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)  

Joker, Molyneux and CC


An opportunity to present the trauma model

In recent years I don’t usually go to the movies. If there is something I say to my nephews when I see them it is that, in the media and the cinema, all the messages are bad. But yesterday I broke my habit after watching Stefan Molyneux’s video about the Joker movie.

I am glad that, as Molyneux confessed in one of his latest videos, eighty percent of his audience dropped last year. Is it because of his dishonesty about the JQ? Whatever caused the drop, from alt-lite to neo-Nazism, passing through white nationalism, Molyneux is the only notable personality in our underworld who has consistently talked about child abuse.

As the visitors of this blogsite know, I spent more decades investigating child abuse than the single decade I’ve dedicated to investigating the darkest hour in the West: whose report, The Fair Race, now appears as a free PDF. Since my oldest specialty is the subject of child abuse I must say that what Molyneux tells us in his one-hour video is, in general terms, correct.

The video revolves around the character Arthur Fleck / Joker, a mentally-ill man who dreams to become a stand-up comedian but so disregarded by a hellish and diverse Gotham City that decides to become a criminal. Curiously, the actor Joaquin Phoenix did not look to previous Joker actors for inspiration: he simply read some reports about political assassinations.

Hollywood movies usually lack psychological realism. For example, in the 1989 Jack Nicholson movie the Joker origin story simply falls into a vat of acid. The 2019 movie, on the other hand, gives its central character a plausible origin. So plausible that the film has been described as reminiscent of mass shootings in the US, and the incel community loved it. What’s more, some people from the establishment have expressed concern that Joker could inspire real-world violence.

In a moment of the first minutes of his video, Molyneux confesses that he has received horrific verbal abuse just for mentioning the naked facts of his own childhood, and that hostility toward those who were abused as children or teenagers is not uncommon if the adult victim dares to open his mouth.

At this point I would like to distinguish between dysfunctional parents and schizogenic parents, that is, parents who literally murder their children’s souls. While almost everyone I know comes from family dysfunction in one way or another, the category of schizogenic parents simply does not exist in our society. Since the 1950s the Big Pharma has ensured that civil society does not find out that there is a trauma model to understand the mental disorder that competes with its profitable medical model.

But what does all this have to do with the recent film Joker? As can be deduced from Molyneux’s video, and regardless of the sinister motivation of its Jewish creators, the film could be used, by us, to present the trauma model to the public. I was the one who started this Wikipedia article on the trauma model, an academic text that appeals to the left hemisphere of our brains. He who wants to delve deeper into this research line, and in a more literary way, can read my book Day of Wrath. On the other hand, he who prefers a personal testimony that presents the trauma model appealing to our right hemisphere could read John Modrow’s touching autobiography, How to Become a Schizophrenic.

Furthermore, he who is unwilling even to read any the above literature, but willing to educate himself on the subject having some fun, could see the films Shine (1996), Monster (2003), The Piano Teacher (2001) and even Artificial Intelligence by Spielberg, which can be used to grasp what proponents of the trauma model call ‘the problem of attachment to the perpetrator’.

Although it may seem incredible, sometimes fairy tales portray the destructive interaction of parents with their children. In almost all fairy tales, including modern fairy tales like Kubrick/Spielberg’s A.I. or Harry Potter, the parental figure is substituted so as not to touch it directly. In the case of the Potter series the abusers are Harry’s uncle and aunt. As to David, the child robot in A.I., obviously he had no biological parents but Monica functions like a substitute mother. But sometimes the storyteller sneaks parents directly into the story as the villains who abandon their children (for example in Tom Thumb).

But there are more serious forms of abuse than abandoning your child in the woods, what also happened to David. What Molyneux says about not forgiving schizogenic parents is true. I would go as far as to claim that to forgive such parents is the most toxic thing for the mental health of the victim. Mine is an opposed claim to what the establishment wants us to believe.

Why is the forgiveness that religionists and therapists preach so toxic? Because it is the abusive parents and society the ones who are currently murdering young souls. As the Armenian lawyer said in Spotlight, which won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 2015: ‘This city, these people [Boston people] are making the rest of us feel like we don’t belong. But they’re no better than us. Look at how they treat their children. Mark my words, Mr. Rezendes [another Armenian]: If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one’ (emphasis added).

For the victim, unilaterally forgiving the perpetrator or a society that never accepts its soul-murdering sins is simply a betrayal of oneself and the other adult victims, now suffering from mental stress and even disorders.

In addition to the first minutes of Molyneux’s video, using as a paradigm the Joker’s abusive interaction with his mother Penny in Gotham City, Molyneux advances ideas analogous to what I have known for a long time. Watch also the segments after minute 35 of his video: how female evil is still taboo in the film industry.

It is curious to note the chasm between those who, like Molyneux and I, have investigated child abuse due to our past, and those who did not have such destructive parenting.

Greg Johnson for example is a Batfan. In his recent review of Joker, which he writes under the penname of Trevor Lynch, Johnson prefers Heath Ledger’s Joker in the 2008 The Dark Knight than the Joker of the movie released this month. Johnson expresses very derogatory of this latest Joker: ‘You’d want to squash him like a bug’. ‘Ledger’s Joker launched a million memes, both because of his character and his lines. Phoenix’s Joker will have no such influence. He’s a pathetic nobody with nothing to say’. ‘Arthur [the Joker] is entirely absorbed in self-pity’. ‘Joker is a boring movie about a disgusting loser’.

Well, it didn’t look boring to me… But the commenters on Counter-Currents who opined about Johnson’s review said very similar things: ‘People like him deserve to get left behind by society, and the true tragedy of this movie is that successful, well-adjusted men like Thomas Wayne insist on trying to love the Arthur Flecks of the world and take care of them’. Really? The conservative commenter also said: ‘The defects like Arthur would be put in mental asylums and [eugenically] sterilized’. [1]

Such commenters remind me that, in the movie, Thomas Wayne, the billionaire father of the future Batman, labels those Gotham residents envious of the wealthy as ‘clowns’, not only the Joker. I don’t know how many viewers enjoyed the moment when, by the end of the movie, a rioter corners the Wayne family in an alley and murders Thomas and his wife sparing the child Bruce. Another commenter said: ‘One of the great things about Heath Ledger’s Joker in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight is that he does not have an origin story’.

I dare not judge the Marvel universe as I feel deeply revolted by it. But in the real world, isn’t it good to know, say, the psychopathological motivations of those women in the Charles Manson family? But the commenters’ lack of elemental compassion is even noticeable about the previous Joker represented by Heath Ledger, an actor that incidentally has already passed away. In one of the dialogues the now dead Joker explains his scars. He said that his father ‘comes at me with a knife. “Why so serious?” He sticks a blade in my mouth. “Let’s put a smile on that face”.’

This father strikes me as ‘soul murderer’. Note this other phrase from the CC commenter: ‘Arthur [the Joker who’s alive] is far too damaged for any regular person to identify with him’.

How will a normie commenter identify with him if only one percent (or less) of Westerners have endured schizogenic parents?

Incidentally, last night, as I watched the psychological thriller, there were times when I laughed (as the character does in the film) when the audience was serious and nobody laughed. That happened to me, yesterday, in the climax of the film when the Joker kills the establishment character that Robert de Niro represented.

As I said, I usually don’t go to the movies now. But decades ago the same phenomenon occurred to me with some films by Luis Buñuel, whom I met personally, in which nobody laughed. It also happened to me when I watched Dr. Strangelove by Kubrick on the big screen. I laughed at the black humour in which the nuclear extermination of humanity was at stake while the hundreds of people watching the movie with me were quiet in the theatre. Only when I read a Kubrick biography by Vincent Lobrutto did I find out that Kubrick had a very black sense of humour. Then did I understand me and the non-laugher spectators of Dr. Strangelove!

Joker ends when Arthur laughs and tells a psychiatrist that she would not understand the joke…


[1] In the comments section on Joker in Counter-Currents Johnson shows how ignorant he is about psychiatry: a supposed branch of medicine with as little scientific basis as parapsychology or the study of UFOs, as shown in my writings (for example: here). Johnson wrote ‘If Arthur is adopted then his mental illness cannot be inherited from this mother’. This is a credulity stance regarding the psychiatric allegations that mental illness is genetic. Apparently, Johnson forgot what I said in one of my articles in which he himself corrected my syntax (see this piece which appears in my Hojas Susurrantes).

Hitler in your living room

Pages 528-532 of the forthcoming edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour:

When I read Hitler’s Table Talk, what impressed me most was to discover that uncle Adolf was a very cultured man who talked about ancient history (including Julian the Apostate), architecture, painting, music and even criticised Christianity more than Jewry. He also predicted that the future of the Reich would be vegetarian. Alas, in the pro-white forums neo-Nazi Christians cannot believe that Hitler’s after-dinner conversations are genuine. For this reason, I would like to quote a commenter who used to sign under the pseudonym of Jack Frost in the webzine of Kevin MacDonald. This is what Frost said in a discussion thread of The Occidental Observer on August 4, 2015:

David Irving has considerable expertise in this matter, and he says they’re genuine. Likewise Albert Speer, who was present at some of these dinner talks, attests to them in his memoirs. But also, perhaps even more convincing, the talks are the blindingly original insights of a true master.

These views [critical] of Christianity are not derivative of anyone else’s opinions, certainly not Schopenhauer’s, and while at odds with certain of his public statements, are quite consistent with other things known about Hitler, particularly his anti-Semitism. Surely a forger wouldn’t have gone this route. In the first place, he would have had to do original thinking that is quite uncharacteristic of forgers, and in the second place an ordinary forger would have been careful not to make any statements that were inconsistent with other things known to have been said or written by Hitler. Their very originality speaks to their veracity. Of course, this can be turned around. People who want to believe Hitler was actually a Christian disingenuously ask why, if this was his real opinion, didn’t he put it in Mein Kampf or mention it in any of his public speeches?

But the answer is obvious. Hitler was a politician, and had to be all things to all people. No politician with such views could have been open about them in a Christian nation. Accordingly, to Christians of his day, he appeared to be a Christian. Such hypocrisy was more or less built into the task he had set for himself.

David Irving, with whom I came to exchange some correspondence, has been the foremost historian about Hitler and the Third Reich. Unlike the PC historians about WW2, Irving can see the ‘historical Hitler’ in contrast to the fictional ‘Hitler of dogma’ that the System advertises. Below I quote his opinion on the book in question. It appeared in David Irving’s website, posted on January 1, 2004:

Hitler’s Table Talk is the product of his lunch- and supper-time conversations in his private circle from 1941 to 1944. The transcripts are genuine. (Ignore the 1945 “transcripts” published by Trevor-Roper in the 1950s as Hitler’s Last Testament—they are fake.)

The table talk notes were originally taken by Heinrich Heim, the adjutant of Martin Bormann, who attended these meals at an adjacent table and took notes. (Later Henry Picker took over the job.) Afterwards Heim immediately typed up these records, which Bormann signed as accurate.

François Genoud purchased the files of transcripts from Bormann’s widow just after the war, along with the handwritten letters which she and the Reichsleiter had exchanged.

For forty thousand pounds—paid half to Genoud and half to Hitler’s sister Paula—George Weidenfeld, an Austrian Jewish publisher who had emigrated to London, bought the rights and issued an English translation in about 1949.

For forty years or more no German original was published, as Genoud told me that he feared losing the copyright control that he exercised on them. I have seen the original pages, and they are signed by Bormann.

They were expertly, and literately, translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, though with a few (a very few) odd interpolations of short sentences which don’t exist in the original—the translator evidently felt justified in such insertions, to make the context plain… Weidenfeld’s translator also took liberties with translating words like Schrecken, which he translated as “rumour” in the sense of “scare-story”.

The Table Talks’ content is more important in my view than Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and possibly even more than his Zweites Buch (1928). It is unadulterated Hitler. He expatiates on virtually every subject under the sun, while his generals and private staff sit patiently and listen, or pretend to listen, to the monologues.

Hitler’s Table Talk is better than Mein Kamp as, according to Irving, with the consent of Hitler some editors added to Mein Kamp several chapters that the Führer never wrote. While Mein Kamp was a bestseller for the German people, the unadulterated Hitler will not be discovered in it.

George Lincoln Rockwell was a man of a generation infinitely less sick than ours. When he was killed I had just turned nine. Three decades later, when a new term, ‘white nationalism’ began to be heard on the internet, the typical American racist had already deviated from the path of Commander Rockwell to a more politically correct one.

Remember, the history of the white man carries enormous inertia. In addition to the MacDonald webzine, there is another that is considered one of the pillars of alt-right publishing, Greg Johnson’s Counter-Currents. Although Johnson promotes the creation of an ethnostate his webzine exemplifies what we say about the historical inertia that, once Rockwell and William Pierce died, reversed back white conscience to neo-Christian paths. Johnson, who in 2010 still taught homilies in a church in San Francisco, rejects Nordicism and has come to say: ‘I am interested in European preservationism, and “white” to me just means “European,” which includes a whole range of skin tones, from the whitest white to brown’ (posted as a comment in his webzine on the thread about ‘Racial Purity, Ethnic Genetic Interests, and the Cobb Case’ on November 18, 2013 at 4:14 pm). As we shall see in the next section, this is exactly the sort of flawed worldview that moves me to say that white nationalists are committing ethnosuicide. The following is what Guillaume Durocher, one of the writers who contribute to Counter-Currents, wrote in ‘Understanding Hitler and the Third Reich’ published on April 20, 2016:

Hitler’s Table Talk. This big book, as far as I am concerned, is the ultimate Hitler book. Of course, we have the usual caveats: We have no guarantee that these recordings of Hitler’s private conversations, primarily taken between the invasion of Russia and the end of 1942, are completely accurate. The translation edited by Hugh-Trevor Roper is uncertain: David Irving claims it is good, mainstream historians have said it is actually artlessly translated from a previous French translation (!), which is actually an impression I distinctly had reading the book. Nonetheless, themes of these private conversations recur enough that the gist is clear and accepted by both mainstream and revisionist historians.

I cannot summarize such a book here, but suffice to say that Hitler had an awesome scientific and elitist vision, a truly epic conception of history and politics in which he was a leading character, and a grandiose and terrible project against decadence and for excellence (as he saw it). All this merits real engagement rather than crude caricature. Hitler’s ruthless utilitarianism (his relations with other peoples can be summed up as following: Either fighting-comrades or expendable subjects) and his absurd exclusion of Slavdom from “Europe” in effect make him politically untouchable, above and beyond Allied or Hollywoodian propaganda.

With this book, everyone can reach in to find the Hitler behind the myth. For added effect, imagine Hitler speaking as he does in our only known recording of his private conversations, with Marshal of Finland Carl Gustav Mannerheim. And now you’ve Hitler in your living room…

This quote by Durocher portrays not only the importance of the book of shorthand transcripts of Hitler’s monologues: it also portrays the typical intellectual of white nationalism. They are de facto conservatives with racialised tones: fellows that bear no resemblance to the man we saw in Sparta, Republican Rome, the Berserkers or the Third Reich. Like MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer, Counter-Currents exemplifies the feminisation of racialism since the times when Rockwell tried to apply the National Socialist model in America.

Hitler’s ‘absurd exclusion of Slavdom from Europe’? As we saw in the history of the white race of Pierce, originally, Celt, German, Balt, and Slav were indistinguishably Nordic. But the Slavs became mongrelised after the genocidal Asian invasions: one of the darkest hours for the fair race. We must also remember what the SS pamphlet pointed out regarding the differences between a Russian village in fertile Ukraine compared to a German farm on land wrested from the sea. Neither Durocher nor his editor or the alt-right folks would ever make such distinctions! A fanatic form of egalitarianism reigns among them as to Caucasian peoples. Nor would they say that a country that succumbs to Jewish Bolshevism deserves to be conquered by a nation, in every sense of the word, more Aryan: a nation where the archetype of the eternal masculine was still active!

The following quotes from Hitler’s first two after-dinner conversations in Hitler’s Table Talk are an invitation for the reader to acquire a copy of the book to know the real Hitler. The book is also an invitation to see how Aryan men who resurrect the archetype of the eternal masculine in our age should think.

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’.

White nationalists discuss GoT

Or: Why the subtitle of this site is
‘Under the Heart Tree of Bran the Broken’

I had written a supposedly ‘last word’ on Game of Thrones this Monday but Fróði Midjord, Greg Johnson, John Morgan, and Ramz Paul discussed the grand finale (YouTube video: here). See also the comments on Counter-Currents about the video (here). Under the penname of Trevor Lynch, Johnson expanded his critique on Unz Review:

Brandon, we are told, has the best story, and that qualifies him to rule. Except he doesn’t have the best story, but nobody objects to that. And why is having the best story a qualification to rule anyway? But nobody objects to that either. Beyond that, Brandon, is possessed by a figure known as the Three-Eyed Raven, who seems to know everything, especially about the past. But knowledge is not wisdom, and even wisdom is not leadership. So while Bran might be useful to keep around for information, he is not qualified to be king. But nobody thinks of this, and nobody objects.

First of all, Johnson ignores after minute 23 of the ‘round table’ video that the idea of crowning Bran came from George R.R. Martin himself, as revealed very recently by insiders:

Well, it looks like the finale twist did come from George R.R. Martin. This was confirmed by the actor, Issac Hempstead Wright, who portrays Bran Stark on Game of Thrones. During an interview, Issac says, D&D told him two big details about his character that came directly from the author himself. Unless he changes his mind, it does look like Bran Stark will become the king in the A Song of Ice and Fire series as well.

In the round table, Johnson called the Bran symbol ‘The dumbest story’ and Midjord, the host of the show, added mockingly: ‘The most boring story’. Obviously, these guys have not watched an insightful video that predicted why Bran would be king before the finale was premiered:

I have also called the attention to the same vlogger’s video, ‘The Power of Stories: How Bran the Broken was always the ending’, recorded after the finale. I don’t want to transcribe what the vlogger says to the written word. But the fact that the present subtitle of this site refers to Bran moves me to respond to those white nationalists who completely missed Martin’s point.

Subtitle explanation

Sam: Why? What does he [the Night King] want?

Bran: An endless night. He wants to erase this world. And I am its memory.

Sam: That’s what Death is, isn’t it? Forgetting. Being forgotten. If we forget what we have been or what we’ve done, we are not men anymore; just animals. Your memories don’t come from books. Your stories aren’t just stories. If I wanted to erase the world of men I would start with you.

Those who haven’t understood the ending have probably missed the above dialogue in the second episode of the last season. Bran’s stories are no mere adventures, but stories that mark the destinies of the white peoples.

See my recent articles on foundational myths to understand what I mean, including the story of Romulus stolen by Mark the Evangelist to axiologically invert the Roman foundation myth (in my post yesterday).

Greg Johnson’s plan

by Robert Morgan

Greg Johnson evidently wants to undo and reverse the trend toward globalization, since mixing and trans-locating populations is part of that. Like flying to the moon by flapping your arms, it’s deceptively simple in concept, yet equally impossible. All we need to do, he says, is provide each people with a homeland and then get them to voluntarily move there.

But the devil is in the details. What do you do if they refuse to go? Violence is off the table, according to Greg. So now what? Even if some agree, who pays for relocating them? What about foreign ownership of another nation’s real estate or corporations? The foreigners and racial aliens may not want to sell. Shall we then “make them an offer they can’t refuse”? That would be a good way to start a war, but Johnson says all of this must happen peacefully. How?

And what about white ownership of vital, scarce resources in foreign countries that are crucial to our own self interest? Shall we permit that only to ourselves? Somehow I doubt other countries or races would think that is fair. This list of questions could be extended indefinitely, because a global economy truly is a Gordian knot, with everything intricately tied together in such a way as to be impossible to unravel.

It would take, in essence, a cultural and financial revolution; something that would change human nature as it has been since civilization began. People would have to value preserving race over their own individual success and pleasure. Not just pay it lip service, but actually suffer a great deal to achieve it. Further, they’d have to admit that they’ve been fools all along to think that races could actually get along together.

Psychologically, it would be impossible. For whites, the Christian religion as it currently is interpreted by more than 99.9% of Christians would have to be tossed out along with its cultural residue, for Christianity has triumphed in the West to such an extent that even most atheists nowadays subscribe to Christian moral tenets such as the so-called brotherhood of man. Besides, if race is now the highest value, how could the worship of the racial Other proceed?

Call me a pessimist, but I don’t see any of this happening. It would be easier to crash technological civilization completely than to attempt to revise it along these lines. Johnson’s plan of peaceful separation just won’t work.

Published in: on May 1, 2019 at 11:48 am  Comments (9)  

WN is a Club for Women


Michael O’Meara vs. Greg Johnson

I was waiting at VNN Forum for another commenter to say something about Greg Johnson’s article, ‘Against White Nationalist Terrorism’, but nowadays there is not much discussion in Linder’s forum. It’s a shame because Johnson exercises moderation on Counter-Currents, so a real opposition to his pacifism will not be found in the comments section of his webzine.

The way to respond to Johnson is actually the simplest.

We live in the darkest hour for the white race since prehistory.

This means that almost one hundred percent of whites are degenerate, including those who should be the protectors of white women and children, Aryan men.

As David Lane said in his open letter to a dead race, if there are not 30,000 warriors hiding for some reason, the white race is lost. That means that our attitude must be Revolutionary, not reactionary. White nationalism and the Alt-Right are reactionary. It is a movement basically of women, not of men, in the sense of feminized western males, and therefore inefficient. If all WN forums we see today were actually run by women for women’s readership, I would not complain, but only males can actually defend them and their children.

That does not mean that, as men we are, we have to throw ourselves recklessly for the Revolution.

It just means that we should think like Revolutionaries.

If there were those 30,000 of whom Lane spoke, The Turner Diaries would have already replaced the Bible for these 30,000 men (similar to the 300 Spartans in real history).

But since the 30,000 are missing, the 3 warriors that want to take The Turner Diaries to the real world have to do some metapolitics to convince the other 29,997 to join the Revolution. And the best way to do that is to attack the Alt-Right as I’ve been doing in my latest articles, ‘Fuck white nationalism!’ and ‘On picketing WN meetings’.

Didn’t Norman Spear say that a Revolution needs only 3 percent of Aryan males convinced of the cause? So the job is to convince them by making fun of the Club for Women.

Johnson’s mistake is the mistake of all the degenerate bourgeois of the Alt-Right who believe that it is possible to save the race without endangering their lives.

But the trick is to tell the potential Revolutionaries that it is not yet time for fighting in the real world, as Revolutionaries are far from reaching 3 percent of Aryans.

The work of these cultured thugs that still can’t get out of the trenches is to channel our hatred for the ethnocidal System in unmasking these feminized bourgeois so that the young may join ranks with the Revolutionary cause, far from the forums for women.

It may seem unlikely what I am going to say, but if I had a way to contact these would-be Revolutionaries, I would say the same thing that William Pierce told Bob Mathews: that his plans for immediate action are premature.

We have to wait for the dollar to tank. These experts recognise that we live in an economic bubble that will soon ‘pop’, as can be heard from their lips at the end of the video.

Even after the American dollar tanks we have to wait a while until we reach 3% of Aryan males who are willing to fight.

Meanwhile, as I said, the task is to convince young people that white nationalism is a Club for Women, as it is impossible to seize power without a fight in a West that doesn’t even allow us to speak in public. Only the United States has the First Amendment, but even that country has an extralegal system of penalties to silence the dissident, as seen in Silicon Valley, ADL, SPLC and let’s not talk about what happened on my birthday in Charlottesville.

Yes, ‘Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable’ (John F. Kennedy) but today’s warriors must hold their fire because of what happened to Mathews. But the spirit of Mathews, not Johnson’s, is the one that will eventually save the race.

It is curious that the best author of original texts that Johnson has published, Michael O’Meara, finishes his book—the first book that Counter-Currents has published—with a call to arms.

Although O’Meara has not rushed like Mathews, in a discussion forum before retiring from white nationalism he said he would prepare for Revolutionary action.

That is the correct attitude.

It is time to troll the Club for Women called white nationalism in order to recruit the real men from its ranks.

Remember: the goal is three percent among the Aryan males of a nation. Some would say that one percent is enough, insofar the other two percent are blind followers of hardcore leaders.

Greg Johnson’s pacifism

I just flipped through yesterday’s article ‘Against White Nationalist Terrorism’ because Johnson repeats his arguments in Sweden, that Linder and others already rebutted (see my excerpts: here).

Yes, we are against right-wing terrorism, because the enemy who is literally exterminating our people from Earth through genocide is going to be defeated with movie/tv reviews, intelligent essays about Heidegger and memes!

In the post I erroneously attributed this quote to Linder. It was actually penned by Joseph Curwen.

Published in: on April 18, 2019 at 9:52 am  Comments (3)  


It is interesting that, after the 20th minute of this Q & A session in Stockholm a year ago, Greg Johnson answered a question about the repatriation of non-whites in a diametrically opposite way to The Turner Diaries, and that in the final minute of the video Jared Taylor said he’s located at the ultra-left in racialist circles regarding hatred: a feeling he disapproves.

Interestingly, it was this same Taylor, who says he doesn’t even hate the invaders from the south of the Rio Grande, whom the European Union banned a few days ago from entering the same conference in Stockholm that was held this year…

What kind of man has the best chance of regaining their lands: hawks like Pierce and Linder or doves like Johnson and Taylor?

Published in: on April 4, 2019 at 11:20 pm  Comments (5)  

Linder responds to Johnson

Greg Johnson has seriously criticised Brenton Tarrant in a recent conference at Sweden. He seems to be saying that we can save the white race through peaceful means alone:

Alex Linder has just responded (I will be updating my quotes of what he’s saying this day):

______ 卐 ______

What Prof Poofter doesn’t understand is that no one joins a cause that only suffers blows and never delivers them. No essay ever has or will deliver the heartfelt joy of seeing for once, a white man slaughter the enemy.

[Tarrant] wrote a manifesto too. Unlike yours [Johnson’s manifesto], it’s been read by millions. It explains clearly and plausibly why he acted. Even on your own terms he beat you…

May thousands of Breiviks and Tarrants bloom.

Update of 7:45 am

It’s fine to write, but why denounce those who act?

The funny thing is, too, that guys like Johnson are always saying let everyone do what he feels comfortable with. Then when someone does his own thing, they complain. They’re hypocrites.

It’s child’s play to outargue the left. The left isn’t interested in ideas but in power. At some point there has to be fight back and obviously more people are concluding that time is now.

What needs to be done is organize people into an overt public force. But short of that, individual acts are fine too, and should never be disparaged.

You can disagree with someone’s actions and explain why, but to call Breivik or Bowers or Tarrant “nihilists” is simply to smear in the manner of the left.

Update of 8:47 am

He’s also a hypocrite when it comes to banning speech. I tried to post comments on his site [Counter-Currents], he censored them. This was years ago. He wanted to come here [VNN Forum] and post, but he wouldn’t tolerate responses on his site. So fuck him. On his own terms he’s inconsistent.

Update of 9:50 am. Linder also said:

If what Tarrant did hurt white people, they wouldn’t have immediately censored his video and criminalized distribution of his manifesto. “Nihilism” is a jew-tier smear. What we need now is a White Liberation Army; the age of essays has passed, it is Time to Kill.

Update of 10:50 am. Editor’s note: I for one recommend the perfectly legal tactic of saving precious metals preparing for the coming crash of the dollar. Only after that, the freedom fighters will find a collapsed society where a revolution is comparatively easier. Linder added:

Maybe you explain in your manifesto how you do it legally and peacefully given demographic change and shrinking base for promoting your message. The future is our views banned as hate. Everybody knows that. It’s already the reality in the world outside the US. There’s nothing left but violence.

We’ve been watching this for 20+ years; it has only gone one direction and until there is physical destruction of the agents of white genocide—the jews and their tool-races and whiteskin lackeys—nothing will change except things will get worse.

The problem here is you refuse to accept yourself for what you are—here I’m talking in the non-sexual sense. You’re a publisher who fantasizes himself as revolutionary. We had great essays, even almost as good as yours, 100 years ago. We won the “battle of ideas” (what a fruity concept) that long ago. But it turns out it’s not a war of ideas, it’s just a war.

We need to fight back. Would be better if it were organized, but if we can’t do things that way, or that way yet, then fight back as lone heroes.

The irony that those pushing your approach don’t realize is that all the softer democratic-political stuff would eventually flow from the harder stuff, but you wrongly thing it precedes it. It took Hitler just a few years to go national and huge and then win. This stuff is not long buildup, it’s incendiary.

But address this: how are you going to build a counterculture when it’s illegal? You have no answer to this because there is no answer to this.

It’s time to fight. You can self-characterize your arguments as sober strategy but they’re self-serving mush in reality. Write your essays. Who cares? I’ll give you 20% better than Tarrant—but he acted, and so he’s the one who creates persuasion and belief and gains followers. That’s where we are now. You’re trying to gain at the table what “we” haven’t won on the battlefield. The enemy will be reasonable when it’s on the verge of being wiped out; until it will continue to laugh at your “moral and intellectual” strengthiness and beat our race into the ground.

The way forward is violence. Tut all you like, but Breivik, Roof, Bowers and now Tarrant show us the way.

Update of 11: 12 am.

Yes, we are against right-wing terrorism, because the enemy who is literally exterminating our people from Earth through genocide is going to be defeated with movie/tv reviews, intelligent essays about Heidegger and memes!

My review of a Batman movie [Johnson writes movie reviews of the Batman films] is more powerful than all the political power they have in USA and EU! My porcelain gun [Johnson’s words some years ago] is more powerful than their M4 and their F16!

What a bunch of pussies you are, all of you. No wonder why the enemy is going to win.

Regarding what the commenters are saying about Johnson’s speech in other forums, Linder said:

Sometimes you gotta be a dick. These people make me puke.