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

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 3

the-real-hitler

 

Night of 11th-12th July 1941

The natural piety of man—Russian atheists know how to die—No atheistical education.
 

I think the man who contemplates the universe with his eyes wide open is the man with the greatest amount of natural piety: not in the religious sense, but in the sense of an intimate harmony with things.

Man has discovered in nature the wonderful notion of that all-mighty being whose law he worships. Fundamentally in everyone there is the feeling for this all-mighty, which we call God (that is to say, the dominion of natural laws throughout the whole universe). The priests, who have always succeeded in exploiting this feeling, threaten punishments for the man who refuses to accept the creed they impose. When one provokes in a child a fear of the dark, one awakens in him a feeling of atavistic dread. Thus this child will be ruled all his life by this dread, whereas another child, who has been intelligently brought up, will be free of it.

It’s said that every man needs a refuge where he can find consolation and help in unhappiness. I don’t believe it! If humanity follows that path, it’s solely a matter of tradition and habit. That’s a lesson, by the way, that can be drawn from the Bolshevik front. The Russians have no God, and that doesn’t prevent them from being able to face death. We don’t want to educate anyone in atheism.

Europe’s awakening

Michael_O'Meara

by Michael O’Meara

Excerpted from his book-review “The Shock of History”
originally published in 2011 at the old Alternative Right:

Dominique Venner’s thesis is that: Europeans, after having been militarily, politically, and morally crushed by events largely of their own making, have been lost in sleep (“in dormition”) for the last half-century and are now—however slowly—beginning to experience a “shock of history” that promises to wake them, as they are forced to defend an identity of which they had previously been almost unconscious.

Like cascading catastrophes (the accelerating decomposition of America’s world empire, Europe’s Islamic colonization, the chaos-creating nihilism of global capitalism, etc.), the shock of history today is becoming more violent and destructive, making it harder for Europeans to stay lulled in the deep, oblivious sleep that follows a grievous wound to the soul itself—the deep curative sleep prescribed by their horrendous civil wars (1914-1918 and 1939-1945), by the ensuing impositions of the Soviet / American occupation and of the occupation’s collaborationist regimes, and, finally, today, by a demographic tsunami promising to sweep away their kind.

The Sleep

The Second European Civil War of 1939-1945, however it is interpreted, resulted in a cataclysmic defeat not just for Hitler’s Germany, but for Europe, much of which, quite literally, was reduced to mounds of smoldering rumble. Then, at Yalta, adding insult to injury, the two extra-European super-powers partitioned the Continent, deprived her states of sovereignty, and proceeded to Americanize or Sovietize the “systems” organizing and managing the new postwar European order.

As Europe’s lands and institutions were assumed by alien interests, her ancient roots severed, and her destiny forgotten, Europeans fell into dormition, losing consciousness of who they were as a people and a civilization—believing, as they were encouraged, that they were simply one people among the world’s many peoples—nothing special—except in their evil.

Worse, for their unpardonable sins—for what Europeans did to Jews in the war, to Blacks in the slave trade, to non-White peoples in general over the course of the last 500 years—for all the terrible sins Europeans have committed, they are henceforth denied the “right” to be a “people.” In the Messianic spirit of Communism and Americanism, the Orwellian occupiers and collaborators have since refused them a common origin (roots), a shared history, a tradition, a destiny. This reduces them to a faceless economic-administrative collectivity, which is expected, in the end, to negate the organic basis of its own existence.

The postwar assault on European identity entailed, however, more than a zombifying campaign of guilt-inducement—though this campaign was massive in scale. Europe after Jahre Null was re-organized according to extra-European models and then overwhelmed with imported forms of mass consumerism and entertainment. At the same time and with perhaps greater severity, she was subject to an unprecedented “brain-washing” (in schools, media, the so-called arts, public institutions, and private corporations)—as all Europe’s family of nations, not just the defeated Germans, were collectively made to bear a crushing guilt—under the pretext of the Shoah or the legacy of colonialism / imperialism / slavery—their sins requiring the most extreme penance. Thus tainted, her memory and identity are now verboten…

In one sense, Venner’s Europe is the opposite of the America that has distorted Europe’s fate for the last half-century. But he is no knee-jerk anti-American (though the French, in my view, have good cause to be anti-US). He’s also written several books on the US War of Secession, in which much of America’s Cavalier heritage is admired. Knowing something of the opposed tendencies shaping American “national” life, he’s well aware of the moral abyss separating, say, Jesse James from Jay Gould—and what makes one an exemplar of the European spirit and the other its opposite.

Modeled on the Old Testament, not the Old World, Venner claims America’s New World (both as a prolongation and rejection of Europe) was born of New England Calvinism and secularized in John O’Sullivan’s “Manifest Destiny.”

Emboldened by the vast, virgin land of their wilderness enterprise and the absence of traditional authority, America’s Seventeenth-century Anglo-Puritan settlers set out, in the spirit of their radical-democratic Low Church crusade, to disown the colony’s Anglo-European parents—which meant disowning the idea (old as Herodotus) that Europe is “the home of liberty and true government.”

Believing herself God’s favorite, this New Zion aspired—as a Promised Land of liberty, equality, fraternity—to jettison Europe’s aesthetic and aristocratic standards for the sake of its religiously-inspired materialism. Hence, the bustling, wealth-accumulating, tradition-opposing character of the American project, which offends every former conception of the Cosmos.

New England, to be sure, is not the whole of America, for the South, among another sections, has a quite different narrative, but it was the Yankee version of the “American epic” that became dominant, and it is thus the Yankee version that everywhere wars on Americans of European descent.

Citing Huntington’s Who Are We?, Venner says US elites (“cosmocrats,” he calls them) pursue a transnational / universalist vision (privileging global markets and human rights) that opposes every “nativist” sense of nation and culture—a transnational / universalist vision the cosmocrats hope to impose on the whole world. For like Russian Bolsheviks and “the Bolsheviks of the Seventeenth century,” these money-worshipping liberal elites hate the Old World and seek a new man, Homo oeconomicus—unencumbered by roots, nature, or culture—and motivated solely by a quantitative sense of purpose.

As a union whose “connections” are horizontal, contractual, self-serving, and self-centered, America’s cosmocratic system comes, as such, to oppose all resistant forms of historic or organic identity—for the sake of a totalitarian agenda intent on running roughshod over everything that might obstruct the scorch-earth economic logic of its Protestant Ethic and Capitalist Spirit. In this sense, Europe’s resurgence implies America’s demise.

The Shock

What will awaken Europeans from their sleep? Venner says it will be the shock of history—the shock evoking the tradition that made them (and makes them) who they are.

Such shocks have long shaped their history. Think of the Greeks in their Persian Wars; of Charles Martel’s outnumbered knights against the Caliphate’s vanguard; or of the Christian forces under Starhemberg and Sobieski before the gates of Vienna. Whenever Europe approaches Hölderlin’s “midnight of the world,” such shocks, it seems, serve historically to mobilize the redeeming memory and will to power inscribed in her tradition.

More than a half-century after the trauma of 1945—and the ensuing Americanization, financialization, and third-worldization of continental life—Europeans are once again experiencing another great life-changing, history-altering shock promising to shake them from their dormition.

The present economic crisis and its attending catastrophes combined with the unrelenting, disconcerting Islamization of European life (integral to US strategic interests) are—together—forcing Europeans to re-evaluate a system that destroys the national economy, eliminates borders, ravages the culture, makes community impossible, and programs their extinction as a people. The illusions of prosperity and progress, along with the system’s fun, sex, and money (justifying the prevailing de-Europeanization) are becoming increasingly difficult to entertain. Glimmers of a changing consciousness have, indeed, already been glimpsed on the horizon.

The various nationalist-populist parties stirring everywhere—parties which are preparing the counter-hegemony that one day will replace Europe’s present American-centric leadership—represent one conspicuous sign of this awakening. A mounting number of identitarian, Christian, secular, and political forces resisting Islam’s, America’s, and the EU’s totalitarian impositions at the local level are another sign.

Europeans, as a consequence, are increasingly posing the question: “Who are we?,” as they become conscious—especially in the face of the dietary, vestimentary, familial, sexual, religious, and other differences separating them from Muslims—of what is distinct to their civilization and their people, and why such distinctions are worth defending. Historical revivals, Venner notes, are slow in the making, but once awakened there is usually no going back. This is the point, Venner believes, that Europe is approaching today.

The Unexpected

History is the realm of the unexpected. Venner does not subscribe to notions of historical determinism or necessity. In contrast to Marxists and economic determinists, anti-Semites and Spenglerians, he believes there are no monocausal explanations in history, and unlike liberals such as Fukuyama, he believes there’s no escape from (no “end” to) history.

The future of history is always unknown. Who would have thought in 1980 that Soviet Russia, which seemed to be overtaking the United States in the 70s, would collapse within a decade? Historical fatalities are the fatalities of men’s minds, not those of history.

History, moreover, is the confluence of the given, the circumstantial, and the willful. This makes it always open and hence potentially always a realm of the unexpected. And the unexpected (that instance when great possibilities are momentarily posed) is mastered, Venner counsels, only in terms of who we are, which means in terms of the tradition and identity defining our project and informing our encounter with the world.

Hence, the significance now of husbanding our roots, our memory, our tradition, for from them will come our will to power and any possibility of transcendence. It’s not for nothing, Dominique Venner concludes, that we are the sons and daughters of Homer, Ulysses, and Penelope.

On the Third Reich

“In almost any war one side can be dishonestly demonized even by a truthful enumeration of its crimes, if the crimes of its adversaries are suppressed.”

Irmin Vinson

This Time, 5

rockwell

A passage from This Time the World
by George Lincoln Rockwell

This is only an infinitesimally tiny bit of the huge mass of evidence that the “Russian” revolution was not Russian at all, but Jewish. The documents include the Overman Report to the U.S. Senate, 1919, Senate Document 88, which shows that of the 388 members of the first Soviet Government, sitting in the Old Smolny Institute in Petrograd, 371 were Jews and 265 of these Jews were from the lower East Side of New York City!

In March 1918, both Russia and Germany were in the advanced throes of Bolshevik revolution. Lenin was on his way in a sealed train to Russia, with over 417 exiled Jewish Marxists, to set up the first Bolshevik government in the world. The Jewish revolutionaries were at work in all the other chaos-ridden European countries, with Bela Kun (Cohen) seizing Hungary for the Jew-Communists and Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, both Jews, leading the Bolshevik uprising in Germany.

Meanwhile, an unknown German corporal lay in hospital in Pasewalk, outside of Berlin, his eyes all but burned out by a gas attack. He writes movingly in Mein Kampf of the hot tears which poured down his face when a gang of deserters from the Navy rushed in proclaiming the Red revolution, which forced Germany to sue for an armistice. He writes even more movingly of his disgust and helpless rage when he learned that the deserters were not combat fighters from the front lines, where he himself had won his Iron Cross of valor, but were Jews from the rear echelons!

Five thousand miles across the Atlantic Ocean, in Bloomington, Illinois, Claire Schade Rockwell entered the Kelso Hospital at this same time to give birth to her first child, on the night of March 9, 1918. The greatest marathon race of human history was launched…

Adolf Hitler started the year I was born, the year that Marxism took Russia. He made a miraculous sprint into history, almost overtook the Reds, but exhausted himself in the agony of his superhuman exertion. His baton seemed to fall, to be crushed into the earth by the ferocity of the other side. It has lain buried now for fifteen years. All over the world, it appears to be crucified. But now, at last, it has been seized up by new hands! It will be carried to triumph as inevitably as the laws of Nature decree the eventual victory of the strongest and best…

I have made it my mission in life, above all things, to carry that baton to victory! No matter how long it takes, how painful it may be, or how an eternally blind world scorns and hates it, Adolf Hitler’s noble vision of racial idealism will yet master today’s chaos and bring order, decency and the innocent fun and laughter of my father’s day…

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 109

the-real-hitler

 

5th April 1942, midday

The importance of climate—Leningrad is doomed.
 

As regards the Russian territories that will pass under our sovereignty, the problems are so plentiful that they’ll provide us with opportunities for work for several centuries. In the central sector, it will be necessary to cultivate the marshes, which extend further than eye can see, by planting reeds.

They’ll form a barrier in future to break the extraordinary waves of cold of the Russian winter. In other parts, it will be necessary to set up plantations of cultivated nettles, for, according to the experiments made by a Hamburg firm, the fibres of these nettles enable one to manufacture a cellulose much superior to cotton. Moreover, it’s becoming urgently necessary to re-afforest the Ukraine, in order to struggle effectively against the rains which are a real scourge in that region. They really did a good job those hunters who, in order to satisfy their passion for the chase, took care to re-afforest 37 per cent of German soil. In the meantime, along the whole periphery of the Mediterranean, people were de-foresting without thinking of the importance of the forest and, consequently, without adopting the policy their action entailed.

Since there is a question of the future of Leningrad, I reply that, for me, Leningrad is doomed to decay. May the ports and naval dockyards of Leningrad decay in their turn! As a matter of fact, there can be only one master in the Baltic, which must be an inland sea of Germany’s.

That’s why we must see to it there’s no room for an important port on the periphery of our Reich. The development of our own ports and those of the Baltic countries will amply suffice to cover our maritime needs, so that we shall be well able to dispense with the port of Leningrad, which in any case is blocked by ice for half the year.

Published in: on August 17, 2015 at 11:29 pm  Leave a Comment  

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 113

the-real-hitler 
9th April 1942, midday

The criteria by which a politician should be judged are, firstly, the positive virtues he possesses, and, secondly, the actual services he has rendered to his country.

In politics facts alone are of value, and any juggling with possible hypotheses is quite futile. It is, for example, perfectly true, but of no importance, to say that had the Romans been defeated by the Huns on the Gatalaunian Fields the growth of western culture would have been impossible and the civilisation of the time would have been destroyed—as indeed our own civilisation to-day will be destroyed if the Soviets are victorious in this war.

Published in: on August 13, 2015 at 6:27 pm  Leave a Comment  

Homo Americanus, 1

homoamericanusBoth the American and the Soviet experiments were founded on the same principles of egalitarianism…

At the beginning of the third millennium, the immense egalitarian meta-narrative, encapsulated in Americanism, is very much alive… Both Homo sovieticus and Homo americanus herald the slogan that all men are created equal…

All academic discussions about genetic or racial differences are quickly neutralized by the all-encompassing words such as “racism” or “hate speech.”

Homo Americanus, chapter 2

Frost responds to Sunic

My latest two posts dealt with Hadding Scott’s article about Dylann Roof. Today Tom Sunic took issue with the arguments of the commenters I reproduced in those posts:

Hadding is correct when stressing the importance of education in white awareness—white civility might be a better locution. This is a long and painful process. The Soviet commissars in the 70’s were far more afraid of the pen of the one single Solzhenitsyn than of millions of Bible- thumping anti-commie preachers in the USA. If Roof had had a foresight of the standard “who benefits?” question, he would have never done the killing. Unless he himself has either a very low IQ, or worse, a sizable portion of criminal chromosomes, which, to be sure one encounters among some wannabe EU and US Hollywood- Nazis and self-proclaimed White nationalists, whose actions discredit the plight of millions of other Whites.

Jack Frost responded first by quoting Sunic:

“The Soviet commissars in the 70’s were far more afraid of the pen of the one single Solzhenitsyn than of millions of Bible-thumping anti-commie preachers in the USA…”

This is the same Solzhenitsyn who said:

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? SolyenitsinOr if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if… We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more—we had no awareness of the real situation… We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

“Education” or agitprop has its place, but in my view it’s primarily a recruitment tool. Without people willing to take action it’s useless. Eventually things come to a pass where action is required, and that’s where people like Roof and Mathews come in. I have to say that I think anyone who denigrates the actions of our street fighters or disavows them is deeply mistaken and acting in a disgraceful fashion. Withholding an endorsement is one thing, but actively attacking them and giving support to the oppressive system is really what’s foolish and counter-productive.

See also my comment below.

Jack vs. Kevin

Dr. Kevin MacDonald wrote this month within an article on The Occidental Observer:

The Jewish commitments and motivations of the main players were never a subject of discussion, and the movements themselves were presented as scientifically sound and morally superior to the traditional culture of the West.

On April 14, 2015 Jack Frost commented:

Deceptively phrased. Jews never oppose the “traditional culture” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) of the West directly by presenting an alternative that they claim is morally superior. Rather, they work within the traditional framework of moral values established by Christianity, the ultimate source of Western morality. Moral authority comes from the Bible, churches, and Jesus, not Freud or Karl Marx. Anti-racism and philo-Semitism are things already present within Christianity, and all the Jew does is draw them out. Any positive moral value ascribed to these things is only possible because Christianity already endorses them. The stress laid on universal brotherhood in the Bible is the source of communism’s attraction; and Freud’s message would have fallen on deaf ears in a non-Christian culture.

Frost’s comment was a mere comment within a threaded discussion. Perhaps if he was writing a more formal article he would have included other examples.

One example that comes to mind now that I’ve just added Hitler’s talk on how to deal with the conquered inhabitants of the Soviet Union, is the widespread dismay by virtually all white nationalists regarding such plans.

For genuine apostates of Christianity it goes without saying that a people that have surrendered their institutions to the Jews, as happened in the SU, deserve to be conquered by a healthier race. Presently that the US allowed the same, if a Reich was in charge of Europe and Russia the natural thing for a healthy white would be cheer about the conquest of America by these hypothetic Germans.

Let me convey my point in another way. Back in 2011 a well-known, neonazi commenter said that I was a “profoundly confused man” because I rejected abortion while, in cases of serious genetic flaws (e.g., Down syndrome), I accepted the Third Reich policy on euthanasia. Like those white nationalists who are extremely dismayed when reading the table talks and find passages like the one I quoted today about Hitler’s plans on Russia, nationalists are dismayed too when someone really breaks away from Christian axiology.

Douris_Man_with_wax_tabletFor a Greek or a Roman of ancient times it would have been unthinkable to raise a genetically-flawed baby. This is certainly a Christian value. If Hitler had won the war and in his empire from the Atlantic to the Urals the Germans behaved like the Spartans with their defective offspring, and the Russians became relegated to second-class citizens, a true Nietzschean would not shed a tear. The fact that even the editor of Ostara Publications has found necessary to add a disclaimer in the best edition of Hitler’s Table Talk that I know, claiming that the German leaders had to revise their opinions toward Russians, proves how Christian axiology has so shaped white culture that no one has been able to stand outside of it, not even racialists.

Exactly the same can be said of those who are dismayed by The Turner Diaries, and I am talking even of those who somehow like Pierce. Neochristians, white nationalists included, are morally incapable of accepting the view expressed in that novel that the “millions of White people who died, and who have yet to die before we are finished” are not really “innocents” because they allowed themselves to be subjugated by Jews in the first place.

The huge difference between Hitler and Pierce on the one hand, and white nationalists on the other, is that the latter cannot break away from the grip of Christian axiology, atheists included.