Beyond OD vs. CC

trainspottersIn this comment at Counter-Currents (CC) Trainspotter did not find anything wrong with the American Gomorrhaites known as “Bronies” that even the ultra-liberal Wikipedia has a section criticizing them.

To understand the whole discussion that involves several exchanges between the two pro-white blogs CC and Occidental Dissent (OD), the reader would also have to visit the OD thread where it is discussed how the most featured writer on CC posted an article that contained descriptions of interracial sex between young males (screenshot: here).

In the past, OD’s admin has made false remarks against both, Trainspotter and me. But unlike Trains I don’t automatically side OD’s nemesis in the racial underworld: I am principle-oriented and dislike feuds.

Trains always stroke me as a commonsensical, reasonable voice in the movement. But what he said earlier this year at CC only demonstrates that, like virtually all American nationalists, he fails to see the fundamental etiologies of Western and American malaise (of which both hetero and homo Gomorrahean degeneracy is only a symptom).

See this article by Hajo Liaucius: a European who, precisely because he has always lived in Russia, has a detached perspective on American white nationalism like no intellectual I am aware of. Together with other articles of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, Liaucius’ piece shows that American white nationalists are blind about the primary and secondary factors in their nation’s decline: capitalism and their parents’ religion. (Jewish depredations are only a tertiary infection, but precisely because self-righteous American racialists are completely blind they miserably fall into “monocausalism.”)

This thesis of my compilation—that soon will be available in printed form—, of course, goes far beyond the pro-homo / anti-homo debate between OD and CC, and still has to be discussed in this site’s threads.

Führer anniversary

Or

Rockwell’s numinous call vs. white nationalism

Now that I gave up “white nationalism”—because it was an effete, neo-Christian, non-genocidal and anti-Nordicist pseudo-movement (Golden Dawn is a real movement)—what better homage to the martyr of the Second World War than remembering a call onto the real path revealed to George Lincoln Rockwell the year I would be born:

During this period, Rockwell had an experience about which he has never written and which he related to only a few people. Always a skeptic where the supernatural was concerned, he was certainly not a man to be easily influenced by omens. Yet there can be no doubt that he attached special significance to a series of dreams that he had then. The dreams—actually all variations of a single dream—occurred nearly every night for a period of several weeks and were of such intensity that he could recall them vividly upon waking. In each dream he saw himself in some everyday situation: sitting in a crowded theater, eating at a counter in a diner, walking through the busy lobby of an office building, or inspecting the airplanes of his squadron at an airfield hangar.

And in each dream a man would approach him—theater usher, diner cook, office clerk, or mechanic—and say something to the effect, “Mr. Rockwell, there is someone to see you.” And then he would be led off to some back room or side office in the building or hangar, as the case may have been. He would open the door and find waiting for him inside, always alone—Adolf Hitler. Then the dream would end.

hitlerOne can most easily interpret these dreams as a case of autosuggestion, but in the light of later developments Rockwell considered them as a symbolic summons, a beckoning onto the path for which he was then still groping, whether that beckoning was the consequence of an internal or an external stimulus.

Cited in “Rockwell: A National Socialist Life.”
 

“Because it was non-genocidal…” I said above. What better example to show what is wrong with American white nationalism that a recent interview of Kevin MacDonald by Luke Ford.

In the You Tube interview we can listen that Ford asks MacDonald if he sees similarities and differences between the white nationalist movement in America and National Socialism in Germany. MacDonald responded after 1:10:23, “The white advocacy movement, as I see it, is not exterminating anybody. It is simply going to assert our interests within the democratic form of government that we have… It doesn’t advocate conquering Mexico, you know—anything like that. There are lots of differences.”

Asserting white interests within US Democracy? Democracy—the worst form of government from the racial viewpoint that has ever been tried? Has MacDonald read what Hajo Liaucius said about the United States (cf. my forthcoming PDF)?

MacDonald’s stance is identical to what other notable white nationalists and southern nationalists believe. The latter fancy themselves as “sane, moral, wholesome, reasonable people” whose Christianity prevents them from becoming “silly vanguardists” of the revolutionary type. Their politics are actually church-picnic stuff with no future after the dollar collapses.

Conservative-religious types aside, in his summary of his latest book, New Right vs. Old Right, Greg Johnson rejects “the Old Right’s party politics, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide” in favor of “the metapolitical project of constructing a hegemonic White Nationalist consciousness within a pluralistic society.” Take note that Johnson’s “pluralism,” which reminds me Alex Linder’s non-fascist libertarianism, is incompatible with racial hegemony in Sparta, the Gothic and Visigothic societies, and the Third Reich.

Back to the Ford interview. MacDonald also said that repatriation of non-whites could be performed if a white nationalist reached the US presidency but nothing “short of gas chambers and genocide.”

A single example, related to “not conquering Mexico” will suffice to show how difficult such an apparently noble task would be.

“It is inexcusable that, having power,
you do not want to dominate.”

—Nietzsche

Here in Mexico a non-Jew, Emilio Fernando Azcárraga, the mogul who owns Televisa company, has married a Jewess. This means that in the future the largest multimedia mass media in Latin America will be run by a Jewish family. Do you imagine an ethnostate within the US that expels the brown Mexicans without being demonized 7/24 by the Latin American media? Since presumably Jews will be expelled too in MacDonald and Johnson’s non-genocidal scenario, you can imagine how the Jewish lobbies would press through their powerful media urging Latin American civil societies and governments to build nuclear weapons for their “defense” against the racists that took over the North.

In other words, even without genocide after a North American ethnostate starts expelling the mudbloods, the Rubicon would have been crossed with no way back. There is no credible way to triumph in that scenario except by conquering a potentially nuclear subcontinent that, if forever unconquered, would simply repeat the cycle of what the Jews did in America after a brainwashed West ganged up on Germany.

Starting with Mexico, “Latin” (or more accurately Mestizo) America must be conquered right after the Jew-controlled media starts rising hell in Mestizo America after the expulsion of non-whites. I am not alone in this view. Just compare today’s Christian and Neochristian white nationalism with what Francis Parker Yockey wrote in 1953 in his essay “The Enemy of Europe”:

For the purpose of demonstrating with the utmost clarity the elements of the two world-outlooks in this period of Western history between the Second and Third World Wars, a paradigm is appended.

In that paradigm Yockey dramatically contrasted the cultivation of soldierly virtues in healthy western societies with the cult of bourgeois virtues and the worship of Mammon. More specifically, he compared the virile attitudes of “war and conquest” with the ethno-suicidal “pacifism, non-imperialism and the preparation of the coloured populations for ‘self-government’.”

New_Right_vs._Old_RightIf Yockey were alive today what would he think about “white nationalism”? What would he say about Greg Johnson’s manifesto, recently published in a book with a foreword by MacDonald himself?: “I do not want anything to do with gun-toting armies of one. The only gun I want to own is made of porcelain” (emphasis Johnson).

George Lincoln Rockwell’s numinous series of dreams with Uncle Adolf, not this effete pseudo-movement, should be our call.

On Carolyn and Tan

Or:

Blaming the Morlocks, sparing the Eloi

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.

Hunter Wallace



I have listened to the recent show on The White Network hosted by Carolyn Yeager and my ol’ friend Tanstaafl (Tan). The show was a reaction to Kevin MacDonald’s article on The Occidental Observer: a summary of a collection of papers of the journal The Occidental Quarterly or TOQ about white pathology.

I have to say something about the show. In the first place, I see that after the debacle of the last year Tan—and I must steal a sentence from Franklyn Ryckaert—is still incapable of seeing the difference between guilt tripping by Jews and honest self-criticism by Whites. Tan still seems to think that self-criticism by Whites is nothing but interiorized guilt tripping and he proceeds then to proclaim the total innocence of Whites. Jews are the only ones who are guilty of white decline, and anyone who suggests that Whites have a responsibility of their own is deluded. He calls that “delusion” the “suicide meme.”

Judge it by yourself, visitors. Listen the show and tell me if Tan continues to identify honest criticism with guilt tripping.

This of course reminds me the recent exchange between Tan and Greg Johnson at Counter-Currents, where Johnson said:

If the problem is a coalition of minorities who are “in most cases” but not always Jews, then it really is more accurate to refer to them as minorities than as Jews, isn’t it? Thus your desire to find-and-replace “minorities” with “Jews” betrays a certain monomania and lack of scruple.

Sort of like my Baptist cousin who tries to shoehorn Jesus into every conversation. It is very low-churchy to clamp down on “one thing needful,” insist on discussing it even when it is not appropriate, and then to bitterly accuse people of being evil when they draw back from you, or simply exceed your narrow range of interests.

I don’t like that about you.

Understandably Tan became chagrined about this sharp comment and reacted on his blog Age of Treason saying that Johnson is no longer welcome to republish Tan’s articles.

Back to the Carolyn show but keeping in mind the exchange that resulted in the recent distancing between Johnson and Tan. When Carolyn said something Tan mildly criticized her that she was using “the passive voice.” Tan is a reductionist, like Johnson’s cousin, and wants to use the active voice. That’s why Tan made it very clear in the show that he doesn’t like MacDonald’s term “white pathology,” and it struck me that at the beginning of the podcast Tan always referred to MacDonald as an “expert in psychology,” never as an expert in the Jewish Problem (JP). This is remarkable because MacDonald is the foremost expert on the JP, and Tan only an amateur. (As a professor with tenure MacDonald has been a full-time researcher for a while and people like us, who have to make a living elsewhere, cannot compete with that.)

Carolyn started then to mention, one by one, the authors who contributed to the TOQ issue about “white pathology.” Tan commented that he disliked the phrasing of one of the first authors mentioned by Carolyn, that today’s liberalism “is rooted in equality” because, Tan maintained, the Jew-controlled media bombards us all the time with such message. But that just begs the question. The disturbing fact is that precisely because whites elevated the notion of equality by the end of the 18th century to the level of a civil religion, the Jews were gradually empowered throughout the 19th century.

As far as I know, Tan has not tried to take issue with the many articles by Hunter Wallace on Occidental Dissent. Wallace started the now abandoned blog Antisemitica and in my opinion is fairly aware of the JP. Wallace now believes that the Yankees of the last centuries and the French Jacobins were basically on the same page of the Jews as to white dispossession (what we call “assisted suicide”).

Napos-big-blunderIt seems to me that Tan commits exactly the same fallacy that the blogger Lew commits when challenged about precisely those roots that show how liberalism was originally a white phenomenon. Lew wants to count serious history since 1910, after the Jews were already empowered, something that misleads his readers by giving the impression that the subversive tribe empowered itself.

Like Carolyn, Tan doesn’t say a peep about the role played by Christianity in the development of suicidal universalism or suicidal out-group altruism. In fact, in Carolyn’s show he did exactly the opposite. About the TOQ contribution of the blogger who goes under the penname of Yggdrasil, Tan disliked it too because Yggdrasil wants to go to the roots (that’s well beyond 1910). Tan commented that pondering into the remote historical past “is a form of escapism” because “now it is Jews running the show,” and added in pretty sarcastic tone that it is silly to go back as far as the French Revolution and—the horror—up to the times of Rome so that these intellectuals “can find excuses for the Jews.”

I very much doubt that the motivation of the TOQ contributors is excusing the Jews. As Aristotle said, to have a profound grasp on a subject one must delve deeply into the past. Few sentences by Greg Johnson have been more illuminating to understand what I have recently been calling the Aryan Problem (economics over race) than Johnson’s phrase, “In ancient Rome, as in modern America, the economic system and its imperatives are treated as absolute and fixed, whereas the people are treated as liquid and fungible.”

Click on the pic of Mammon at the top of this blog and then click again on the Kenneth Clark epigraph. Follow the white rabbit to dismiss the single Jewish-cause hypothesis. But Tan labeled all of this historical pondering in TOQ as “lame,” which misses the whole point of bicausalism that in this post I’ll define as you need two to dance tango, the Morlocks and the Eloi.

Like the TOQ contributors, my motivation has absolutely nothing to do with excusing the “Morlocks.” If we use as a metaphor the novel by H.G. Wells, The Time Machine, I would say that my motivation is to try that the Eloi wake up.

Remember the 1960 film that adapted Wells’ novel for the silver screen? When George (Rod Taylor) spots young blond people by a river, a woman, “Weena” is drowning but the other Eloi are indifferent (I would call this “white pathology”). Later in the film George is outraged by the Eloi’s apathy and finds out that they’re mere cattle for the anthropophagus “Morlocks.”

time machine 1

What Tan and many others in the American pro-white movement don’t want to see is that today’s whites are behaving like the Eloi. We are in this mess because the masses of whites are basically animal conformists. See the insightful quotations by Rockwell, Pierce and Hitler in my previous post. They’re absolutely essential to understand the viewpoint of The West’s Darkest Hour.

I must acknowledge that in the show Carolyn sounded more reasonable by blaming, together with the Jews, the liberal Whites. But Tan made it clear in the show that he disagrees with the use of that word, liberal. “It is hard to blame the poor white people,” the Eloi. According to Tan, all blame should be laid on the feet of the Morlocks.

Tan also said that white behavior comes from the current Zeitgeist, and that the white traitors are just opportunists. But the central question in this darkest hour of ours is, again, who empowered the Jews. My educated guess is that Tan and those who think like him will always avoid this question.

“Don’t they deserve some blame?” asked Carolyn. At least Tan acknowledged that a specific acquaintance of Carolyn’s that she mentioned was not forced by the Jews to harbor such traitorous thoughts. Then both talked about Jared Taylor and his concept of “pathological altruism” among whites but the Taylor case is problematic because he tolerates Jews in his conferences. Suffice it to say that at least Tan conceded that white altruism “may have biological roots.”

About the article that MacDonald himself wrote, Tan commented (remember that I don’t know shorthand):

My reaction was negative. Look at these white people who acted like idiots! [sarcasm]… He specifically identifies Christian philanthropists. The point I’d like to make… [is that even as far back as] 1861… to neglect to mention the Jewish influence in that kind of thinking and its influence on Christianity is a mistake.

In other words, Tan leaves Christianity off the hook. Only Jews are to be blamed. He has never replied to my very iterated argument that here in what used to be called New Spain the Inquisition, already familiar with the Jewish tricks at the Iberian Peninsula, persecuted the crypto-Jews; that New Spain was the first Judenfrei state in the continent, and that even sans Jews the Spaniards and the Creoles managed to blunder on a continental scale to the point of destroying their gene pool with Amerinds and the imported Negroes.

Hardly the Jews can be blamed for what happened here or even at the Iberian Peninsula. It was clearly a case of white suicide sans Jews.

If you don’t like to read my posts on New Spain, Spain or Portugal because you might fear that I may have distorted information on a subject that Americans have little interest, go to Occidental Dissent and see the posts by Wallace that prove that, long before the Jews took over the US, a specific form of evangelical Christianity plus the Enlightenment of the founding fathers already contained the roots of suicidal liberalism.

Let my finish this entry with yesterday’s quotations by Spandrell on an interesting exchange at Counter-Currents:

And yes, Jews are evil, but it’s the white elite who brought them in, as it has been since the early Middle Ages. You can hate Jewish chutzpah, but blaming them isn’t going to solve much, because: you can’t remove them, and even if you sent them all to Madagascar, it wouldn’t solve the problem of white leftism.

That’s more or less the idea. The Dark Enlightenment is about studying leftism per se. You might believe leftism is a jewish conspiracy and in their absence whites would suddenly arise as a sane and anti-egalitarian ethnicity. We disagree.

Not that white polities wouldn’t be awesome: personally I’m all for ethnic segregation. But as a European let me tell you that it’s not that easy.

And later on that thread he added:

I apologize if I misrepresented your views on the Jewish Question. I’m aware of Kevin MacDonald’s work and find little to disagree with, but it’s hard to blame the parasite when the host has developed a symbiotic relationship with it. Still I just think focusing on the Jews is a waste of time, people get emotional and discussions are seldom productive.

Which is why this blog focuses on the Eloi.

Lew on GD crackdown

GD symbol

The Greek government, under the influence of organized Jewry, is targeting GD [Golden Dawn] using illegal methods because the GD is for real. GD has been showing the worldwide nationalist community what the system considers a real threat. Basically, GD has given all nationalists a road map.

GD does have a consistent message. It boils down to being pro-Greek, Greece for Greeks.

These developments show the other side will drop the mask and revert to Bolshevik methods the instant they perceive a real threat.

The establishment has not gone after those parties like it has gone after GD. Most of those groups play ball with Jewry and will go exactly nowhere. Ilias Kasidiaris was about to be elected mayor of Athens. At a minimum, he had a realistic shot at it. Why do you think they’re attacking GD now? It’s to stop their momentum at the polls.

The government arresting your leadership on phony charges and declaring your party a criminal organization can stop any group. The left is sticking with proven methods it has been honing since 1917, that is, Bolshevik methods, harass, arrest, destroy.

____________________________

For the context of this entry, see here.

Published in: on September 29, 2013 at 4:35 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags:

Johnson’s tactic

Wild Boy
(This pic of a transvestite appears in one of the “About me” pages of James O’Meara’s blogs)


Greg Johnson responds to these threads [that criticize his stance on “gay marriage”] as he’s done before, by placing James O’Meara front and center today. In your face. It says to readers and contributors at Counter-Currents, if they want me, you have to take my foul-smelling monkey, too. The second I saw the name, I clicked out of the site.

It’s because Greg is such a strong thinker and writer that he does more damage than his weird monkey whose brain is steeped in 60’s purple haze. Greg speaks and writes eloquently about White values, while at the same time he adamantly promotes a person who, in interviews and writings, pushes an agenda that is completely contrary to White values.



_________________

The blogger “MOB” wrote the above in this thread on Occidental Dissent. Just compare the transvestite with the face of Botticelli’s Venus on the sidebar’s top: my inspiration to fight for the survival of the fair race…

Greg Johnson on homosexuality

by Hunter Wallace



In a new article he will probably later regret writing, Greg Johnson has waded into the gay marriage thicket at Counter-Currents.

Here’s my response:

1.) It is natural and normal to marry and reproduce with someone of the same race, but the American elite promotes miscegenation because it hates White Christian America, and celebrating miscegenation is a way to normalize race-mixing, promote perversion, and undermine the culture of the despised White Christian majority.

2.) The American elite actively promotes “gay marriage” (as opposed to “tolerates”) for the same reason it promotes interracial marriage. It is a means to the end of leveling and destroying hierarchical institutions like the White nuclear family that are seen as “reactionary” and standing in the way of “equality” and “progress.”

3.) Just as homosexuality exists in nature, the same is true of miscegenation, adultery, sexual promiscuity, polygamy, and pedophilia, but we once had social conventions like anti-miscegenation laws and anti-sodomy laws that stigmatized and criminalized this behavior and promoted and privileged White heterosexual monogamy as America’s normative cultural ideal.

4.) We already know from bitter experience that the American elite’s promotion of miscegenation, homosexuality, adultery, and sexual promiscuity has successfully undermined America’s traditional sexual mores and the White nuclear family even within White Nationalist circles.

5.) While it may not be possible to dismantle “heteronormativity” and “patriarchy” as an innate biological tendency within the human species, the American elite has already succeeded—as the recent Supreme Court rulings have shown—in undermining “heteronormativity” and “patriarchy” as America’s privileged cultural ideal.

The American elite has succeeded in moving America from “Leave It To Beaver” and the “Andy Griffith Show” to “Sex In The City” and “Will and Grace” and “Girls” and “Keeping Up With The Kardashians.” They have succeeded in promoting bisexuality and homosexuality and miscegenation among impressionable teenage girls.

6.) It is normal and natural for human beings to love their own children, but we live in a society where there have been almost 50 million abortions since 1970. It is normal and natural to dislike outsiders and love your own ethnic group, but we live in a society that systematically redistributes wealth from Whites to blacks and where it is taboo for Whites alone to express pride in their race and culture.

7.) Many a White American husband knows from America’s divorce laws that changing the law has already changed the stability of social conventions like marriage. Since the anti-miscegenation laws were changed, interracial marriage has skyrocketed.

8.) The same people who have been pushing feminism and miscegenation and abortion for decades are now behind the push for “marriage equality.” The push for “gay marriage” (like the push for the legalization of miscegenation) in no way implies that particular form of attack is the only or even the most successful way in which the White nuclear family has been undermined.

9.) If we really want to defend marriage and strengthen the family, we could do all the things that Greg Johnson suggests, and we could also stigmatize homosexuality and ban “gay marriage” and restore heterosexual marriage to its traditional privileged role in our culture like the Russians are already doing.

10.) Greg Johnson attacks a straw man argument that a homosexual cabal is behind the push for gay marriage. Just like interracial marriage and feminism, the push for “gay marriage” is driven by leftwing ideology and animus toward America’s White Christian majority; the welfare and “civil rights” of the blacks and homosexuals is an afterthought to the people who are behind this.


Internet_Troll_by_sagginjMy 2¢: Read it all at Occidental Dissent, but skip the trolling in the comments section if you like (Wallace’s tone is exactly right, but the tone of some of the commenters is not).

Martenson interview

Nationalists don’t want to do their homework and research peak oil objectively, for example, how Chris Martenson answers to the abiotic theories of oil:

Instead of debating here on WDH, nationalists are beginning to discuss the subject of my previous posts at Occidental Dissent, where Sebastian Ronin is dismissed by one of them as “a deracinated conspiracy doomer” and others are posting comments like: “I am increasingly skeptical in light of rising oil production due to fracking,” and also “I told you so. Technology. Never leave it out of your equations on predicting the future. There will be no ‘energy devolution.’”

There will be no energy devolution—a flat statement that ignores that mere tech cannot create energy out of thin air!

There’s nothing to do with those who don’t want to do their homework. It reminds me somewhat my experience with the counter-jihad gentiles that didn’t want to read literature on the Jewish problem, not even literature written by well-respected academic Jews!

I am afraid that those who, like Ronin and I, want to show the pro-white movement that energy devolution will tremendously impact racial politics, will be talking to a different audience.

Heimbach still has to see the whole forest

At Occidental Dissent, Mark commented today:


Christianity has made Heimbach soft. He himself receives abuses from Jews firsthand, but wants to turn the other cheek. He correctly identifies many of the problems, but some of his conclusions are half-hearted.

They’re not our enemies? Really? Let’s shake hands and break bread with people who want to turn every White nation in the world into a miscegenated third-world hellhole? If that doesn’t qualify as an enemy then what the hell does?

I’m not Christian, but considering how Jews have historically been the biggest anti-Christians to ever exist, it’s really strange how so many Christians practically worship Jews. If anyone should hate Jews it should be Christians.

As far as the “right” to a homeland, there’s no such thing. What, if we want a White nation we must then fight for everyone else, we must compromise with every other group and capitulate to their demands and help them? Nonsense, they still have control over you, you’re still a slave. Israel only exists because of the help from Whites, the same people they exploit, abuse and refuse to allow to have an ethnostate of their own. Without foreign aid and political and military protection Israel would be overwhelmed.

If you think giving your enemies the white glove treatment that they’ll reciprocate, they won’t. Don’t be naïve. It’s a waste of time.

If you dislike the word enemy, then use competitor. Jews and all other non-Whites are the biological competitors of Whites, always have been and always will be. Their very presence lowers our fitness and reduces our resources.

Let’s assume the Jews are a problem. I think everyone here will agree that Jewish influence has been bad for us. What are we going to do about the problem?

The most practical and fair solution is to deport them to whatever country will take them, same as with all the other non-Whites. They would likely go to the remaining liberal states of the Union or Canada, rather than Israel.

Problem is, the same thing that happened to Germany, the liberal Allies, including Israel and Jews who some want to treat with a kind hand, would all attack the White ethnostate.

There is no peaceful resolution to the problem, because our enemies don’t want a fair and equitable solution, they want total power and control.

It’s not just that he’s [Heimbach] got Jesus, he admits to being philo-Semitic prior to his racial awakening. Perhaps some of that still lingers.

Anyway, he’s young, he’s still evolving and other than that he does good work.


MH
My comment:

Mark was referring to the article that Heimbach (photo) posted yesterday, which starts with the phrase, “Firstly we need to separate the issue of stereotyping the entire Jewish population.”

Like millions of Christians and secular liberals, Heimbach is myopic. The problem in the US is the whole Jewish population in the same way that the problem in Europe is the whole Muslim population, even when only a fraction of Muslims are actual jihadists.

The well-meaning myopia of my parents’ religion (stereotyping?—God forbid!) explains why I have been attacking Christianity in this blog. Today’s version of Christianity has produced a psycho-ethical structure that prevents decent, though myopic religionists from taking action against our ancient enemies: an action that will allow our civilization to save itself.

Heimbach obviously has not paid due attention to one of the best articles ever published on the Jewish question, “Seeing the Forest” authored by someone who, like me, left his parents’ religion behind: an article from which I’ll only quote the last two paragraphs:

You must back off a bit in order to see the forest rather than just the trees. The essential thing about the forest is that it is destroying our world. It is a parasitic forest. It is injecting spiritual and cultural poison into our civilization and into the life of our people and sucking up nutrients to enrich itself and grow even more destructive. Perhaps only 10 per cent of the trees in this Jewish forest have roots deep enough to inject their poison into us, and the other 90 per cent play only supporting roles of one sort or another. It is still the whole forest which is our problem [emphasis added]. If the forest were not here we would not have had to endure the curse of Bolshevism. If the forest were not here America would not be growing darker and more degenerate by the year. It is the whole forest, not just a few of the most poisonous trees in it, which must be uprooted and removed from our soil if we are to become healthy again.

The essential point again is this: not every Jew has a leading role in promoting the evils which are destroying us, and not every person is a Jew who is collaborating with the leading Jews who are promoting evil, but it is only because the Jews as a whole are among us that the evils they always promote are overwhelming us. If the Jews were not present we could overcome the evil men of our own race. The evil men of our own race may seek their own profit at the expense of the rest of us, but they do not seek to destroy our race. Only the Jews seek that.

Read it all. People who are not nearsighted can see the whole forest.

Heimbach

“I hate Hitler” —Matt Heimbach

At the recent Council of Conservative Citizens Matt Heimbach talked about “Christian principles,” the impossibility to expel “a hundred million of non-whites” from the US either using “nuclear weapons or neutron bombs” and that “that’s not desirable either—as a Christian… we identitarians… our faith in Jesus Christ…”

In spite of all that, since Heimbach seems to put race first he may be considered in my category of “Christians that I do respect.” However, at Occidental Dissent an apparently non-Christian commenter opined about his speech:

Heimbach seems to think we can achieve this peacefully. Yeah, that’s a nice pipe dream.

Secession caused a war, as well as the German racial ethnostate. We lost both times, and that more than anything has defined our current situation.

Minus the system failing or some kind of worldwide cataclysmic event, I don’t see much hope on the horizon, unfortunately.

He seems to want to partition the US instead of conquering it and removing all non-Whites, because that’s not feasible and it’s too violent. Well how the hell does he think even partitioning and removing non-Whites that live in the area he wants is going to happen?

We face violent opposition even at the local level, Heimbach knows this himself. Even having a civil discussion with these people is difficult. How many times are these types of conferences cancelled because the location was threatened and bullied into refusing the event.

Later on the same thread, a Christian commenter added:

Matthew Heimbach proposes a quaint and peaceful ethno-state for white people somewhere within the confines of the north American continent. Nothing the Federal government could not crush in less than a week. Unless there is some kind of “Fight Club” permeating every level of our government, you are really asking for a genocide. No, Dorothy, you can’t click your heels three times and get back to Kansas. I am still amazed that Southerners like Matt just don’t get how foolish his proposition is.

However, I did like his comment that the solution to 1984 is the Spain of 1936. Unfortunately, we are living in 2013 Amerika. The scales have been tipped too far to the left. The cult of equality has blinded the well-meaning. We have been sucker-punched and will have to stand trial for defending ourselves like George Zimmerman.

It is a shame if Matt “hates Hitler”. Either his emotion has gotten the better of him or he is pandering to the left. Never hate, especially that which you do not know. If he ever studied the man Hitler, he would not “hate” him but he might learn something from him.

I would recommend Heimbach to read the articles under the heading “On the need to undemonize Hitler” at the sidebar of this blog.

Published in: on June 16, 2013 at 7:04 pm  Comments (13)  
Tags:

Was René Guénon one of us?

Or:

Philosophers, expats from Laputa

Having brought down kings and queens and aristocrats in the name of “equality,” it was logical [for white liberals] to declare war on Nature itself.Hunter Wallace

Jewish power is directly proportional to the character of White people.Hunter Wallace

In his latest article about Julius Evola, Greg Johnson said: “Along with René Guénon, Evola is one of the writers who has most influenced the metapolitical outlook and project of Counter-Currents…”

Well, Evola has been debunked here at least for my satisfaction. But remember my recent entry where I talked about what tipped my apothecary scale from Bicausalism Type-A to Type-B? “If even white nationalists,” I wrote, “have fallen into the suicidal hedonistic meme, there must be another factor besides the Jewish one.” I had in mind the rock music and the decadent sexual mores that quite a few of so-called white nationalists love, including Johnson.

What moved me to criticize philosophy in the previous threads is that visitors to nationalist sites are wasting their time over the boards instead of reading the ABC of the history of the white race, that is, the ideological fundamentals for racial preservation (see the books that I recommend in today’s page).

Regarding my highly critical view of accepted Western wisdom, so accepted that even “nationalists” share this delusion, John Martínez commented today:

Rene-guenon-1925


Ever since you [Chechar] began to question the relevance of the discipline pompously self-entitled “philosophy” for the White cause (in addition to criticising religion by and large and Christianity in particular in this regard, as you had long been doing), a couple of commenters took the pains to split hairs and defend the honor of some philosophers and some religious views.

In one of the latest threads I personally mentioned one the main figures behind the views of some of the commenters, French Traditionalist metaphysician René Guénon [photo above].

Well, this is from the article on Wikipedia concerning the guy. This is for you and the readers of the West’s Darkest Hour to see how apropos, how appropriate the study of the works and lives of important thinkers like Guénon is for the cause of White Nationalism. I should add that by the time of the events mentioned in these passages, Guénon had already arabicized his name and become Abd al-Wahid Yahya:

In 1930, Guénon left Paris for Cairo, with the aim of gathering and translating written documents of islamic esoterism. This project was abruptly abandoned after a decision of his editor. Left alone in Cairo, Guénon declined all propositions by his friends that he return to France. Despite his declining financial condition, Guénon relentlessly corresponded with his counterparts from many countries around the world as well as continuing his own writing projects.

Although remaining in Egypt certainly exposed Guénon to the cultural ambience of Sufism and ancient esotericism for which he had already demonstrated a strong affinity, his refusal to return to Europe created undoubted hardship for him. As if in compensation for this hardship, Guénon was fortunate enough to meet Sheikh Salama Hassan ar-radi, founder of the Hamidiya Shadhiliya sufi order, which he soon joined. Guénon accompanied the Sheikh until the latter’s death in 1938. Around the same time, Guénon also met another Sufi, Sheikh Mohammad Ibrahim, whose daughter he married in 1934. This marriage resulted in four children, the last (Abdel Wahed) born in 1951. During his lengthy sojourn in Egypt, René Guénon carried on an austere and simple life, entirely dedicated to his writings and spiritual development. In 1949, he obtained Egyptian citizenship…

René Guénon died on January 7, 1951; it is reported that his final word was Allah (“God”).

By the way: did I mention that Brazilian Traditionalist philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, through whom I got in touch with the Traditionalist school of thinkers, is an ardent anti-racist pure White whose first wife was a Black woman who gave him a couple of Mestizo children?

Like you pointed out, Chechar, if the White race goes extinct (as Richard Lynn thinks will happen) and the torch of civilization passes on the North-Asians—the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese historians of the future will be baffled to see how, after some 2500 years of deeply penetrating speculation, the Western giants of thinking not only did not see what was coming, but took themselves an active part in the bringing about of the catastrophe.

Totally immersed in their religious and pseudo-wise fantasies, asses like Guénon (and Carvalho, for that matter) are too good to bother about such a trifling matter as the White race. What’s wrong with mongrelizing with Arabs and Blacks if we are all children of the same Semitic God? To speak like Hillary Clinton, What difference does it make?

These charlatans remind me of a chapter in Gulliver’s Travels, in which the narrator visits a country of sages, Laputa, where the regular folks live so absorbed in their own thoughts that their wives cuckold them right and left and they have to be constantly attended by pages, who now and them hit them on their faces with small cloth bags full of little pebbles in order to make them breathe again, since they keep forgetting to, so concentrated they are on their thinking.

The White race will soon be mongrelized to the last individual, but hey, what were you saying about the “metaphysical unity of all religions”?


My comment:

What would-be nationalists (see again my definition of a real nationalist) should learn is that both their theologians and philosophers miserably failed the white race. At Counter-Currents they still want to talk about “philosophy,” Guénon and Evola, because these guys are Type-A Bicausalists, which means that they mostly blame Jews for our woes. If the tribe is mainly the culprit, they reason among themselves, our house is basically in order.

We Type-B Bicausalists on the other hand know that it’s us who brought self-extermination to our own home; Jews, a mere epiphenomenon of our sins (see Hunter Wallace’s epigraphs above).

John: although this is an entry I’ll speak as if it was a thread comment. See how in another recent thread here, commenter Armor said that “whites are not stupid” in the context of blaming Jews for race-replacement and implying that whites are innocent—a monocausal monologue all too frequent in nationalist sites with the exception of Wallace’s Occidental Dissent.

The ignorance of so-called nationalists about elemental psychology tempts me to start a new series about intuitive psychology (which must not be confused with academic psychology), only to show our visitors how flawed human philosophers are, starting perhaps with some Zweig excerpts about poor Nietzsche.

Thoughts?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 294 other followers