Greggy’s standards of whiteness

I’d never attack Tara McCarthy, which seems to be a decent woman. But scrolling down a long thread in Greg Johnson’s recent article about women in the movement, I spotted some little gems starting with this comment by him:
 

Jews and most Indians are non-European Caucasians. With those sorts of admixtures, I told Tara that she’s basically as white as she wants to be. Meaning that it is a question of what part of her heritage she identifies with. She identifies with White people and expresses that in her work. Richard Spencer married a woman who is part Georgian. Does that make him a race-mixer?

Non-European Caucasians are closer to us than, say, Asians, Amerindians, and Blacks. There are many people who identify as white with marginal admixtures from other races, including races more foreign than non-European Caucasians. This is why I have a pragmatic attitude about past miscegenation. From the point of view of a political movement, the best policy to cut off whiter-than-thou sperging is simply to have an amnesty for past race mixing and a moratorium on future race mixing.

Racial purism should be left to individuals and families in the ethnostate. If you don’t want Tara’s DNA in your bloodline, then don’t marry her. She’s taken anyway.

 
Sven Longshanks said…

So if Obama said he identified with his White portion, it would be fine for him to interbreed with Whites? Whether someone is White or not is a biological fact, race is not a social construct, you cannot say ‘I was brought up White so I am White’. Tara is a 5th non-White. Any adulteration is adulteration and it will always be there in her descendants, or DNA testing would be obsolete and it would not be able to tell who someone’s ancestors were.

Georgia cannot be compared to India, they came up with the idea of sanitation for themselves in Georgia and as far as I am aware, they also have White people there, not various mixtures of Dravidian. If Spencer married someone with Non-White ancestry the same applies to him, but being of Georgian ancestry is not sufficient to prove that.

Past miscegenation will always be there and marginal admixture is even worse than obvious adulteration, as it makes it far easier for the adulteration to pass into the White portion that is left of the nation. The only policy to have if you want to preserve the White race is to insist that White means White and non-Whites breed only with non-Whites. Otherwise we will just go the same way as India, Egypt, Persia etc who all will have thought they could somehow breed the purity back in.

This is not something that can be left to individuals if you want to put a stop to the gradual darkening of the entire race. I have yet to meet someone with slight adulteration who was not selfishly looking for a White partner, or looking to marry their children off to Whites in the hope that the next generation would be that little bit lighter only also that little bit more dangerous to the rest of us who do not have any adulteration.

If Tara wants to advocate for Whites, then destroying the purity of her future White partner’s children is a funny way to go about it, especially when every single ancestor of his preserved it for him.

This is not meant to be an attack on anyone, just pointing something very important out that cannot be ignored. Our culture comes from our biology, not the other way around. This isn’t purity spiralling or sperging, this is the biology that makes us White, if that goes, then there is no chance of bringing us back.

 
Greg Johnson said…

You are welcome to try to build a racially pure movement if you want.

Think through what that would require and get back to me.

I think that it will always remain marginal and fractious, splitting over endless quibbles about subracial types.

In the meantime, our race’s programmed march to extinction will continue.

I suppress all forms of purer-than-thou and whiter-than-thou spiralling [Editor’s note: What does he mean, suppressing the whole nordicist debate?], and I also reject the idea that people have to have always been White Nationalists, because you can’t build a movement with mass appeal that will have a chance of saving our race if you allow Jews and Leftists to go around and say to every sympathizer, “You know, these people will be calling for your extermination if they find some sort of surprise in your genetic profile, or evidence on your Facebook page that you took an Asian chick to the prom.”

Enjoy your smug sense of superiority and “purity.” I am sure it will console you while the world burns.

If anyone needs to be culled from the movement, it is people like you. [Editor’s note: Wow! Would Greggy also cull Madison Grant and all nordicists back to Gobineau if they were alive?]

 
Sven Longshanks said…

You have just avoided every point that I have made with your reply Greg.

A racially pure movement is already what I am in, I am a White Nationalist and I seek to preserve what is left of the White race. That means having no tolerance at all for miscegenation. An ethno-state means a state composed of one ethnicity, not civic nationalism, which is nationalism based on ‘sharing ideology but not biology’, which is what you appear to be supporting. White is synonymous with purity, this is not ‘spiralling’ these are facts that everyone used to be well aware of when getting involved.

I don’t believe there is any need for extermination, and I do not care what people did before they realised the truth. We are not talking about White people race-mixing in the past, but mixed-people looking for Whites in our movement to partner with right now. I am just making the point that someone who is the product of miscegenation is not White and therefore not a candidate for White Nationalism or a White ethno-state. They could be guests maybe, but certainly not citizens or partners with Whites.

This isn’t about superiority either, that is a leftist response. This is about preserving what we have left and I am certainly not smug about the many damaged people out there who are like that through no fault of their own. That does not mean we should give them a free pass to destroy what’s left of it though to assuage ours and their feelings.

Integrity is a valued trait, if people make exceptions for non-Whites for short-term gains such as numbers, they sacrifice their integrity and lose the morality of what they are doing.

 
Greg Johnson said…

Or you have missed every point in my reply.

If I thought that your approach would amount to anything, I would already have accepted it.

Good luck though.

 
Sven Longshanks said…

Thank you Greg, I look forward to your next podcasts and I will say I do enjoy them, but I do feel you are trying to defend the indefensible here.
 

Steffen Krauter said…

Interesting conversation to read. It I’m interested Sven if you don’t mind about what you mean when you say race mixing. Do you mean indo-Europeans should not intermingle with uralics? Or that Europeans should not intermingle with other indo Europeans? Or Europeans should not mix between themselves? Like Italians to Swedes or any combination. This may sound like autism but I’m sincerely interested. Love your podcasts btw.
 

Sven Longshanks said…

Steffen, by race-mixing, I mean anyone White breeding with someone who is not White. That could be anyone from a full dark black negro with an elephant butt, to 1/16 non-White ancestry and beyond. That would mean no Indians, no Persians, no Japanese, no Koreans and no quadroons, octaroons, etc.

Europeans will still damage the integrity of their ethnic nation if they breed with someone from another European nation, as one nation will lose that branch depending on where the couple settle. This is not a problem in the New World and America would have been well on the way to forming a new White ethnicity if it wasn’t for the recent immigration of the last 70 years and unfortunate small fraternisation with the natives in some isolated areas.

You use Swedes and Italians as an example and that raises a good point. There are areas of Italy that still have a population of Whites with similar features to those seen in Sweden, usually referred to as Nordic, but there are also areas where everyone has a portion of mixed blood and are commonly referred to as having a ‘Mediterranean’ look. Like should breed with like, if they wish to produce offspring with harmonious qualities. To mix the Mediterranean type with either the Swedish or the non-mixed Italian would not be good.

Genetic Similarity Theory predicts that racial types will try to breed with similar racial types, so even in America with many different White ethnicities having emigrated there, most will have picked partners with the same biology as themselves, even if originally from a different language speaking area.

I don’t think it sounds like autism, we have to have ideals even if we have problems keeping to them, this is why I think it is wrong to say mixing is fine because there are a minority already mixed. If there is known non-White ancestry in any percentage then having a White partner should be frowned upon. Most seem to agree that this should be based on knowledge of family history, obvious mixture, or coming from an area known to be mixed beyond all shadow of doubt, such as Persia, Lebanon, Syria etc and not discredited tiny percentages in commercial DNA tests.
 

Franklin Ryckaert said…

Tara McCarthy has herself said that she is 1/8 Indian and 1/17 Jewish. Together that is 18,75% non-European. See her video on You Tube, “Deleted by Tara McCarthy: ‘What’s it like being a mixed race ethno-nationalist?’ – mirror”. I will pass no judgment on her racial make-up. She is handsome and intelligent. Her videos are of high quality. She should continue.

Lauren Southern’s real name is Simonsen and that is definitely a Jewish name. She has also tweeted about her grandparents who had to flee from the Nazis. See YouTube “Exposed: Lauren Southern is (((Lauren Simonsen)))”. I have not seen her videos, so I can’t judge them. If she serves as a stepping stone then she is acceptable. If she serves as a gate keeper, she is not.

Published in: on December 15, 2017 at 12:18 am  Comments (10)  

Ryckaert quote

‘The slogan “all men are unequal” should be written in gold in all our public institutions’.

—Franklin Ryckaert

Published in: on December 6, 2017 at 12:49 pm  Comments (3)  

Dying religion

by Franklin Ryckaert

Far from being a Jewish conspiracy to undermine European man, as some assert, Christianity has always been a source of moral strength for Western man, especially when it comes to family values.

However, when a religion is dying because its myth loses appeal, no amount of artificial propaganda can resurrect it. Family values can be successfully promoted entirely by secular means, as the short-lived fascist regimes of Italy and Germany demonstrate.

Published in: on June 12, 2015 at 12:23 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags:

On Procrustes

by Franklin Ryckaert

 
Unequality is a basic fact of human life. There is unequality between individuals within groups and there is unequality between groups (*). This is so evident that denying it is a form of insanity. Can a moron be made a genius by better education? Would paying his educators more money or threatening them with sanctions if they fail do the trick? The idea is preposterous, yet this is exactly the policy in the US when it comes to educating Blacks and Hispanics.

The source of this insanity is the emotional idea that somehow equality is a basic human right. “All men are equal” is the slogan, but seeing that unequality is the reality in society, our egalitarian idealists now try to rectify this “injustice.” This can only be achieved by the “Procrustes method” i.e., artificially favoring the inferior while artificially harming the superior. The result is the dominance of incompetence and the ruin of society.

Theseus_Prokroustes_Louvre

Theseus attacks Procrustes.
Anonymous painting in the background
of a Kilix Attic red-figure 440 BC.

(*) The findings of Richard Lynn’s intelligence quotient (IQ) and the Wealth of Nations about the distribution of IQ among human populations could be summarized thusly:

  • The “yellow ” group (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese): IQ 105.
  • The “white” group (Europeans): IQ 100.
  • The “brown” group ( Mestizos, Amerindians, American Blacks, Arabs, Turks, Iranians, Indians, South East Asians): IQ 85.
  • The “black” group (sub-Sahara Africans): IQ 70.
  • Finally at the bottom: Australian Aborigines: IQ 62, Bushmen and Pygmies: IQ 54.

American Blacks differ from African Blacks because they carry White genes for 20% due to miscegenation.

Differences in talent and temperament between human races are genetic and therefore cannot be changed by education. Unequality is the reality of life. Sanity is the acceptance of reality.

Unredeemable religion

In 2012 on The Occidental Observer Franklin Ryckaert answered this question: “Why can’t we have a Christianity that is compatible with some form of race realism?”:


That would indeed be desirable, especially for Christian America. Unfortunately Christianity has exactly the opposite qualities a “race realist” ideology would require. And what are those?

1) Taking the material world as real.

2) Thinking in terms of biological groups (“races”).

3) Seeing the human races as different and unequal.

4) Seeing the world as a battle field of competing biological groups.

5) Thinking in terms of the survival and flourishing of the own biological group.

6) Thinking in long terms (centuries, millennia).


Christianity has quite the opposite qualities. To wit:


1) Unlike the Indian religions Christianity doesn’t consider the material world as an illusion (“maya”) from which one has to be liberated, it sees the world as created by God but corrupted by man. Still it is wrong to strife for worldly advancement in this “fallen world” as long as it has not been redeemed by the “resurrection”, for which one has to wait.

2) Christianity doesn’t think in terms of groups, let alone biological groups; it thinks in terms of individuals whose souls have to be saved.

3) Human races may be outwardly different, but inwardly they have the same souls equally capable of salvation.

4) The world may seem to be a battlefield, but the task of man is not to win the battle on that battlefield but to bring “peace on earth”.

5) Moral is not what is good for the own group. It is exactly the opposite: what is good for the other. Christianity is therefore the most “other directed” ideology in the world.

As you see it would require an impossible juggling trick to change Christianity into a group evolutionary strategy for the white man, but that is what Judaism actually is for the Jews, as professor MacDonald has demonstrated so well.

Published in: on March 25, 2015 at 9:43 am  Comments (5)  
Tags:

Subtle thought police

Tom Sunic wrote:

The thought police in America, with its numerous outlets, are much less visible and much more subtle than in Europe—and therefore more efficient. For example, The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) claims to be a think tank but is essentially an assembly line for smearing those who have “evil thoughts” on topics such as race and Jewish influence. It receives millions of dollars from anonymous sources with its prime goal being the blacklisting of all groups it labels as “extreme rightwing” and of all intellectual nonconformists daring to criticize the System. Indeed, the SPLC resembles a private spy agency whose ideological lines are drawn in the vicinity of cultural Marxism, and which is headed by Morris Dees, Mark Potok and Richard Cohen.

Long ago, it was the SPLC itself that launched the new rules of the language engagement and which continues to employ abusively the expressions such as “hate groups” or “white supremacist” for individuals of European ancestry voicing opinions critical of multiculturalism and opposing the disproportionate role of the Jews in the American media. In the French language, words such as “hate groups” or “white supremacists” have not yet assumed the same inquisitorial significance, in contrast to America, where these terms have a paralyzing effect on any intellectual or a politician daring to touch the modern Holy of Holies—i.e. the Jewish question or the metaphysics of multiculturalism. Although in the Penal Code there is not yet a legal provision referring to “hate speech,” this expression, however, is propagated by the U.S. media on all wavelengths, and has by now become part of the new media jargon, serving as an increasingly powerful deterrent against all free spirits. Indeed, the locution of “hate speech” is so vague that it can easily lend itself to any interpretation; hence the label may strike anybody at any time.

thought-policeThe SPLC or the powerful explicitly Jewish lobby, the Anti-Defamation League, (whose counterpart in France is the CRIF, Conseil représentatif des institutions juives de France—“Council of French Jewish Organizations”) are not just intellectual espionage machines. The SPLC is also an outlet which informs the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security in the United States about White heretics suspected of spreading “hate speech” and who—by the process of guilt by association—are likely to become “terrorists”—a denotation with far more serious implications in America. Worse, the SPLC has also set itself the task of monitoring academic institutions, sniffing out and cataloguing “evil-minded” teachers whose syllabi depart from the Gospel of multiculturalism. Not only are its targets young wacky self-proclaimed Nazis, but also many prominent scholars in the field of sociobiology, as for instance Professor Kevin MacDonald, or even politicians and writers, such as the former presidential candidate and the bestselling author Patrick Buchanan.

Of course, everybody in America is legally entitled to criticize everything on numerous websites and in fringe nationalist papers of the so-called extreme right, but in most cases, the intellectual scope of these papers and sites is limited and can in no way harm the System.


Franklin Ryckaert commented:

The difference between America and Europe with regard to freedom of speech about the two taboos (Jews and race) is that in America the problem is “solved” in a privatized way—in accordance with its ethos of the free enterprise system, while in Europe it is solved by the State (laws), but the result is the same. In America private inquisitions (ADL, SPLC) persecute heretics, in Europe it is the State. In both cases it is the Jews who are behind it.

Then there is of course a secondary class, consisting of whites who have entirely interiorized Jewish thinking and now have undertaken the holy task of persecuting their heretical brethren: the pathetic case of the anti-white whites, variously known as “anti-racists”, “anti-fascists” etc.

The more Jews take power and the more the number of non-whites increases, the more restriction of free speech will increase. There is no other way out of this predicament than through the use of free speech. Here lays the major battlefield. The internet with its numerous websites allows us to wage a kind of guerrilla war in this struggle, but for how long?


My 2 cents:

Greg Johnson wrote today about his recent encounter with the American thought police:

Last week, Caitlin Dewey, a writer at The Washington Post, wrote an article about Heidi’s campaign, giving it a great deal of publicity, and not 48 hours later, Amazon canceled our affiliate account. The SPLC’s purpose, of course, is to put Counter-Currents out of business. (Ask yourself how you would fare with a 20% reduction in income.)

They have to silence us, of course, because they can’t answer us. As more people awaken to the fact that multiculturalism is a marriage made in hell, the SPLC and other organs of Jewish domination and anti-white genocide will only intensify their attempts to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

Then Greg took the opportunity to request further donations. He now wants $60,000 a year from his sponsors.

If like Linder you are unimpressed by Greg’s “porcelain gun” approach to white preservation, consider donating to this blog instead.

On the “white genocide” meme

“Why do White Nationalists insist on mono-causality, as if the Jews were God?”

Jaego


Franklin Ryckaert

It would be nice if a person with the talent of a Prof. MacDonald would write a trilogy on the problem dealing with:

1) The innate psychological characteristics of Whites (individualism, abstract idealism, universal moralism).

2) The influence of Christianity and its secular outgrowth of Liberalism (inversion of values, altruism as the only form of moralism even to a suicidal degree).

3) The Jewish exploitation of both.

Central to the weakness of Whites is what I call naive inclusivism.

It is naive because it not only believes that all non-white peoples can and want to become like Westerners, but also that including them in Western societies will lead to a Utopia instead of racial suicide. This naive inclusivism is as old as the European expansion outside Europe itself:

• Alexander the Great wanted to include all peoples of the Middle East in his Hellenistic ideal, even initiating miscegenation with them.

• The Romans included all non-European peoples in their Empire bequeathing Roman citizenship to all who they thought deserved it. They even had one time an Arab emperor (Philippus Arabs).

• When the Western European peoples began to colonize the world, they made the same mistake. The Spaniards and Portuguese miscegenated with the natives of their colonies on a mass scale and later also with their imported African slaves.

• The Dutch miscegenated with the Indonesians and accepted their mixed offspring as “Europeans.”

• The French accepted educated Blacks, the so-called évolués, as their equals. France doesn’t keep statistics about its ethnic and racial minorities because it considers them all as “Frenchmen.”

• Only the British kept aloof from the natives in their colonies and didn’t allow them to immigrate into the white settlement colonies or Britain itself. But that has now radically changed, the British having become the most extreme both in terms of immigration and miscegenation.

We simply cannot ascribe this suicidal behaviour to Jewish machinations, rather it is the age-old inclination of Europeans to include the whole world in a universal ideal. You aptly describe Jewish destructive influence as an “epiphenomenon.”[1] It couldn’t function as it does without the above-described preconditions.

Hunter Wallace

A commenter asked:

Why are Jews leading white nations to begin with? What level of idiocy does it take to allow your nation to voluntarily be led by a foreign tribe? That’s the question.

Wallace responded:

Ever since the French Revolution—see what happened in Haiti—, the answer has been liberalism.

Yankees believed in liberal capitalist democracy and their ideology legitimized the Jewish takeover of their society without a shot being fired. Germany put up more resistance under Hitler because Germans were less committed to liberalism.

It’s really that simple: Jews thrive in liberal democracies, under communism, and other systems that substitute abstract ideology for ethnic or religious solidarity.

Is Jewish influence bad? Of course.

It is a secondary infection. Jews don’t thrive in the Muslim world, China, Japan and other places because the conditions there aren’t favorable to Jews like they were in early twentieth century Yankeeland.

Yankees believed that Jews had a right to own their newspapers and film industry. They had a right to accumulate vast amounts of wealth and participate on an equal basis in their political system. The rest is history.

For those who don’t believe Whites are capable of imposing this madness on themselves, I will point to France during the French Revolution which abolished slavery in the name of the “Rights of Man” and made every Negro a citizen of the French Republic.

The triumph of anti-racism and egalitarian fanaticism just happened to coincide with the French Revolution and the 1848 Revolution.

Occigent

It’s the Jews’ fault Whites let them into Harvard? It’s the Jews’ fault that Whites let them take over academia? It’s the Jews’ fault that Roosevelt was a communist? It’s the Jews’ fault that Whites handed over their civilization?

The only wild conspiracy going on here is that Whites aren’t responsible for their own beds.

Anyone who tells you that the state of the ethnic ship upon which our mind weapons are mounted is not now and has not always been our direct and personal responsibility is a Jew-trained welfare mind white house wigger [2] that should be immediately cast overboard. We’ll be lucky enough as it is to get this rusty old scow to safe harbor without that dead weight.

We are the most powerful people in the world. We can change the future tomorrow. Don’t let the victimcrats hobble your vision, your clarity, and most important of all, that lost Jewel of White Civilization, your personal responsibility. To your people, to your culture, and to God: Do not ever let someone get in the way of that responsibility. They are the enemy. And they will drag you further down into the pits of hell.

Repeat. Our ship is not the Muslim’s responsibility, it is not the Jews’ responsibility. It is our responsibility. So wake the fuck up and stop giving other people power over you.

People: Get real. We love what the Jews do for us. We love the entertainment, we love the laissez faire attitude, we love the sex, we love the drugs, we love the rock and roll. And we get drunk on it, and they take it too far.

But for God’s sake, open your eyes. Get real with yourselves. History is rife with whites who would sell their soul for lollipop, as is Washington DC, and as long as there are such whites, which will be always, there will always be Jews to accommodate them.

Do we wish that Jews would not accommodate us in our sin? Yes. We do. Is it the Jews’ fault that we sin? No. It is not. It is our fault.

Right now, as we speak, there are probably a million Jews engaged in commerce and entertainment to fill the needs of a hundred million white sinners. And we do nothing to stop it. And that’s their fault?

Sebastian Ernst Ronin commented:

A plea into the wind, beautifully expressed though. When it hurts enough, then yes, maybe. Until such time, the culture of victimhood serves the purposes of an infantile “White genocide” meme.

Futurodellanazione commented:

Monocausalism seems to be most popular with relatively uneducated/fanatical European National Socialist types. It isn’t nuanced or especially cerebral, but it’s a convenient gate to open for useful idiots. The Islamists use monocausalism to recruit suicide bombers. It’s a smart tack and one that works for certain crowds.

Johan Hoeff commented:

Kudos to Occigent for his presentation; the thread was worthy of note, for the depth and common-sense approach to our present, if not our historical life. We are Masters of our own ship, or we are not.

Roger

There was no mention in the Labour Party’s 1997 manifesto of any plan to bring millions upon millions of new people in, but it was still obvious to all observant people that they were social revolutionaries and radical egalitarians with a deep commitment of the destruction of the English constitution (they were highly successful at achieving their ends). There was a clear antecedent from previous decades, however, during which time the Labour Party had started the process of coloured immigration from the ex-colonies.

The Conservative Party had continued to support the process whenever it was in government, and its leaders marginalised Enoch Powell when he made his famous speech in 1968. Nobody can seriously claim not to have known Labour were pro-immigration, although the average voter might not have been able to predict the extent of it. We know, from admissions by a Labour scriptwriter called Andrew Neather, and more recently from the Jew Peter Mandelson, that they deliberately used immigration as a means of “rubbing the Right’s nose in diversity,” and went so far as to send recruitment teams abroad to find people to move here. This was well-known within the party’s leading ranks, but absent from their public statements. When Neather made the rare mistake of being honest to a journalist about immigration, most people paid little attention to it.

The results of their actions were plain to see by the time the next election came along in 2001. By this time, there had been several race riots in Northern England (not for the first time) and a significant increase in the level of net migration—and they still got re-elected. No adult could profess ignorance at this point: a vote for Labour was very obviously a vote for mass-immigration, multiculturalism and the erosion of liberty. Four more years passed, during which time the Iraq war was initiated, another huge wave of immigration came along, and the government revoked a law banning homosexual propaganda from schools (“Section 28”) and decided to give queers the “right” to form civil unions—and they got re-elected again. Their manifesto during that election campaign included a pledge to introduce new laws criminalising “Racial and Religious Hatred,” which would re-enforce the pre-existing Race Relations Acts supported by all three of the main political parties.

By 2010, the voters decided to kick them out and replace them with the Conservative Party, whose leader refers to himself as the “heir to Blair” and does not differ from the Labour Party in any substantial way. The Conservatives did not manage to win a parliamentary majority, and they depend on the support of the Liberal Democrats to get their legislation passed (which is not a problem because the two parties agree about almost everything, but pretend not to as part of the democratic media circus). Since then, mass-immigration has continued unabated, there have been more race riots, crime has continued to increase, and now the government is pushing through homosexual marriage laws while denouncing their critics as “swivel-eyed loons.” If you look at the opinion polls for the next general election to see how people are planning to react against the failed Conservative-Liberal government, you will find that they are going to respond by voting the Labour Party back in! A Labour Party led, no less, by a Jew.

It is unbelievable that people can continue to vote for the enemies of civilisation time and time again. The only reasonable conclusion is that the voters really do support their own national suicide.

Here’s the funny thing: in every election since 2001, less than half of the population has turned out to vote. Tens of millions of people are not even registered with the electoral roll, making them ineligible to vote. These apathetic people cannot complain about our woes if they will not even do something as easy as vote for the BNP. Of the minority of Brits who actually turn out to vote, less than half have voted for the winning party in each of the last four elections. The parties are not popular at all, but the apathy of the non-voters is akin to complicity. If they object to it, they should get themselves on the electoral register and vote for the BNP. There have been plenty of opportunities to do this, but people simply refuse.

Truly, “optimism is cowardice”! I have no idea how the UK (or Sweden) is going to recover from this. People’s brains have been turned to mush. It is intolerable. No wonder Dominique Venner topped himself.

______________________

Excerpted from discussions at The Occidental Observer, Occidental Dissent and The West’s Darkest Hour in recent years.

Notes:

[1] Ryckaert refers to my statement: “The Jewish Problem is an epiphenomenon of the deranged altruism resulting from the secular fulfillment of universal Christian values.”

[2] A male Caucasian, usually born and raised in the suburbs that displays a strong desire to emulate African American Hip Hop culture. (Note of the Ed.)

Published in: on February 13, 2015 at 9:05 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags:

Let me know…

Pieter_Bruegel

In my previous posts I have been bashing white nationalists and race realists because of their blindness to see that John’s apocalypse is coming soon. (Disclaimer: I am not a Christian and am speaking metaphorically.) With the honorable exception of my friend Sebastian Ronin, nationalists have failed to do their homework and see that the coming energy devolution will cause the death not of millions but of billions of humans this century. It goes without saying that the struggle to hostilely takeover the remaining oil fields will be accompanied by ethnic warfare and even wars among the starving nations.

Ignorant of all this (see the links within my previous entries), Franklin Ryckaert, whom I fairly quoted in The Fair Race, commented a couple of days ago:

Excellent article which puts the lie to the idea that white homelands can only be achieved by genocide on a mass scale as envisioned by such persons as Pierce and Chechar. Slow repatriation in an orderly and humane manner is very well possible and need not be considered as immoral.

Immoral? Ryckaert posted that comment in a Counter-Currents thread of an article by Greg Johnson, who for years has been promoting a peaceful takeover of white nations to the point of condemning the vision of revolutionary novelists like William Pierce and Harold Covington.

I am moving outside Mexico City in order to protect myself from the dollar crash that, when it happens, will escalate the insecurity of my native town exponentially. The beauty of my viewpoint against the non-genocidal pacifists at Counter-Currents is that history will disabuse them horribly, probably this very decade when the dollar hyperinflates.

If I am wrong about this prediction I’ll feel a little humiliated and even ridiculed. On the other hand, if the pacifists who believe in business as usual in the following decades are wrong—they could even die as they are not preparing themselves for the collapse.

If a regular is willing to start being educated on this subject I will send him the didactic documentary End of the Road on condition that, after seeing it, he in turn will send it to another regular visitor of The West’s Darkest Hour.

Let me know, and be ready for Armageddon…

Published in: on June 27, 2014 at 11:39 pm  Comments (17)  
Tags: ,

An April 20th postscript


This is a postscript to the entry celebrating the 125th birthday of Hitler that has been just published on my main blog, The West’s Darkest Hour.


Kevin MacDonald

MacDonald is the only white nationalist that I respect. His work on Jewry provides the scientific basis to understand the problem. But I cannot respect other nationalists.


Brad Griffin (penname: Hunter Wallace)

A few days ago Hunter Wallace, the admin of Occidental Dissent wrote apropos the Glenn Miller shootings:

Upon reflection, the term “self detonating lone wolf vanguardist” and the damage that these people routinely inflict on the White Nationalist movement encompasses virtually all of the recent incidents which I wanted to address. What is a “self detonating lone wolf vanguardist”? In his book Blood and Politics: A History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream, Leonard Zeskind depicted the White Nationalist movement as being torn between “two political trends” which “vie for strategy hegemony”…

So we have a well-known Southern Nationalist using the categories (“self detonating lone wolf vanguardist”) of Zeskind—a Jewish president of a pro-Jew hate group—in order to categorize silly vanguardists? A Jew that in his article Wallace quotes at length to “understand” radical nationalists?

On the same article Occidental Dissent’s admin spoke in high terms about Christianity: “Southern Nationalism should emphasize Christian morality in order to attract the sort of people who can relate to their neighbors…” And in another recent thread he added:

In Southern Nationalism, there is a consensus that Christianity is our religion and provides the moral foundation of Southern culture, which we want to preserve, as well as a consensus that religious minorities will be tolerated. There is no such cultural consensus in White Nationalism. In fact, there is even a debate on basic moral questions like whether murder is immoral, which puts into stark relief the lack of a common culture.

Since Wallace received positive feedback from the commenters, one can assume that southern nationalists are completely unaware that Christianity has been more toxic for the white race than the Jewish problem itself.


Franklin Ryckaert, and Greg Johnson

Ryckaert at Counter Currents quoted Johnson’s article about Hitler on April 19, 2014:

“…he (Hitler) wished to reduce fellow Europeans, specifically Slavs, to colonized peoples, which contradicts the basic principle of ethno-nationalism. The North American New Right stands for ethno-nationalism for all nations, and we reject the totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide of the Old Right.”

This is exactly the reason why genuine white nationalists should reject the man. I tried in vain to explain that to Carolyn Yeager, an inveterate Hitler worshipper. To try to express white nationalism in Nazi terms is indeed a “burden” that should be avoided. White nationalism is simply ethno-nationalism for peoples of European descent. I define ethno-nationalism as the endeavor to have a state for the [sic] own ethnic group that promotes the interests of that ethnic group. Ethno-nationalism should also be the right for all other races and ethnicities. In principle there need not be hostility between the various racial or ethnic groups, if this basic right is universally accepted.

Johnson responded:

Well put. It was precisely Yeager’s fundamentalist Hitlerism that caused the [sic] her break with Tanstaafl, who is a real White Nationalist, and the destruction of The White Network. Tan apparently had a superhuman ability to deal with Carolyn’s obnoxious personality, but when matters of principle were at stake, he pulled the plug. Let’s hope he finds more worthy outlets for that truly admirable level of disinterested idealism.

Johnson omits to say that he was angry with Carolyn Yeager because she was the first notable voice in the movement to tell a truth: that out-of-the-closet homosexuals are noxious for the pro-white movement.

As to Ryckaert, has he read The Gulag Archipelago? Even though Solzhenitsyn actually fought against the Nazis before being taken to the Gulag prisons you cannot escape the feeling by reading the Archipelago that the Germans were saving the invaded Soviet Union from the bad guys. All this talk by Ryckaert and Johnson about “Slavs” in the abstract misses the point: the SU was a Jew-led genocidal system that should have been conquered by fanatic, genocidal anti-Semites. Kind of Newton’s second law of motion about the behavior of objects for which all existing forces are not balanced.

Can’t these guys see something so obvious? “To live now and not to know this work [The Gulag Archipelago] is to be a kind of historical fool” —W.L. Webb. Ryckaert and Johnson are historical fools. (Keep in mind that you must have read it; not only secondary or tertiary sources about the book, to understand why the SU should have been destroyed.)

Furthermore, about Glenn Miller’s silly shootings this month, Greg Johnson seems to be on the same page of Hunter Wallace. At VNN forum Johnson recently wrote:

“Don’t quote me out of context. What Breivik did was stupid, crazy, and evil, and I made that clear.”

Isn’t comparing Breivik with Miller like confusing a smart Viking with a silly redneck? I won’t go into detail here but on VNN Linder has recently nailed Johnson’s self-righteousness (see e.g., here). Linder also quoted a recent exchange that, incidentally, supports the line of criticism I did in my main entry about this memorable April 20th:

Concerned White Man posted on April 17, 2014:

So Greg is not a fan of Yockey’s vision, and he uses worn out liberal phrases, like “self-determination”? You learn something new here everyday. The Germans were genocidal? And the West doesn’t represent imperialism? This is unbelievable from a “white nationalist” perspective.

Greg Johnson answered on April 17, 2014:

If you have nothing better to offer than point-and-splutter and snarkiness and “scare quotes,” you will not be allowed to comment again.

Of course: like the Jew-controlled media, Johnson has had a long history of censorship in his webzine for those even a little to the right of his POV.

Hitler, Rockwell, Pierce

But what do I think of events like the Glenn Miller affair? As always, listen to the (“vanguardist”) William Pierce, whose stature will never be reached by either “white nationalists” or “southern nationalists”:

Can you imagine our enemies acting in such an immature and undisciplined way? When the Jews want to hurt a country—Iraq, for example—they don’t express their hatred for Iraqis by setting off a truck bomb in front of the Iraqi embassy. They very carefully make a long-range plan to get one of their creatures elected President, and then they use the powers controlled by the President to inflict really serious damage on Iraq. If the Clinton administration became angry at China, say, the government would not send a squad of U.S. Marines to shoot up a Chinese restaurant in Washington. And Janet Reno wouldn’t show her opposition to letting Americans purchase firearms by ordering FBI agents to throw bricks through the windows of gun stores or to spray-paint hateful graffiti on the headquarters of the National Rifle Association.

The reason America’s internal enemies are winning now is because they not only use their heads to make plans, but they also exercise self-discipline. They keep their feelings under control. When Madeleine Albright began her murderous bombing of Serbia this spring [1999], every Jewish organization in America came out with strong statements of support for the bombing. It obviously was something the Jews had been thinking about for a while. But they did not act prematurely and foolishly by doing something like shooting up the Serb community center in Chicago. They understood that such an action would not cripple the Serbs or even weaken them; it would only put them on the alert, make them angry, and generate public sympathy for them.

I’ll recap what I just said. Random acts of violence don’t make sense now. Temper tantrums are not helpful. What we need now is self-discipline, not self-indulgence. It’s good for us to remember now the old, old rule for people who want to get rid of a king. The rule is: kill the king with your first stroke; don’t merely wound the king, because if you do he surely will kill you.

Hitler, Rockwell and Pierce must be our guiding stars. Forget the suckers.

White suicide since Alexander

A comment by Franklin Ryckaert:

It would be nice if a person with the talent of a Prof. MacDonald would write a trilogy on the problem dealing with:

1) The innate psychological characteristics of Whites (individualism, abstract idealism, universal moralism).

2) The influence of Christianity and its secular outgrowth of Liberalism (inversion of values, altruism as the only form of moralism even to a suicidal degree).

3) The Jewish exploitation of both.

Central to the weakness of Whites is what I call naive inclusivism.

It is naive because it not only believes that all non-white peoples can and want to become like Westerners, but also that including them in Western societies will lead to a Utopia instead of racial suicide.

This naive inclusivism is as old as the European expansion outside Europe itself:

• Alexander the Great wanted to include all peoples of the Middle East in his Hellenistic ideal, even initiating miscegenation with them.

• The Romans included all non-European peoples in their Empire bequeathing Roman citizenship to all who they thought deserved it. They even had one time an Arab emperor (Philippus Arabs).

• When the Western European peoples began to colonize the world, they made the same mistake. The Spaniards and Portuguese miscegenated with the natives of their colonies on a mass scale and later also with their imported African slaves.

• The Dutch miscegenated with the Indonesians and accepted their mixed offspring as “Europeans”.

• The French accepted educated Blacks, the so-called evolués, as their equals. France doesn’t keep statistics about its ethnic and racial minorities because it considers them all as “Frenchmen”.

• Only the British kept aloof from the natives in their colonies and didn’t allow them to immigrate into the white settlement colonies or Britain itself. But that has now radically changed, the British having become the most extreme both in terms of immigration and miscegenation.

We simply cannot ascribe this suicidal behaviour to Jewish machinations, rather it is the age-old inclination of Europeans to include the whole world in a universal ideal. You aptly describe Jewish destructive influence as an “epiphenomenon”; it couldn’t function as it does without the above-described preconditions.

Tanstaafl and Carolyn Yaeger refuse to acknowledge this basic fact, ascribing its recognition to “treason”. Self-criticism hurts, but it is absolutely necessary.