America

by Roger Devlin

Like the Soviet Union of yore, contemporary America is in the grip of an ideology, a system of ideas not derived from any empirical study of the world around us, but which provides an account of the world, establishes an aim to be pursued and rules for pursuing it, and (most importantly) legitimates the power of some men over others.

Another essential element of any ideology, as of any religion, is its demonology—an account of the enemy whom adherents must forever struggle against. Unlike personal enmities which arise through concrete social interaction, ideological enmities are established a priori by the ideology itself.

In the ruling ideology of the Soviet Union, e.g., enemies included the bourgeoisie, revisionists, kulaks, and one especially nondescript class referred to simply as “enemies of the people.” In the ideology which prevails in present day America, the ideological enemies are the abstract groups denounced in Trump’s second Charlottesville remarks: racists, supremacists, haters and bigots, Nazis and the KKK. Ritual denunciation of designated enemies is an essential aspect of ideological rule, and leaders of an ideological regime cannot be considered legitimate without periodically making them. In the Soviet Union, communist politicians learned to spit out denunciations of communism’s demons in their sleep. For similar reasons, I do not share Hunter Wallace’s sense of betrayal at Trump’s second speech.

There is no objective or generally agreed-upon way of determining whether an actual person is a member of an ideologically designated category of enemies. Thus, e.g., if you had the misfortune of being designated an “enemy of the people” in the Soviet Union, you had no way to defend yourself. If you were merely accused of murder, the situation was not so desperate: everyone knows that a murderer is someone who has committed premeditated homicide, so a defense against the charge must try to demonstrate that one did not or could not have committed a particular act of homicide, or only did so without premeditation (manslaughter). But what action defines one as an “enemy of the people?”

Essentially the same situation prevails under American anti-racist ideology. There is no agreed-upon definition of racist, supremacist, bigot or Nazi. One’s membership in such supposed groups is not determined by any actions of one’s own, but arbitrarily imputed by ideological zealots, and thus no defense is possible. How could anyone prove he does not harbor “hate” in the privacy of his own mind?…

Perhaps there really are a few people out there seething with fury at others because of “the color of their skin.” But it hardly matters. The important point is the fundamentally mythical nature of the concept, and the real injustice done to those it makes into scapegoats. White activism might even be defined as the overt public rejection of our assigned status as scapegoats for the failures of the fever-dream of “anti-racism.”

We’ll know we have won when we have a president who understands this—and is free to say so.

______________
Read it all: here

JP in a single article!

Divided for publication at The Occidental Observer in three parts this Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, Andrew Joyce has published a magnificent article explaining the Jewish Problem under the title: “The Jewish Question: Suggested Readings with Commentary.”

I would like to quote a few passages from Joyce’s piece; the first one about Richard Wagner:

When Europeans found themselves caught up in a drive to ‘emancipate’ the Jews, it wasn’t as a result of careful analysis of the possible positive or negative consequences of such an action. Rather, those involved were merely “champions of abstract principle.” Liberalism, argues Wagner, is “not a very lucid mental sport.” Liberalism relies on emotion and feelings, rather than rationality and facts. Europeans had been duped into fighting for the ‘freedom’ of a people “without knowledge of that people itself, nay, with a dislike of any genuine contact with it. … Our eagerness to level up the rights of Jews was far more stimulated by a general idea, than by any real sympathy.” Of course, the same argument might be made today in relation to the ‘refugee’ craze. Liberals are merely in love with the idea of helping migrants, rather than this being something they are genuinely emotional about. Liberalism, as Wagner rightly perceived, is the political expression of selfish emotionality. Aside from his musings on Liberalism, Wagner’s comments on Jews in culture are so profound and extensive that they cannot be adequately covered here. It simply remains to be said that Jewry in Music is an essential text, worthy of careful study.

This quote from Houston Stewart Chamberlain makes him look like a Cassandra!:

The end result of this [Judaization of the West] process will be apocalyptic: “If that were to go on for a few centuries, there would be in Europe only one single people of pure race, that of the Jews, all the rest would be a herd of pseudo-Hebraic mestizos, a people beyond all doubt degenerate physically, mentally and morally.”

About Kevin MacDonald, and contrary to popular opinion among white nationalist circles, Joyce says: “I can state with some confidence that Separation and Its Discontents has no equal.” (Curiously, in 2012 I wrote that Separation was my favorite of MacDonald’s trilogy.)

Although Joyce’s focuses on the Jewish Problem, he also hints to what I have been calling the Aryan Problem: a suicidal out-group altruism combined with bourgoise compliance among whites:

Fichte complained about “sugar-sweet words about toleration and human rights and civic rights,” which act only to facilitate the removal or downgrading of the rights of natives…

In particular, [Bauer] argued against the idea that ‘rights’ are innate, writing that they instead come with certain requirements and responsibilities…

Marr is also worth reading because of his focus on the inertia of the masses in the face of rising Jewish influence. For example, he finds it remarkable that Jews have been able to conquer entire national systems without violent revolution but instead “through the compliance of the people.”

I strongly recommend visitors of this site to send the links to Joyce’s article, divided in three parts (here, here and here), to those normies who know nothing about the Jewish Problem: it is a fascinating reading.

Dilemma

A passage from a Tom Sunic piece
on The Occidental Observer:

Most White Americans and Europeans, even those with a strong racial identity, can barely stand criticism of Christian ecumenical and multiracial trappings. It is often overlooked that the higher Catholic clergy, both in Europe and the US, is a prime advocate of non-European arrivals…

Hence a dilemma for many racially and ethnically aware White Christians in the US and Europe. On the one hand they are well aware of the destructive nature of multiculturalism, while on the other they cannot ignore early Christian sermons for a multiracial and global society, as put forward by St. Paul’s Epistles to Galatians (3:28): “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

The task of creating White homelands won’t be easy.

On (((Stefan Molyneux)))

Stefan Molyneux, who’s six years my junior, is a Canadian YouTube blogger. He usually speaks on topics including politics, right-libertarianism and some consider him the smartest exponent of the Alt-Lite.

In this video Molyneux says Jews are hated because they are intelligent. This is exactly what I believed when I was unawakened about the Jewish Question. Before 2010 I believed that they were overrepresented in all the fields because they were smart. But that was a mistake on my part. Presently I hate Jews because they are never over-represented in organizations or movements that represent the interests of the Aryan majority, only in those that weaken that majority.

Molyneux is not an idiot. He is not like me before I became acquainted with the writings of wise anti-Semites. Molyneux is actually tricking us by confusing apples with oranges; intelligence with subversion. For example, high IQ Asians living in the West never say, as Talmudists do, “the best of the Goyim must be destroyed”, etc. That’s why Asians are not hated.

Molyneux presumes that his worldview is based on facts, and sound arguments based on such facts. If that’s true, why hasn’t he discussed Kevin MacDonald’s work in any of his thousands of videos? MacDonald and those who publish in The Occidental Observer have demonstrated without reasonable doubt that the statement I put above in italics is true.

So Molyneux misleadingly presents himself to the public as a philosopher who bases his views on facts. The reason why he will never face the facts about Jewry is that he has Jewish blood. Molyneux himself has stated that his mother was born “in Berlin in 1937 to a pretty Jewish clan.” Such genetic traits explain Molyneux’s superb command of language, a command that hypnotizes unwary YouTube gentiles.

I write this entry because it has recently bothered me that Molyneux cites an anecdote: that in the early 1940s it was said that there is no need to sing victory while the Nazis still were in power. Molyneux has iterated that old anecdote several times in various videos. But the straw that broke the glass of my patience was his latest video, in which he talks about the fall of Bill O’Reilly. Molyneux quoted a line of Inglourious Basterds as if the anti-German diatribe was hilarious…

Let’s be clear: the exponents of the Alt-Lite are not our friends, especially those who have recent Jewish ancestry. Alex Linder sums up in a few words what a genuine pro-white movement must be: “No jews, just right”. The recent events in the family of Donald Trump show that Linder is right.

White nationalist loons

Anti-Semitic white nationalism, insofar as it has failed to break away from Judeo-Christianity, is schizophrenic. Just see these pages quoting Jack Frost, a commenter who tried to discuss with the naïve nationalists at The Occidental Observer:

https://chechar.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/frost.pdf

I stole those pages from the 2017 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, the subject of my previous entry. Frost’s PDF, pages 226ff within The Fair Race, has to be understood within the context of the fourth section of the book:

Part IV Ethno-suicide: Christian ethics

From the editor’s desk: Two ways of looking at history 179
On the Galileans – Emperor Julian 188
Desertion from our ancestors Manu Rodríguez 191
The Antichrist – Friedrich Nietzsche 199
Criminal history of Christianity – Karlheinz Deschner 204
Detritus of a rejected mythology – Revilo Oliver 214
Table talks – Adolf Hitler 216
A civil religion – Tomislav Sunic 221
Arrows and comments – Jack Frost 226

In the above-linked PDF I added bold type to some sentences that appear un-bolded in the printed version of The Fair Race.

The PDF contains exchanges between Frost and Kevin MacDonald, and Frost and a monocausal commenter at MacDonald’s webzine. If you have already read those texts, at least reread my emphasized bold-typed sentences and tell me if the Alt Right, in any of its American manifestations, is not schizoid compared to the real thing: National Socialism.

In this entry I’ll limit myself to quote a few lines from Frost’s PDF: “That’s how we get these loons who claim to be white advocates, who are more upset about the loss of nine negroes than they are about poor Mr. Roof, who, taking his manifesto at face value, has sacrificed his own life for his race.”

Incidentally, the printed book of The Fair Race was having trouble because I added high-quality images above the 300 dpi limit. I fixed the problem but if your order doesn’t fly please let me know, either here or by email.

Thank you!

Pathetic

edwardsAmerican white nationalists are pathetic. James Edwards for one is boasting his Christianity in today’s featured article at The Occidental Observer completely ignoring the fact that Jack Frost and Tom Sunic have demonstrated in that very webzine that the Christian problem is far, far more serious than the Jewish problem itself. Just compare Edwards’ silly article with my latest post about what Uncle Adolf said of our parents’ religion

Ex Gladio Libertas

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

Michael O’Meara

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

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

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

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

sword

Ex Gladio Libertas

Freedom comes from the sword

On America

Below, a comment by Trainspotter about a January 2012 article at The Occidental Observer by Matt Parrott. Why this webzine has been deleting all threaded comments of old articles is inexplicable. The cited text is a gem I rescued:

 
 

Excellent essay by Matt.

A particular point made, which I had never thought of before, was the change in Mexican self-perception from the heirs of the great Spanish martial tradition to, well, just being Mexicans. What a let down, and the picture [see it: here] was worth a thousand words!

It is of course debatable as to whether Matt is correct about a future of soft crashes as opposed to a more defined, paradigm shifting moment. My money is on both. Yes, we have examples like Brazil in front of us, but we also have the Soviet Union.

Yet our present system is so complex and unnatural, not to mention vulnerable to systemic shock and disruption, that The Long Emergency (Kunstler’s term) could easily reach a point where things play out rapidly. In other words, where the whimper rapidly becomes a bang. To quote our esteemed former President Bush, “This sucker could go.”

And it will.

The system bleeds legitimacy by the day, and it is hard to see how it can get it back in a meaningful way. It won’t reform itself for the simple reason that it can’t. As the system weakens and decays through inevitable soft crashes, it will become ever more vulnerable to a paradigm shifting crisis that changes everything. Now, whether that change will work out in our favor is another question, but at least there will be opportunity.

In any event, again, the above is debatable.

What I hope will move beyond debate, and the sooner the better, is Matt’s conclusion about where to go from here. We are not going to recover the entire United States, as the United States. It’s simply too late, and like it or not, it’s no longer our country at a fundamental level. In truth, it hasn’t been for a long time, though it has only become materially apparent fairly recently.

This is a vital paradigm shift that we must go through, and if we can make the necessary psychological break in time, it would go a long way toward distinguishing ourselves from the trajectory of ancient India or Brazil.

Just as an aside, go through a quick mental exercise: imagine that, against all odds, we did recover the entire United States. Not just the territory, but the United States as a package. Put aside the fact that there are well over 100 million non-whites here now.

degenerate musicHow much of its history and culture would we have to disown? How much of its music would we have to repudiate? Its films? Its philosophy? Its wars?

It’s rather sobering to think about. Again, this isn’t our country anymore, and hasn’t been for a long time. All one has to do is turn on the TV or walk outside the front door for this to become readily apparent.

As Whites, we are an ancient people. As Americans, we are not. America was a vehicle created, fairly recently in historical terms, to meet the needs of our people and its posterity. Unfortunately that vehicle failed, and we were slaughtering one another, at least in part over black slaves, within a couple of generations of the founding. Then there was Reconstruction. That was bad enough. Moving forward, the record of that vehicle in the twentieth century was nothing short of disastrous for our people, both at home and abroad. In the twenty first century, these long term trends are only accelerating. All told, the vehicle known as America has allowed many whites to become materially well off, but it has been an utter disaster for the long term survival and prosperity of our people.

We were Whites before hopping into this vehicle, and we’ll still be Whites when we hop out. The wonderful things that many older readers may remember, such as close knit neighborhoods and high trust, are more a product of our racial characteristics than anything uniquely “American.” We will have those things under a new flag as well. I have a bit of a recollection of that from my childhood in the seventies. It was fading, but it was still there. Perhaps ironically, only with something new can we have that again.

This is not to say that we can’t take our heroes and icons from American history as appropriate, as that is the story of our people too. But let’s face it, many of the greatest heroes in our history on this continent were men who decided that they didn’t want to be Americans any longer, such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. I’ve heard that when the Confederacy was first established, there was an outcry not to replace the American flag. There is a deep and natural reluctance to make that break. But they got over it, and created flags of their own that speak to many of us even to this day. We’ll have to do the same.

We can take with us what is truly “ours,” while accepting that the vehicle known as America simply no longer belongs to us. In fact, living in that vehicle has become intolerable to us. Orwell wrote something to the effect of a boot pressing on a human neck, forever. We get the same boot, but just to pour salt in our wounds, imagine being forced to watch a black male and white female making out… forever. That’s pretty much what riding in this car called American has come to mean. Oppression combined with low rent degradation… forever.

So let it go. Perhaps one day in the distant future whites will control the entire geographical area of what is today the U.S., but if so it will be in a different political form, and under a different banner. A very different banner.

We need something that is based explicitly upon the protection and perpetuation of our own people, not just abstractions about liberty and equality, or making a buck. That’s not to say that what we come up with won’t offer liberty or the opportunity to make a good living. It can and it should. But if that’s all there is to it, then we’ll end up back in the cesspool again.

Bottom line: we need an ethnostate, a land of our own. A White Republic.

On birth control

19th-century cartoon depicting Jack FrostI was tempted to leave the previous entry on women as sticky for a while. But now Jack Frost has responded to the commenter I quoted there:

 

I agree there’s a correlation [between feminism and the deranged altruism that invites millions of non-whites to invade our lands]. But it’s only an interesting one because, unless I’ve misread you, you are also suggesting that there’s a straightforward causal relationship between female “influence” and willingness to accept immigrants. But willingness to accept immigrants correlates with a lot of things: relative national wealth, underpopulation, whiteness, and Christianity all come to mind immediately. Conversely, an unwillingness to accept immigrants correlates positively with being already overpopulated, relative national poverty, non-whiteness, and non- (or anti-) Christianity. The causal relationships are debatable.

Also, from a racial point of view, there’s no difference between immigrants who come voluntarily and people who are imported against their will. We should remember that even before feminism, the white men of the New World were importing negro slaves and breeding with them, along with the indigenous non-whites. So it’s clear that a lack of feminism doesn’t necessarily protect race.

One thing that seems unarguable to me is that the cause of female empowerment, and also a low fertility rate, is the availability and widespread use of scientific birth control, including abortion. If we imagine for a moment that these techniques had never been invented, the West would have a much larger white population than it currently has. Since women would always be getting pregnant, they’d have remained dependent upon men, and feminism as we know it today would never have come to pass. If you want to get rid of female “influence”, the quickest way is to eliminate all forms of birth control.

Women!

Calumny of Apelles

Above, Botticelli’s 1494 painting Calumny of Apelles which depicts a wrongfully accused man on trial, surrounded by a series of menacing women, each one made to represent a different moral failing. Below, a couple of slightly edited posts from the comments section of The Occidental Observer. They were posted yesterday by a commenter whose native language probably is not English:

 
 

I think it is very clear that the more male influence there is in society, the more xenophobic that society is. The more female influence there is in society, the less xenophobic that society is.

Have a look at Sweden—the most feminised country on Earth. It has accepted much more refugees per capita than Germany itself. It is Number 1 in Europe for accepted refugees per capita. And many people are calling Germany crazy. Well, Sweden is even crazier than Germany.

What is causing this pathological altruism? Jews? There are very few of them in Sweden, although they do control some of the media. I think mister [Kevin] McDonald had trouble proving that pathological altruism in Sweden is caused by Jewish influence alone. It is not caused either by the fact that they are northern peoples either, since northern peoples were way more xenophobic a hundred years ago. [MacDonald’s article: here] Then no Muslims were allowed in Northern Europe. No non-European minorities. It was totally populated by white people. And before a hundred years ago America was way more xenophobic as well. All of Europe was more xenophobic.

So what caused the decrease of xenophobia in the US and Europe? Simple: the increase in female influence. Since females are less xenophobic than males, the more female influence there is in society, the less xenophobic that society will be.

This is why countries in Eastern Europe are still hostile towards immigration and multiculturalism and are totally white. In Eastern Europe there is no feminism at all. Women there are more feminine. They are all male-dominated countries; most people in Eastern Europe even don’t know what “sexism” is. White men there are still violent and to be a macho is not considered to be something bad…

I don’t blame or hate women, since that’s their nature. Don’t expect them to fix the problems of the white people. But I do believe that any group that does not control the behaviour of their women—especially their birth-rates, marrying rates, and phenomena such as women politically siding with other groups against their own men—sooner or later ceases to exist.

So the problem is with white men, who don’t keep their women under control, and instead idolise women and think they are angels, or perfect beings. They are not. They are simply humans, who can make mistakes, have weaknesses, and are far from perfect.

So it is white men to blame, for being unable to keep their women in check.