

War of the sexes, 19

Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.

______ 卐 ______

 

Phony anti-feminists

 
turd-flinging-monkeyIn his video “League of the shadows” the blogger says that traditional conservatives are like Batman: they want to save a corrupted Gotham City and its people. They believe that the government can be reformed, or that it is possible to reason with women. I would say that even the priests of the 14 words who want to save Aryan female beauty only receive hatred from these very women whose physique they want to save. It is impossible to reason with them. And in the same way that I scold white nationalists for not wanting to study the work of those economists who say that the dollar will crash and civilization crumble, the blogger quotes Batman’s enemy while he scolds the non-radicals of his Men’s Rights movement: “When a forest grows too wild, a purging fire is inevitable and natural.”

So-called families without the male figure are a liberal aberration. In his video “The government can’t replace fathers” the blogger says that it is not the nuclear family what provides the structure and authority for children, especially the boys. It is the man itself. I love that video because the blogger confesses he was raised by a single mother. He adds that 95 percent of single mothers are on welfare. You can imagine what will happen with single mother “families” after the dollar collapses (poetic justice…).

The blogger also cites tax statistics showing that the government is sucking men’s salaries to deliver them to women (even nigger women I would add), and that the women’s role is to rear the child until his fifth birthday (seventh birthday for the Spartans I would add). Once they reach the seventh year all pedagogues must be males. “Mothers can raise babies into children, but only fathers can raise children into adults.” This is something that feminists won’t ever understand, not even the feminized males of the white nationalist community.

In the video “Where have all women against feminism been?” the blogger explains that MGTOW has been around since 2004. That’s barely more than a decade. It explains my initiative of placing this series “War of the sexes” in this site. Unlike the racial literature that started with Gobineau’s seminal book in the nineteenth century, with the exception of that chapter of Schopenhauer on women the comprehension of human sexuality is fairly recent. There is no book that I know that maps MGTOW under a single cover, so I felt obliged to pass the microphone to one of its most radical voices. This for example is MGTOW manifesto. The ultimate goal is to instill:

  • Masculinity in men
  • Femininity in women and
  • Promote traditional gender roles.

The blogger explains that MGTOW shifted between 2009 and 2012 and it expanded its focus from merely an anti-feminist conservative movement into one that examines female nature as the underlying basis of feminism. The result was a change from a movement that sought to reform society by fighting feminism to one that rejected today’s spoiled women as a whole and walked away from relationships and marriage. The blogger then claims that MGTOW has grown in popularity and relevance since the shift. (Incidentally, my opinion of what men should do today with our sexual urges appears in Jake’s interview to me).

The blogger then talks about phony anti-feminist movements. I would say again that, with the exception of Andrew Anglin, white nationalists are in his group. The blogger notes that the “anti-feminists” don’t complain about the original feminism. Remember: in the modern era feminism has already 168 years. It started in the 19th century, specifically in 1848 in the United States. “Anti-feminists” never complain of the laws from the first and the second feminist waves. A true anti-feminist, the blogger says, would repel feminism in toto from its very origins:

  • Women’s suffrage
  • Affirmative action
  • Abortion on demand
  • No-fault divorce and
  • Men arrested for domestic violence (including marital rape).

So according to the blogger the chronology of anti-feminist “conservatives” is extremely myopic and ultimately traitorous for men. They believe that the mess started in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. “The Men’s Rights Movement wants to return to the 1950s,” says the blogger. But the so-called anti-feminist women are even worse. They “want a return to the 1980s” that is, they merely reject the third feminist wave.

Personally, in addition to the bulleted points above, I would go as far as Cato the Elder. Let us revaluate the values back to the Spartan/Roman mores! Lex Oppia must be restored—and implemented in the ethnostate(s). This was—and will be again—a law that forbids any woman to possess more than half an ounce of gold and also her display of wealth. I must quote a passage from the chapter on women of the mini-book that I translated:

Spartan women did not even know the extravagant hairstyles from the East and they wore, as a sign of their discipline, their hair up with simplicity: probably the most practical for a life of intense sports and activity. Also, all kinds of makeup, decorations, jewelry and perfumes were unknown and unnecessary for Spartan women, which proudly banished all that southern paraphernalia.

And let’s remember what Seneca said: “Virtue does not need ornaments; it has in itself its highest ornaments.”

peplodorio

On Southern Nationalism

Some racialist Americans at Dixie are trying to distance themselves from the term “white nationalism.” However, Southerners are still stuck in the worldview of white nationalists, as shown in “Was the Second Klan cuckservative?” To Liaucius’ critique I would add that like the Yankees, Southerners are also infected with Christian ethics. A couple of examples from one of the most popular Southern nationalists sites will explain our irreconcilable worldviews.

• Jack Ryan: “CINO [Catholic in Name Only] Pope Licking Black Muslim Migrant Boots!”Occidental Dissent, March 25, 2016

Reality check: Pope Francis is not a “Catholic in Name Only” leader of the Church. Quite the contrary. Ryan fails to see that what this Pope usually does simply follows undiluted gospel message, as shown in my 2014 Christmas post.

• Hunter Wallace: “The Alt-Right and Abortion”Occidental Dissent, April 8, 2016

In the comments section of this article the exchange about abortion between the author and Greg Johnson shows how stuck Southern racialists are with Christian ethics. Just compare them with the eugenics program among the Spartans in an essay, originally written in Spanish. Compare them also with the Nazis, who certainly were not “pro-choice” but not “pro-life” either. They didn’t allow abortion for healthy Aryan German women, but demanded abortion upon women deemed un-Aryan (i.e. Jews, Gypsies, etc.) and German women with hereditary diseases.

Incidentally, Wallace didn’t even allow my own comment to pass. About the German philosopher who wanted to revaluate occidental values back to pre-Christian, Spartan-like morality, Wallace wrote: “BTW, Nietszche [sic] died childless from syphillis [sic] in an insane asylum, so he is hardly any guide to the family.”

Below, my comment that got censored in that thread:

He actually died at his sister’s house, and the biographers that I’ve read on Nietzsche, Curt Paul Janz and Werner Ross, considering the documents of the time don’t give any credit to the rumor of syphilis. As to Nietzsche’s views on the family see: here. The causes of Nietzsche’s solitude and incapability to form a family are explained in a lyrical essay: here.

Only if these racialist Americans become deeply familiar with the history of Europe they’ll grow up.

Coming with the wind

“Patriarchy is coming back. It’s just a question of whether it will be a White Patriarchy or an Islamic one.”

Brothermattiex

 
Watching the hypocritical Fox News these months I’ve seen many times Sean Hannity criticizing what he calls “radical Islam.” He has been saying that the clash of our civilizations consists that Muslims under Sharia don’t allow women to go outside their homes without a male companion. He has also been saying that, unlike us, Sharia Muslims don’t castigate marital rape or the “denigration” of women as second-class citizens; and that in Saudi Arabia women must cover themselves as their husbands want, etcetera.

I am about the age of Hannity and use the word “hypocrite” because the guy is concealing the fact that, in the last decades, sexual mores have shifted almost a hundred and eighty degrees in this continent.

Gone-With-The-Wind-PosterIn a couple of those opera-like theatres, I saw Gone with the Wind as a child and then in my teens. Many scenes of Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) with Scarlett O’Hara (Vivien Leigh) made a deep impression in my juvenile mind:

• Throughout the film, since the opening scenes in Georgia, the costumes of women of society always hid the sexual appeal of their bodies, especially the southern belle dresses; and I am talking not only about Scarlett and the female elements in her family but of Ashley’s fiancée and the other society women (Melanie Hamilton, who eventually married Ashley, is the perfect model of how women should behave in the West)

• At the Twelve Oaks party, before the barbecue is disrupted by the declaration of war all women are taking their mandatory nap (except Scarlett who escapes the upstairs bedroom) while men discuss serious matters. It was unthinkable that a woman had a voice in such matters

• Even after Scarlett is widowed she is called “Mrs. Charles Hamilton” in the sense that her reputation still belonged to the shadow of a man who died in uniform

• Similarly, after the Entr’acte Frank (Scarlett’s second husband), Ashley, Rhett and several other accomplices make a night raid on a shanty town after Scarlett is attacked while driving through it alone, resulting in Frank’s death. It goes without saying that in that night the women of these brave men stayed at home sewing and reading decent literature: what women were expected to do

• Once married with Rhett Butler, “Captain Butler” was always greeted first by street pedestrians while walking with Scarlett. She, faithfully beside her husband in those street walks, was only mentioned after the pedestrians greeted Rhett

• Never forget the marital rape of Scarlett when Rhett carried her up in his arms telling her, “This is one night you’re not turning me out.”

In those fancy theatres of yore when I was young, the film depicted very healthy Occidental mores—before values got corrupted and completely inverted in this darkest hour of ours.

Have Hannity et al lost memory of history by implying that our culture has always subscribed feminism? What is going on in their “conservative” minds? I tell you: they are liberals, phony traditionalists. Racists should treasure Gone with the Wind instead of a thousand movies of this century as every film today, and TV program without exception, contains ethnosuicidal messages. Mention any movie filmed after the 1960s and, if I’ve seen it, in the comments section I’ll tell you the ethnosuicidal message. But of course: this is something that phony traditionalists, like every Fox News host, will never acknowledge.

Pace conservatives and even quite a few white nationalists, patriarchy is coming back throughout the West with or without a great awakening in the white race. Demography is destiny and, with dozens of millions of Muslims in Europe, the wind has already started to change. The only question is if the coming patriarchs will behave like Clark Gable or, more probably, like towelhead decapitators.

Ex Gladio Libertas

My experiences have given me a far higher opinion of trade union militants and working class Bolsheviks than I’ll probably ever have of American conservative or racialist intellectuals. I also know if any fighting is ever to be done, I can count on one rather than the other.

Michael O’Meara

 
The chasm that separates us from white nationalism (WN) is our meta-ethical POV, more formally known as “axiology” or set of primordial values. For example, every time that one of our street fighters makes a scene (the latest, Anton Lundin Pettersson) the reaction of American conservatives and most racialist intellectuals verges on hysteria.

I tried to describe the chasm in some pages of the books linked at the sidebar, below the Spartan banner. But after Anton’s fifteen minutes of fame I reread all the comments gathered in this site that Jack Frost originally posted on The Occidental Observer webzine. To those who have no time to study carefully the sidebar’s books I’d recommend reading at least some of these comments:

https://chechar.wordpress.com/category/jack-frost/

They’ll give you a taste of the flavor of what we mean by transvaluating the bourgeois values in American WNsm, mostly the by-product of their parents’ Christianity of Calvinist extraction, back to the values of the wild blond beast. This includes revaluating the WN notion of thinking like civilians (“good Christians”) instead of freedom fighters, especially now that the enemy is planning to close our only outlet, the internet, in places like Britain.

sword

Ex Gladio Libertas

Freedom comes from the sword

On Ann Coulter

by Jack Frost

 
Ann_Coulter_in _2011At 53 years old, Ann Coulter, a Christian fanatic who once said at a public lecture “I don’t care about anything else; Christ died for my sins, and nothing else matters”, and who, in one of her books, once characterized evolution as bogus science, seems an unlikely pinup girl for any advocate of white interests.

She’s a never-married career girl who’s “dated” non-whites, including at least one Jew. No white children ever issued from her shriveled womb, nor, at this point, will they.

White people are abolishing themselves, and Ann Coulter is a case study in how and why.

Published in: on September 22, 2015 at 10:47 am  Comments (1)  
Tags: ,

A letter

letter-old-fashioned 
Hi Cesar,

So you know how cuckservatives make greater parodies of themselves than White Nationalists ever could? Well, in regards to Christianity, I’d say Christians make better parodies of themselves than Jack Frost ever could. I had a debate with a middle-aged White Catholic on this pathetic National Review op-ed, and at one point, he said that wanting to make the world a better place is the same thing as wanting to usher in Utopia. I countered by asking him why he even bothers commenting on conservative websites like National Review if he doesn’t want to make the world a better place. His response justifies everything Jack Frost has said:

Your question is fair enough. Let’s start with the question you didn’t ask.

“The fact is, you think White Nationalists want to genocide other races because that’s the crap you’ve been taught by the media and the education system (which includes the liberal, anti-white history books).”

I think that genocide is where this leads because I see a lot of passion but not much along the lines of everyday action. I can’t join you in supporting eugenics or physical separation of the races, as under apartheid or Jim Crow. Even if absolutely everything you said was true, there’s very little you’ve explained to me in concrete measures to date that I could support and plausibly call myself a Christian.

If I am to properly submit to Christ it cannot be for the purpose of literally saving my own skin or skin color. This is God’s Creation and I, merely a part of it. Christ commands us to engage God’s world in a certain manner and not demand an outcome to our own pleasing. If the white race is to meant to perish, then to trust in God is to presume that there’s something I don’t understand and that ultimately good will prevail even if I can’t see it right now.

That is not to say that I’ve become a pacifist or am against immediate self-defense. Please don’t take the preceding paragraph as a rationalization for any sort of silliness along those lines. Christ’s life is of sacrifice, but it is not of mindless pacifism, inaction, or pointless sacrifice.

That said, salvation belongs only to those who follow Christ under his rules. Nothing about what you’ve stated about the races to date leads me think there’s any action other than those that would break them.

I’d encourage you to post his above comment on your website, as he succinctly explains everything Jack has tried to explain, and then some!

By the way, I must note here that I believe God exists and that He created White people. I’m not an Atheist, an Agnostic, or a Pagan. In fact, I actually consider myself a Christian. So why do I agree with Frost, and with Nietzsche, in their assessment of Christian Morality?

Because I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura anymore, and because I’ve learned to separate a belief in a personal God with the slave morality articulated by the above commenter. I choose to believe that God loves me, and loves all White peoples, because that keeps me from the abyss of apathy and despair.

If this makes me weak, so be it. I’m sharing this comment because I agree with you, Frost, and Nietzsche that our race needs to break free of this belief that racial self-defense is the worst Evil imaginable, like this guy does.

Sincerely,

D. P.

Published in: on September 21, 2015 at 9:51 pm  Comments (4)  
Tags: ,

Why I Write

by Roger Devlin


 
I came late to the issues characteristically discussed in The Occidental Quarterly.

I had no interest in politics during my early adult years, a circumstance for which I am now grateful. Like most Americans, I assumed that “politics” meant electoral contests between hardly-distinguishable parties.

In early adulthood I encountered The Gulag Archipelago and gained a proper appreciation of just how high the stakes of politics could be. Initially, I gravitated toward that combination of anti-Communism and status quo Social Democracy known as neo-conservatism. In the academic bubble I then inhabited, such a stance was viewed as radical.

As a college instructor, I was baffled to receive student essays vehemently maintaining the “equality” of black and white, or singing the heroism of Rosa Parks. My classes were in philosophy, and I never mentioned race at all. Clearly, this was the stuff students had been taught to write for their professors before they got to me.

The stridency of their language suggested they were defending an idea under heavy attack. But where was the attack? All I had ever heard anyone say about races is that they were “equal.” If this is all the students wanted to say, what were they getting so worked up about? They wrote as if they were trying to scratch an itch.

I wished to devote my life to learning and scholarship, with no thought of practical application beyond eventually sharing my knowledge with the generation that came after me. Of course, I quickly learned that few of my colleagues shared this elevated, quasi-monastic notion of the scholar’s calling. Some turned out to hold beliefs weirdly similar to the jailors described by Solzhenitsyn; many more did not, but were untroubled by—or afraid of—those who did.

Accordingly, my first practical cause belonged to the realm of academic politics: defending the life of the mind from ideological corruption. I was also fascinated by the sheer power which ideology exercised over many men’s minds, and by how a band of resentful mediocrities armed with little else had infiltrated and virtually subjugated an institution made up of highly intelligent people.

The ideologues talked a great deal about race, of course; but this did not lead me to take any interest in the subject myself. I vaguely hoped that once the imposters had been purged from the academy we could forget about race and get back to learning and teaching.

I devoted several years to investigating the first principles of modern “progressive” thought, publishing a little philosophical primer on the subject (Alexandre Kojève and the Outcome of Modern Thought). But this still did not lead me to the issue of racial differences, which are an empirical rather than philosophical matter. The entire drama of ideological politics can be played out within a homogeneous society, as students of the French Revolution know.

Nevertheless, I have come to the point where I prefer to publish even purely sociological analysis (e.g., “From Salon to Guillotine,” Summer 2008) in an explicitly racial-realist venue such as The Occidental Quarterly.

Here is why. Those traditional conservatives who continue to admonish us against the dangers of “biological determinism” are increasingly condemning themselves to irrelevance. The plea that “race isn’t everything” is valid per se, but not especially germane to the situation in which we find ourselves. For we are not the aggressors in the battle now being fought. And in any battle, it is the aggressors’ prerogative to choose the point of attack: if they come at you by land, you do not have the option of fighting them at sea.

Race is everything to our enemies, and it is the angle from which they have chosen to attack our entire civilization. It is also where they have achieved their greatest victories: you can see this from the way “conservative” groups feel they must parrot the language of the egalitarians just to get a hearing (see: here). Such well-meaning but naive friends of our civilization are in effect consenting to occupy the status of a “kept” opposition.

The more we try to avoid confronting race directly, the more our enemies will press their advantage at precisely this point. Tactically, they are correct to do so. And they will continue until we abandon our defensive posture and turn to attack them on their own chosen ground.

The Occidental Quarterly is blessed with contributors who have made racial differences and ethnic conflict their lives’ study, and I cannot match them in their own fields. But I prefer to throw in my lot with them because they are unambiguously not part of any “kept” opposition. Being a pariah at least keeps one honest.

A turning point for me was reading Glayde Whitney’s “The Biological Reality of Race” in American Renaissance (October 1999). Like everyone else in America, I had been subjected to years of race-talk, but the aim had always been to lead me to “feel” in a predetermined way. Even my students’ papers had been apprentice work in this genre. Whitney, by contrast, was simply setting forth information. Reading him was like being addressed as an adult after years of being talked down to. This by itself was enough to get me to sit up and take notice of what he was saying.

Moreover, he contradicted everything I had ever been told. And he did so while showing that race could be as interesting as any other scientific topic. I had never seen anyone actually diagram the human family tree, showing which groups were most closely related and which most distantly separated. I was particularly struck by the revelation that the deepest evolutionary cleft within the human race was that between black Africans and everyone else.

But even a complete racial science based upon exhaustive knowledge of the human genome would never make a dent in anti-white ideology. This is because ideologies are not scientific theories: they are systems of ideas mobilized by groups of men in their struggle to acquire or maintain power over other men. They are a misuse—a prostitution—of the faculty of human reason, whose proper end is the discovery of the true. Ideological doctrines are true, in the best of cases, only per accidens; more often they are falsehoods publicly maintained through violence and intimidation.

Not being based upon knowledge, the content of ideologies change with the elites and counter-elites which champion them. Past ideological regimes have been governed by Marxists who spoke of class rather than race. Still earlier regimes (and revolutionaries) invoked religious concepts. And, yes, racial science itself has been prostituted in the service of what was essentially a political ideology.

The masters of the West long ago ceased performing even the minimum function required of any governing elite: seeing to the physical survival of the people it rules. Instead, it maintains its power by setting its clients (“designated victims”) against the rest of us. “Antiracism” is the ideology, but what is really going on underneath is the mobilization of envy, covetousness, and the libido dominandi.

Much of the elite itself is white, of course. But this is really no more paradoxical than a company getting rich by staging a “going out of business sale” that never ends. Except, of course, that the “white anti-racism” game will have to end soon.

The regime’s greatest crime, however, lies not in setting its clients against us; it is what it has done to our own young people. Those indoctrinated students whose essays so perplexed me had been formed into instruments of an alien will: pawns in a struggle inimical to their own interests, and whose real nature they could not grasp. They were no less victims for being willing.

Writing for The Occidental Quarterly is essentially a continuation of the work I had always intended to do, adapted to a hostile political situation I have come to understand better. In the most general terms, this work remains: the pursuit of knowledge, teaching, and the fight against the same ideological enemies I encountered in the academy. For a professor-manqué, writing for an independent journal is the equivalent of what home-schooling is for a parent: a quiet revolt against institutions which have lost all claim to allegiance.

TOQ Online, October 1, 2009

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 50

the-real-hitler

 

19th November 1941

Stupidity of the bourgeois parties—Misplaced pity for the bourgeoisie—No room for the lukewarm in the Party.
 
 
Above all, it was essential that the Party should not allow itself to be overrun by the bourgeois. I took care, by applying appropriate methods, to welcome nobody into it but truly fanatical Germans, ready to sacrifice their private interests to the interests of the public.

This snivelling in which some of the bourgeois are indulging nowadays, on the pretext that the Jews have to clear out of Germany, is just typical of these holier-than-thou’s. Did they weep when every year hundreds of thousands of Germans had to emigrate, from inability to find a livelihood on our own soil? These Germans had no kinsfolk in various parts of the world; they were left to their own mercies, they went off into the unknown. Nothing of that sort for the Jews, who have uncles, nephews, cousins everywhere. In the circumstances, the pity shown by our bourgeois is particularly out of place.

The Party cannot drag dead weights with it, it can do nothing with the lukewarm. If there are any such amongst us, let them be expelled! To those who hold in their hands the destinies of the country, it can be a matter of indifference that not all the bourgeois are behind them; but they must have this certainty—that the Party forms a buttress as solid as granite to support their power.

Published in: on September 17, 2015 at 11:10 am  Leave a Comment  

Liberalism, 17

agisbert

Execution of Torrijos and his men in 1831 by Antonio Gisbert. Spanish King Ferdinand VII took repressive measures
against the liberal forces in his country.

 

Criticism and support

Liberalism has drawn both criticism and support in its history from various ideological groups. For example, some scholars suggest that liberalism gave rise to feminism, although others maintain that liberal democracy is inadequate for the realization of feminist objectives.

Liberal feminism, the dominant tradition in feminist history, hopes to eradicate all barriers to gender equality—claiming that the continued existence of such barriers eviscerates the individual rights and freedoms ostensibly guaranteed by a liberal social order. British philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft is widely regarded as the pioneer of liberal feminism, with A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) expanding the boundaries of liberalism to include women in the political structure of liberal society.

Less friendly to the goals of liberalism has been conservatism. Edmund Burke, considered by some to be the first major proponent of modern conservative thought, offered a blistering critique of the French Revolution by assailing the liberal pretensions to the power of rationality and to the natural equality of all humans. Conservatives have also attacked what they perceive to be the reckless liberal pursuit of progress and material gains, arguing that such preoccupations undermine traditional social values rooted in community and continuity. However, a few variations of conservatism, like liberal conservatism, expound some of the same ideas and principles championed by classical liberalism, including “small government and thriving capitalism.”

Some confusion remains about the relationship between social liberalism and socialism, despite the fact that many variants of socialism distinguish themselves markedly from liberalism by opposing capitalism, hierarchy, and private property. Socialism formed as a group of related yet divergent ideologies in the 19th century such as Christian socialism, Communism (with the writings of Karl Marx), and Social Anarchism (with the writings of Mikhail Bakunin), the latter two influenced by the Paris Commune. These ideologies, as with liberalism and conservatism, fractured into several major and minor movements in the following decades.

Marx rejected the foundational aspects of liberal theory, hoping to destroy both the state and the liberal distinction between society and the individual while fusing the two into a collective whole designed to overthrow the developing capitalist order of the 19th century. Today, socialist parties and ideas remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence in all continents leading national governments in many countries. Liberal socialism is a socialist political philosophy that includes liberal principles within it. Liberal socialism does not have the goal of abolishing capitalism with a socialist economy; instead, it supports a mixed economy that includes both public and private property in capital goods. Principles that can be described as “liberal socialist” have been based upon or developed by the following philosophers: John Stuart Mill, Eduard Bernstein, John Dewey, Carlo Rosselli, Norberto Bobbio and Chantal Mouffe. Other important liberal socialist figures include Guido Calogero, Piero Gobetti, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse, and R. H. Tawney. Liberal socialism has been particularly prominent in British and Italian politics.

Social democracy, an ideology advocating progressive modification of capitalism, emerged in the 20th century and was influenced by socialism. Yet unlike socialism, it was not collectivist nor anti-capitalist. Broadly defined as a project that aims to correct, through government reformism, what it regards as the intrinsic defects of capitalism by reducing inequalities, social democracy was also not against the state.

Several commentators have noted strong similarities between social liberalism and social democracy, with one political scientist even calling American liberalism “bootleg social democracy” due to the absence of a significant social democratic tradition in the United States that liberals have tried to rectify. Another movement associated with modern democracy, Christian democracy, hopes to spread Catholic social ideas and has gained a large following in some European nations. The early roots of Christian democracy developed as a reaction against the industrialization and urbanization associated with laissez-faire liberalism in the 19th century.