“A special Radio Free Northwest on the events
of last week in Charleston, South Carolina” (here).
“A special Radio Free Northwest on the events
One of the most bothersome aspects among today’s racists is their feminism, so much that I’ve been tempted to quote the many feminist passages in Harold Covington’s Freedom’s Sons. (Covington is supposedly the toughest neo-Nazi in America insofar as he is planning a violent revolution to takeover the Northwest for whites.)
Covington aside, what should be accepted wisdom among real traditionalists, patriarchy, is altogether missing in many quarters of white nationalists. Andrew Anglin’s recent articles exposing these phony traditionalists are worth reading (e.g., here and here).
The blindness discussed in my previous posts, and Greg Johnson’s second thoughts on Harold Covington, have moved me to relocate this entry originally posted elsewhere.
This [Johnson’s book-review of Covington’s Quartet] is an extraordinary article on an extraordinary subject.
I am constantly amazed by the fact that the Quartet has been virtually ignored in our community. Part of this, I imagine, is due to the fact that the present generation of racialists, like their unconscious cohorts, no longer reads. Anything that’s more than two or three thousand words long and lacks illustrations is practically inaccessible to them.
A second reason I imagine the Quartet has been ignored is probably due to Covington himself, who is apparently an uncompromising individual and certainly one who has acquired a great many enemies. I don’t personally know Covington, so I have no way of evaluating the various charges made against him.
In any case, even if the nasty things said about him by his enemies are true, it still distracts not in the least from the quality of his works, which are virtually unparalleled in our community. This gets me to the third reason I think the Quartet is ignored. Both white nationalism and race realism are largely cyber phenomena. If you take Covington seriously, however, you would have to tear yourself away from the computer monitor and act in the real world—with all its attendant inconveniences. The thought of political activity, though, is apparently too much for most of us. We too, even if we have remained unmoved by the system’s racial fictions, seem to behave in ways not unlike the rest of the sheep. Will we also go quietly to the slaughter?
I think it’s significant that the spontaneous uprising depicted in the Quartet at Coeur d’Alene, which provoked the war leading to the eventual formation of the Northwest American Republic, was something of a mystery. This rings true to me.
We may no longer be the men who defied the might of the British Empire in 1776 or 1916, but there are other forces that might save us from ourselves.
The greatest of the “conservative” thinkers, Joseph de Maistre, pointed out long ago that the French Revolution led the revolutionaries rather than was led by them. For he believed that certain Providential forces rule our lives. These forces he saw in Christian terms, but others, like Heidegger, for instance, saw them in terms of Being, over which humans have no control. In either case, the force of Providence or Being or Destiny has a power that has often made itself felt in our history [italics added by César Tort]. For this reason, I have little doubt that Europeans will eventually throw off the Judeo-liberal system programming their destruction. I’m less confident about we Americans, given the greater weakness of our collective identity and destiny. But nevertheless even we might be saved from ourselves by this force—as long as we do what is still in our power to do.
In the forum White Nations (specifically, here) a guy said:
Tanstaafl accuses Cesar Tort, his blog The West’s Darkest Hour, of siding with the basic flowing premises of the Jewish Narrative.
Utter nonsense! I signed with my real name on Alex Linder’s poll in VNN forum advocating final solutions to the Jewish problem; and I end both of my 2014 books (The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour and Day of Wrath) praising Himmler’s ways.
I would have banned CT sooner than Tan did, for no other reason than that he was a hopeless Covingtonista. I remember Hadding trying to reason with him and it was like reasoning with a brick wall.
Tanstaafl never banned me from Age of Treason. I decided not posting there anymore. And I am no longer a Covingtonista as anyone who reads my blog knows. (Again, see the very end of The Fair Race; see also here to understand further reasons.)
Anyone knows how to contact Will Williams, the author one of the above comments? (White Nations did not allow me to respond). If I can clear myself from those absurd charges over there I might even remove this entry.
“White Nationalists treat Mediterraneans like Republicans treat Mestizos.”
In “Dies Irae” I responded to Greg Johnson’s bashing of Pierce’s novels, especially The Turner Diaries, and I exposed him as the pseudo-Nietzschean that he is. (Warning: that article is very strong meat indeed, not for the faint-hearted.) Now Johnson is bashing Pierce again but this time Pierce’s last book, Who We Are. He didn’t do it in writing but in a segment of his recent audio interview of Matt Parrott. In about minute 40 of the interview Johnson started to talk about “genetic purity and white identity,” and in minute 41:30 he began his anti-Nordicist tirade speaking about what he calls “weird forms of purism”:
My attitude is that we… should just have an amnesty for all remote past miscegenation. Because the really important thing… is to preserve our race as it exists right now.”
Since Johnson has in mind the miscegenation that took place in historical Europe through the millennia, he is omitting the crucial question: are, say, brown-looking Sicilians “white”? Pay attention to his words that I italicized below:
“…save the race as it exists… rather than being caught up in the past; and caught up in weird forms of purism.
There’s a kind of fallacy in this statement. Is Johnson implying that every European individual before the mass immigration of recent decades is per definition “white”? Is he asking us not to see the phenotypic difference between, say, a modern Greek that looks like a Turk and the hyperborean nymphs that make me mad? What about the Frenchmen and Frenchwomen who have nigger blood in their veins? Let me rephrase a bit from Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans:
(French women with non-white blood.)
According to official French statistics, some three million of North African Arabic mixed race and African Blacks, all from the French colonies, immigrated into France itself during the period 1919 to 1927. (Take note that this happened before the Second World War and the Morgenthau Plan to exterminate the Germans.) Kemp’s point is that a significant minority miscegenated with women like those in the pic, creating the inappropriately named “Mediterranean” look associated with the French in certain areas. But apparently, Johnson is not a believer of the one-drop rule: once you are descendant from a Negro you cannot be considered properly White.
Johnson continues his anti-Nordicist speech in his interview of Parrott:
One example of weird kind of purism is in this book by William Pierce called Who We Are, which I have been briefing thru. This book basically is a warrant for genocide—if you will—a brief for genocide, of whites by whites!
Has Johnson read the mini-book about Sparta, originally written in Spanish, that I recently translated? Or Kemp’s? Or Who We Are with due attention (“…which I have been briefing thru”)? The moral of these books is that you simply cannot coexist with non-Aryans or use a class of non-Aryan servants because, in the long run, quantity overwhelms quality. The blond Spartans decayed after the Peloponnesus War precisely because they had not expelled non-Aryans from their conquered territories: a hypothetical prophylactic measure that makes white nationalists like Johnson and liberals shrug in horror!
What Pierce wanted for ancient Greece, which outside Sparta had a substantial amount of Asian and North African half-bloods, is analogous to having expelled the Amerinds to a corner of the continent as the English-derived peoples did in America. The non-Spartiate Helots could have been whiter than the Amerinds, yes: but tolerating them and even darker peoples inside their lands caused the extinction of the Aryan Greeks (see the link to Pierce’s chapter that I baptized as “White suicide in ancient Greece” at the end of this post). Johnson continues:
Pierce basically wants to do [it] by identifying himself as a Nordicist… Everything is blond hair and blue eye and his attitude about say Greeks is that the Dorians invaders should have exterminated all these darker cute white people so they didn’t mix with them. So my attitude is that there were people in the past who were Dorians or Aryans of various sorts. They do not exist any more. They are just ingredients now in what we call white people today. Anglo-Saxons don’t exist anymore. The Anglo-Saxons tribes which landed in England—they are just ingredients in the modern Englishman.
I don’t know shorthand and had difficulties with my laptop to easily rewind the interview after minute 44 but still managed to catch Johnson phrases such as: “If we are concerned with preserving Americans, English, Greeks…” and his mocking for what Pierce, Kemp and others considered “the terrible miscegenation.” Johnson also claimed that we must get “out of that mentality,” and that it is “impractical” to do an “insidious distinction among whites today” (my emphasis).
The same old fallacy again: assuming that all ancient Europeans were, per definition, “white.” In another moment of the interview Johnson says he is concerned about the miscegenation of today but not about the miscegenation of yesterday.
He is simply begging the question. The question is that precisely because in the past white peoples were utterly unconcerned about mongrelization that we have mongrels today. The question is whether or not the French descendants of, say, the women in the above pic should be considered whites or not. Pay attention how in the above quote Johnson mentions the modern “Englishman” together with the modern “Greeks” as if both could be plainly considered “whites.”
When Johnson finished his speech Parrott mentioned his distant drop of Indian blood. But that’s different. A distant drop of Amerind blood does not invalidate your whiteness as some black drops do. See for instance Andrew Hamilton’s article, “Whiteness, blurring.” I believe Hamilton is on the right track as to where drawing the line. Curiously, most commenters of that article published at Counter-Currents subscribe Johnson’s anti-Nordicist stance so common in white nationalism today.
White blurring aside, the issue of this post is people that are literally brown, like many Greeks and Sicilians or even some Southern Spaniards and Portuguese. They look brown: and by mentioning the modern Greeks in his interview together with the Englishmen Johnson seems to be using a handy doublethink to consider them white irrespective of what his very eyes are telling him.
(Felix von Luschan’s skin color chart.)
The doublethink mentality one sees in the comments section of Counter-Currents is exactly the kind of mentality that caused the problem centuries ago. Either white skin is white; olive skin olive, and brown skin brown, and black skin black, or we have entered the world of Wonderland.
When a humble commenter like me has to remind adults all-too elemental things that any toddler can understand—like colors!—something must have gone terrible wrong within the adult mind. Anti-Nordicist nationalists cannot refute us with facts just as liberals cannot refute the hard facts of race realism advanced by the likes of Jared Taylor. Like the liberals, what nationalists do is appealing to emotional non-sequiturs as to what is “practical” from the “political viewpoint.” The paramount issue about whether it’s OK to marry and have kids with, say, a Greek that looks like a Turk is treated with the same horror of what a leftist liberal would say. The leftist would label “racist” those who abhor the idea of seeing a daughter with mulatto grandsons. Would white nationalists call “Nordicist,” a pejorative term in their mouths, someone who would abhor the idea of having a daughter with Sicilian-like grandsons? If so, what about those who the media labels as “white” in the US? Is George Zimmerman a “White Hispanic”?
“Nordicism” is the white nationalist equivalent to “racism” in the liberal mindset. It might seem incredible but the stuff written a hundred years ago by American racialists like Madison Grant was un-infected with the virus of politically correctness as white nationalism is today. See the von Luschan chart. Isn’t it a no-brainer that human “white” skin is up to, say #15? Where do non-Nordicist nationalists draw the line, in which specific number?
Even if some would grant the lighter olive skin as still Caucasian, many so-called Mediterraneans fall into the numbers twenties of the chart. Harold Covington had a hilarious point recently when he said that quite a few modern Greeks “look like Mexicans.” And I find it rather incredible that for nationalists even of the revolutionary type not even the clearly brownish colors of the chart are to be considered “brown” anymore. If theirs and Johnson’s “amnesty” is conceded to them all what is the next step? What about the so-called White Hispanics in Johnson’s own town of San Francisco? Isn’t it so obvious that the line should be drawn somewhere in the second column of the chart (together with other factors, of course, like the shape of the cranium)?
But it is useless trying to discuss the matter with Johnson because he does not answer to honest criticism. In his site he has had a history of not letting pass the comments of those who present cogent critiques to his opinions.
Johnson controversies aside, Pierce was light-years ahead from contemporary racialists. He was the true spiritual inheritor of National Socialism for the American scene. Most, though not all, white nationalists are pigmies compared to him. Who We Are was his last testament and you will probably learn more brutal truth from that book alone than pursuing the diluted racialism so fashionable today. My purpose of translating texts from the Spanish blogsite Evropa Soberana is precisely to warn English-speaking racialists about what we might call politically-correct white nationalism. It was precisely the sort of mentality that we see in this movement, if we contrast it with the purer American authors of yesterday, what led to a runaway anti-racism that is about to grant amnesty to millions of “White Hispanic” Mexicans and other non-whites in the US.
There is a strong trend of anti-Nordicism in the movement just as there’s a strong trend of anti-racism in the conservative movement. Ultimately, when compared to personalities like Grant or Pierce, white nationalists are closer to the conservatives. Here there are three must-reads that transmit the idea of why I believe that today’s anti-Nordicist movement is a dead-end:
• “White suicide in ancient Greece.” These are my excerpts from the tenth installment of Pierce’s Who We Are: A Series of Articles on the History of the White Race. It is telling that this entry has received zero comments as to date.
• “Why Rome fell.” These are my excerpts from Kemp’s appendix to his March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race.
• “Were the Greeks blond and blue-eyed?” Yesterday I added all of my recent entry translations on the subject to Chechar’s so that this Evropa Soberana article may be read comfortably, starting with the first entry.
Parting word to the anti-Nordicists: Compare the so-called “Mediterranean” descendants of the Frenchwomen caught in the first pic above with the original phenotype of the handsomest ancient Greeks…
Your views on the Greeks within the European racial paradigm is fine, but we really must understand that GD is so important because it has been the only non-marginal, successful and openly racial-nationalist movement in the Western world since the fall of Nazi Germany.
Things fall apart first in the periphery. Outposts of the empire are overrun before the barbarians are battering at the gates of Rome. Greece is a backwater to London-Washington-Tel Aviv power elite, but it clearly scares the shit out of them, as seen by the squealing propaganda pieces of the European newspapers. They know that if ever a single example of a Nation that runs on the ethos of “for the blood of the people, for the future of the children,” came to be, the entire facade of totalitarian humanism would rapidly begin to fall.
We’re kidding ourselves thinking they have “nothing to do with us.” This is a global war for European extinction, from Athens, to Oslo to Seattle. So, is not the first battle of this war more important than any other? We cannot stand aside of the battles of our European brothers today in some hope that we’ll be “saving ourselves” to fight them in our lands in the future.
See my recent entries on Ancient Greece, “Were the Greeks blond and blue-eyed?” On today’s Radio Free Northwest podcast Harold Covington said: “These Golden-Dawn guys aren’t actually white” and that they “mostly look like Mexicans.” Covington also mentioned the obvious fact that “Greeks are olive-skin people.” Although “they are not actually niggers” they are “not completely white either.”
We need to accept that Agamemnon and the Trojan War was four thousand years ago and that modern Greeks are not completely Aryan anymore. Greece was occupied for many centuries by the Ottoman Empire and lower-class Greeks are basically Turks, or racial Levantines. Greece is a kind of Latin America country like Mexico, Ecuador and Paraguay.
All that said, Covington conceded that there’s a residual whitish minority in Greece in the upper classes (as in some Latin America countries), and that modern Greeks “have the right to defend their land” before an even darker immigration enforced by the New World Order. Covington ended his brief speech on GD stating that, despite the Greek nationalists’ willingness to play by the rules, the NWO outlawed them.
Operation Order Number Five:
“Anyone, man, woman or child
with skin the color of shit
is to be shot on sight.
They had their chance to
leave over the past five years.”
In Harold Covington’s fantasy novels, after the ethnostate was created “the theaters were showing virtually nothing made after 1965 or so,” and a technique was developed to fix a few films made from the late 1960s to the first decades of the 21st century. The technique allowed the film industry to replace black faces with white faces in those famous movies for kids that merited inclusion in the reformed theaters.
I stole the subtitles under the following images from Robert Berry, who analyzes the black student body of Hogwarts Academy in the very first of the Potter films:
This is Lee Jordan. With a good two minutes of screen-time in this movie, he’s the most prominent black character in the film. While some students focus on potions, spells, or the dark arts, Lee is apparently attending Hogwarts on a sports scholarship.
Next we have an unnamed boy whose function at the school is almost limited to giving funny looks when someone says something startling. As the closed caption excerpt shows, he at least gets a line of dialogue, which makes him the only other black character in the movie that does.
This mysterious Gryffindor Quidditch player has a few cool action scenes, and scores some points for her team, but doesn’t contribute much else after she’s knocked unconscious from her broom. Though not named in the film, the books identify her as Angelina Jordan.
And here’s another, but she seems to be the least enthusiastic of the bunch. Kind of hard to be too excited, I imagine, when the leader of the Aryan Nation, Draco Malfoy (the blond at the center: the bad kid of the film), is the most dominant student in the class.
And seated next to Professor Snape are two other black
faculty members. We never see them again, either.
The above pics come, as already said, from the first Potter film. But in that very film outside Hogwarts I remember an adult black face in the Leaky Cauldron pub, and another face with skin the color of shit in Diagon Alley.
When the producers of the series changed directors after the second Potter film, the inclusion of niglets and black adult wizards became even more apparent. The sixth film, when the characters reach full-blown adolescence, was the most offensive: a beautiful teen English rose, Ginny Weasley, one of the main characters of the series, is engaged with a black student and even kisses him passionately on the mouth.
But the perpetrator here was none other than the author herself, J. K. Rowling. Indeed, compared to Rowling’s book, in the movie comparatively little of Ginny’s relationship with the young negro is depicted.