BeatitudesSo HUMBLE yourselves, drop your hatred of negroes, and get work down at an inner city homeless shelter feeding pregnant black women and wayward crack-heads. Drop your racism! God loves all colors, especially the dark ones. After all, they’re the ones who’ve suffered the most.

That’s Christianity. There’s no way to make it pro-white. Christians must help the poor, stupid and weak. That means muds.

Sam Emerson

Published in: on December 18, 2015 at 9:57 am  Comments (32)  
Tags: ,

On Norman Rockwell

by Brad Griffin

Fifty years after he first started doing work for the magazine, Norman Rockwell was tired of doing the same sweet views of America for the Saturday Evening Post in the early 1960s. The great illustrator was increasingly influenced by his close friends and loved ones to look at some of the problems that was afflicting American society. Rockwell had formed close friendships with Erik Erickson and Robert Coles, psychiatrists specializing in the treatment of children and both were advocates of the civil rights movement.

His most profound influence was his third wife, Mary L. “Molly” Punderson, who was an ardent liberal and who urged him in new directions. On December 14, 1963, Rockwell did his last cover for the Saturday Evening Post and he began working for Look magazine. Look magazine finally gave Norman Rockwell the opportunity to express his social concerns.

Rockwell’s first painting was The Problem We All Live With, one of his greatest paintings.

rockwellThis painting depicts Ruby Bridges, the little girl who integrated the New Orleans school system in 1960, being escorted to her class by federal marshals in the face of hostile crowds. It’s a simple picture, the disembodied figures of four stiff suited men and the vulnerable yet defiant figure of a school age African American girl marching lockstep. To the right is a tomato staining a wall, obviously thrown at the girl but just missing. My eyes focus on the girl and her immaculate white, a contrast to the graffiti stained wall in the background. As a painting it’s a wonder with its composition conveying Rockwell’s message in a few simple figures.

nr-2An even greater departure from Rockwell’s usual sweet America paintings is Southern Justice, painted in 1963. Rockwell did a finished painting, but the editors published Rockwell’s color study instead, and I think his color study conveys the terror of the scene more successfully.

It depicts the deaths of three Civil Rights workers who were killed for their efforts to register African American voters. It is done in a monochrome sienna color, and it is a horrifying vision of racism. A look of it can be seen here.

Rockwell’s most optimistic view of the civil rights movement was Negro in the Suburbs, painted in 1967 [see it here]. It depicts an African American family moving into a white suburban neighborhood. The African American children look over by the kids in the neighborhood, with all the children sharing a love of baseball, America’s game.

In that painting, Norman Rockwell depicts an ideal, all-American, high trust, happily integrated neighborhood, which is the polar opposite of the integrated neighborhoods that actually exist.

You could turn on CNN or The Weather Channel or watch any movie in Black Run America (BRA) and you will find the same sort of disingenuous nonsense that Norman Rockwell was peddling in the 1960s.

Published in: on March 26, 2015 at 9:43 am  Comments (2)  

On the so-called “New Right”


The New Right rejects winning.
There is no winning without violence.

Below, Alex Linder’s retort to Greg Johnson’s manifesto, “New Right vs. Old Right” (video here; textual version here), originally posted in Vanguard News Network Forum that in October of 2012 I excerpted for my Addenda. It merits inclusion here.

Keywords: OR (Old Right), NR (New Right). Linder’s retort appears unindented:

[In his manifesto Johnson wrote:]

So how does the New Right differ from Fascism and National Socialism? This is a vital question, because of the intense stigmas attached to these movements since the Second World War. The North American New Right, like the European New Right, is founded on the rejection of Fascist and National Socialist party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide.

This is why Greg can only describe Golden Dawn as “interesting.” If he starts saying successful, then he has to observe that, contrary to what he’s imagining the NR to be, GD does embrace party politics and daily operations that are very similar to what the OR carried on.

We believe that such a world can be achieved through gradual and humane programs of territorial partition and population transfer.

We believe that these aims can come about by changing people’s consciousness, i.e., by persuading enough people in positions of influence that everyone has a stake in ethnonationalism.

In less grandiose terms, NR is not to provide leaders but to influence some vague elite, either the existing or one yet to arise. But not actually be that elite itself. In other words, the NR are kibitzers—people who stand around the table and tell the men actually in the game how to play their cards. I mean, it sounds great when Johnson lays it out, but really, in more prosaic terms, he’s just going to offer more free advice. The NR’s not actually getting in the ring. Like, you know, Golden Dawn.

Metapolitics refers to what must come before the foundation of a new political order.

So says Johnson. Because it fits what he wants to do—multiply essays. But in fact, the change in order comes from being involved in all aspects of the process, not just writing and thinking. All these matters, as much of them as can be engaged, go on simultaneously.

That is what we saw with the OR Nazis, and what we see with the Neo-Old Right Golden Dawners. Creating a new political order is not the hands-off affair Johnson imagines it to be.

Does Golden Dawn need some “metapolitical” change before it can begin working to transform Greece? Hell no! Whites in Western countries don’t need their consciousness transformed, they need potatoes. Potatoes and protection. They need cooking oil and champions. People who will help them vanquish enemies and feed them potatoes and milk when they are hungry. The state’s not there—but Golden Dawn is. The real-world physical help and political leadership provided by Golden Dawn will do more to transform Greek consciousness and culture than 1,000 clever essays by Brown Johnson. And at some level he knows this.

He does not have the character to admit that his approach is not, in fact, a political strategy but a personal declaration about where he and his group are going to put their effort. They’re going to write essays. Lengthy important reviews of important new Batman movies; crypt-keeping of the same-old goth writers and ancient German thinkers everyone’s long familiar with. Rehash after furious rehash, but no engagement with actual politics. I’d rather have Golden Dawn’s feta-politics than Greg Johnson’s meta-politics anyday. And so would average Greeks. And so would Whites in all nations.

“Metapolitics must come before a change in the political order.” Johnson asserts this without proving it. It is merely his opinion. Like there’s something new in human relations waiting to be discovered and transmitted, and everybody will go, holy shit, I never thought of that before.

But it’s not like that at all. We just need ordinary politics, carried on by heroes, not new philosophies, new ideas, anything new. Just better champions, tighter organization, more loyalty, greater bravery. Honestly, Greg, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but 10,000 more 10,000-word exegeses of the gothic in Lovecraft aren’t going to produce political change.

Metapolitics refers to what must come before the foundation of a new political order. Metapolitics breaks down into two basic activities. First, there is education: articulating and communicating forms of white nationalism tailored to the interests and outlooks of the full array of white constituencies.

Well, that’s the theory, but in reality you have pitched and will continue to pitch to an extremely narrow, if high-level, sector. You have the words right, but you can’t deliver on them. Do you imagine that because you serve up a 5,000-word exegesis on “The Dark Knight Rises” that you are reaching the masses who actually attend such a movie? You’re not.

All you’re reaching are intellectuals of a certain bent. The original VNN actually achieved what you imagine you are trying to achieve. You can’t repeat its success because it involves qualities neither you nor your writers possess (wit, humor, ability to satirize), and because, for reasons of sniffishness, you won’t go low enough to fish where the whitefish are. Your offering is monolevel, precisely in the way George Lincoln Rockwell advised against, even if your words make obeisance to the full-spectrum offerings he advised.

Second, there is community organizing…

Ok. But not party politics. As Golden Dawn shows, they can easily be the same thing. Hamas showed that too. As did the OR national socialists. What you appear to mean by community organizing are the private salons, like the one you’re holding this weekend in California.

Second, there is community organizing, meaning the cultivation of real-world communities that live according to our vision in the present and may serve as the seeds of a New Order to come.

Except that’s not possible because of the law, which can only be changed by the politics you specifically state you will not be involved in.

The primary metapolitical project of the North American New Right is to challenge and replace the hegemony of anti-white ideas throughout our culture and political system.

And this magician is going to do this by eschewing political involvement in favor of multiplying essays. The butt baby of David Copperfield and Blaine wouldn’t even dream of trying to sell an illusion this fragrant. Get this again to fully appreciate its absurdity: without owning any tv stations, or radio stations, or any elected officials, Greg Johnson and his crew of anonymities are going to “replace the hegemony of anti-white ideas throughout our culture and political system.”

And they’re going to achieve this without any political involvement, simply by influencing (his word, not mine) some vague elite—not being the elite. They don’t propose anything as icky as leading an actual struggle, but by influencing some unknown mass of people.

Presumably there is a body of men out there just waiting for 5,000-word exegeses of Batman movies in order to break from their thrall and lead our race to victory. We’re a long way, truly, from simple Greeks out working the fields, collecting watermelons and onions to feed their hungry neighbors. Nah, that’s not the stuff that provides the cultural and political transformation that “must” precede change in the political order. Too mundane.

The entire cultural and political mainstream—including every shade of the “respectable” political spectrum—treats white racial consciousness and white self-assertion as evil.

As always, Johnson acts like other ideas have triumphed because they persuaded people, when the known truth is that the vast majority has no real beliefs other than to avoid pain, and will generally go along with whatever comes out of the loudspeaker. That’s the truth. It’s just too boring for the Johnsons of the world to accept. You can’t win a cultural battle where you don’t control the mass media and you refrain from actual politics.

Our goal is to critique and destroy this consensus and make white racial consciousness and self-assertion hegemonic instead, so that no matter what political party wins office, white interests will be secured.

And you’re going to do this without being involved in politics, without controlling any mass media, purely by the brilliant persuasiveness of your ideas. D is for delusional.

Our goal is a pluralistic white society in which there is disagreement and debate about a whole range of issues. But white survival will not be among them.

Meanwhile Whites are shot on the street daily by feral niggers, to be redundant, the white presidential candidate takes it up the ass from jews while sucking off niggers, and not a single word contrary to the existing order of things can be printed in the mass media. You’re going to change that by eschewing politics for essay-writing. One is reminded of those cult nuts’ attempt to levitate the Pentagon by prayer.

There are systematic analogies between the Old Right and the Old Left, and between the New Right and the New Left.

The Old Right and Old Left had widely divergent aims, but shared common means: hierarchical, ideological political parties organized for both electioneering and armed struggle; one-party police states led by dictators; the elimination of opposition through censorship, imprisonment, terror, and outright murder, sometimes on a mind-boggling industrial scale.

Greggy, you don’t seem to understand that you can’t just pick and choose how you fight. If the other guy is willing to cheat, lie, steal and murder—and you’re not—guess who’s going to win?

You’re simply high-handedly declaring that you’re too good for anything as icky as actual fighting—which is merely a sign of your personality problems, and your lack of self-awareness, but what’s unforgivable is the alacrity with which you throw your betters under the bus.

Does their behavior at some level shame you? The NS not only wrote better essays than you, they thought better thoughts, and they fought better fights. Golden Dawn shows the proper relation between old and new right, if you must insist on that distinction. You can verbally camouflage it all you like with pretty words, but your retreat into mere essaying is the farthest thing from an actual political strategy. It’s just your way of rationalizing your own choices.

Yes, in the case of classical National Socialism, revisionists argue that many of these atrocities are exaggerated or made up out of whole cloth. But revisionism about the Second World War is really beside the point, because the terroristic, imperialistic, genocidal impulse exists in National Socialism today. For instance, latter-day National Socialist William Pierce routinely pooh-poohed the Holocaust. But he was willing to countenance real terrorism, imperialism, and genocide on a scale that would dwarf anything in the 20th century. That spirit is what we reject.

All this does is show that you are incapable of loyalty. You will throw anyone under the bus if you think it will make you look better. The Nazis deserve respect, even if you’re not a Nazi. You don’t give it to them. All you care about is that you think they make you look bad. Let me assure you, Gregster—you alone are fully competent to make yourself look bad. I guess you could say you have achieved a metapolitical success in how I view you.

You reject the “spirit.” Pierce recognized jews were attempting to genocide us, and wanted to return the favor. Guns to a gunfight, is all that is. Your view is that fights can be conducted by whatever means the fighter finds comfortable; there are no objective criteria that need to be taken into consideration. So you don’t need to worry that you control no tv or radio, you just ignore that, and big it up that your website and books are going to create a cultural revolution. This is not serious stuff—when put forward as a political strategy. The very concept of metapolitics is bogus, because it always comes down the technics of influence, and here the control of the loudspeakers (cable tv, etc., and the political system) are determinative. Sorry, Greggy. There’s no escaping politics.

Yes, there were degrees of totalitarianism. The Communist abolition of private property entailed a far greater disruption of and intrusion into private life than Fascism or National Socialism, which merely sought to harmonize private property and private enterprise with the common good whenever they conflicted. Fortunately, hard totalitarianism—even the softest version of hard totalitarianism—is neither desirable nor necessary to secure the existence of our people, so we reject it.

You can’t know a priori what will in fact be necessary since you haven’t even begun the fight and in fact expressly reject fighting.

It is instructive to look at how the New Left has handled the mind-boggling, heart-rending, stomach-churning atrocities of the Old Left. The best New Leftists do not deny them. They do not minimize them. They do not pin their hopes on “Gulag revisionism” or rehabilitating the reputation of Pol Pot. They simply disown the atrocities. They step over them and keep moving toward their goals.

Which is not a decision they make, as you imply, but an opportunity that is only possible because they control the organs of public opinion. They can’t be forced to defend their record when nobody else is allowed a chance at the mike. Of course they’re not going to talk about their record of mass murder.

But you’re ignoring what lets them get away with it, in order to further the frankly ridiculous illusion that your side can make a similar evasion. First, as the revisionists you’ve thrown under the bus have shown, there’s nothing to evade. Second, the enemy can use that same media monopoly to force your side to respond to its attacks or else simply accept the damage they do. Why do you keep acting like the playing field is level, and everything is a matter of the choices we make? You act, per the Jared Barnum Taylor who associated with this school of stupidity, like there is no enemy. And we don’t need to take him into account. We just put on our best writin’ suit and pen up Another Great Essay! And if we do enough… we win! You’re a cheesedog, Johnson.

This is exactly what we propose to do. We are too busy resisting our own genocide to tie ourselves to defending the mistakes and excesses of the Old Right.

Johnson is a natural-born conservative. Attacking is not in him. The best he can do is evade and avoid, and get back to arranging the pretty flowers.

They are simply not our problem. To borrow a phrase from Jonathan Bowden, “We’ve stepped over that.” Our enemies keep throwing it down in our path, and we just keep stepping over it.

Why not pick it up and smash them over the head with it until they’re dead? Then you won’t have to dance, Chinaman, dance like a good little albino monkey.

The New Left retained the values and ultimate goals of the Old Left. They also retained elements of their philosophical framework. They then set about spreading their ideas throughout the culture by means of propaganda and institutional subversion. And they won. Aside from Cuba and North Korea, orthodox Communism is dead. Capitalism seems everywhere triumphant. And yet in the realm of culture, leftist values are completely hegemonic. The left lost the Cold War, but they won the peace.

New Left and Old Left is as bogus a distinction as Old Right / New Right. What we’re discussing here as though it’s an ideas-battle is actually a matter of institutionalization of power.

If the left owns all the satellite uplinks, and the politicians and preachers and teachers, then of course it can get away with “soft” means. The hard work of killing people has already been done. But that doesn’t mean it won’t have immediate recourse to this option wherever it needs to. Or that in any way rejects the use of any means to get the job done.

Old? New? Bullshit: same. It’s you, the fool with no power, who is overtly, publicly rejecting the struggle for power that is in fact the only way your side could free itself or regain control of the apparatuses; the control of which is what actually provides this influence you desire to effect.

See, Greggy, people don’t think. Very few of them. You are hugely overrating how thoughtful people are, and hugely underrating how much their meaningless views are simply authority-tropisms. Whatever the tv says to stay away from is what the mass-paramecium fears to be involved with. It’s not deeper than that. People are not intellectuals. They will be influenced by brave leadership, in struggles such as we have before us, and nothing else. Certainly not by disembodied idea-ists who seek not to lead but to influence. Your aim to influence, which is wifely effeminacy, will be taken as weakness by the masses, and rightly so. The masses, as OR Hitler knew, require a strong hand. They take only a masculine impress, and reject what is soft, weak, unsure.

I hate to have to explain this to you, young master Gregerson, but… when you look at Hitler, bublele? You’re, yr yr… looking up. Not down. Up. Yeah. Sorry ol’ Uncle Al has to break that news to you.

Since in the West, both the Old and the New Left functioned primarily as a vehicle for Jewish ethnic interests, it would be more precise to say that Jewish values are hegemonic throughout the culture, even on the mainstream right.

The New Left and New Right have widely divergent aims, but very similar means, namely the pursuit of political change through transforming ideas and culture, aiming at the establishment of intellectual and cultural hegemony.

This is just fruity beyond the point of acceptability. Premise is there’s a real intellectual debate goin’ on and wez gonna win it. Yeah, except there is no debate because they own all the tv, radio and newspapers. Not only are you giving even a passing to their impregnable technical superiority in dissemination positioning, and legal context, you continue to pretend that the left’s power is ultimately based on ideas rather than physical suppression of resistance. This is manifestly not true, and if you disagree, take your message to the street and see. But of course you don’t even dare to get into that game, and you advise others against it. You’re going to win it all growing flowers in your own little hothouse. It is to laugh.

The New Right rejects the totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide of the Old Right.

As well say, the New Right rejects winning. There is no winning without violence. Willing and able recourse to violence is how the jews took power. Ideas are merely an expression of jewish power, not the source. If I may use the phrase the quitter-conceder Weber used. Jews dominate this country because they are willing to use violence against competitors. And now they have the cops in their hands to do their dirty work for them. How are you going to change that? You’ll say something fruity about new and different and better ideas, but this is nothing. This is just an academic pretending that politics is a battle of ideas rather than a battle.

But we do not reject their political model: the ethnically and culturally homogeneous, hierarchically organized, organic society.

You just reject the only means by which it can brought about. Cuz the world has changed so much back then. Instead of fighting, today men just listen and vote.

We want a world in which every distinct people has such a homeland, including the Jews.

Great. Jews are for racism for them, and mongrelism for us. And you’re for racialism for everybody. You bring a knife to a gunfight and expect to win.

Nor do we reject the theoretical frameworks of Fascism and National Socialism, which today are more relevant and better-grounded in science and history than ever before.

Nor do we reject such figures as Hitler and Mussolini. Objectivity requires that we recognize their virtues as well as their flaws. We have much to learn from them. We will never repudiate awakened white people just to curry favor with the Bourgeoisie.

This is particularly ludicrous. He’s just gotten done rejecting basically everything the OR did, and now he’s hypocritically talking about how he embraces the very people, philosophies and behaviors he just rejected.

Johnson has come to make a habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth. “It is not enough that you believe, you must fight,” said one famous OR guy. “I believe, but I will not fight,” saith Johnson, who then rotated yet again and expressed his support for Hitler’s words. You need to decide, Greg, whether you’re a Big Johnson or a Little Johnson. Well, you have decided. You just can’t face the truth about your decision. I urge you to face it, and to reconsider.

I have received some gentle ribbing about including Hitler and Mussolini among the birthdays we commemorate, as it smacks of the totalitarian cult of personality. But as an editor, I find that birthdays are ideal, regularly-occurring occasions to discuss important figures. They also produce spikes in search engine traffic, which we want to capture. Besides, we commemorate many birthdays, and it would be craven to discuss people like Ezra Pound or Knut Hamsun but ignore the people they were imprisoned for following. So we will keep commemorating their birthdays until, eventually, everybody does.

Ok, that makes sense. It is good to have heroes. Respected figures. Even if you disagree with them on things. But you undermined The Tradition when you draw an indelible line between your new thing and theirs. The psychology of celebrating them while simultaneously distancing yourself from them conveys a mixed message that is confusing, and unnecessarily so in light of the found facts you reject.

One of the main motives of the New Left’s move from politics to culture was disappointment with the proletariat, which was so effectively mobilized by Fascism and National Socialism, not to mention the centrist regimes of the Cold War era.

The New Left believed they represented the interests of the workers, but their approach was entirely elitist. They focused their attention on influencing the college-educated middle and professional classes, because these people have disproportionate influence on the rest of society, particularly through education, the media, and popular culture.

It’s a little more than influence. The left bought up the organs of opinion, took over the colleges, teachers’ colleges and law schools, and bribed both political parties. This left it, over a few decades, in position to dictate ideology to the right half the bell curve, the college grads.

The left doesn’t influence people, it threatens them. If you don’t agree, you will be weeded out of their system. If you’re in the system and found out, you will be harassed and fired. To speak of persuasion and influence is far too soft. Dominate + paranoia + occupied power position + owning all the loudspeakers = suppressing all resistance.

You can call that winning the debate, but that’s not accurate. Preventing any debate from happening is accurate. To truly understand what the left does is to observe that it goes far, far beyond dictating political positions. It goes to the point of preventing bad thoughts from ever forming by developing techniques intended to stunt the mind: bad ways to read. And if the mind makes it over this hurdle, then all it has to read are PC-scripted textbooks. All it hears on radio/tv are jew-written news and fiction scripts.

The left hasn’t won the debate, it has taken over and smashed all competing views, and done what it could to destroy the very idea of idea-competition. Johnson’s tone does not accurately convey the physiological-political reality of the left, which is utterly jewish, which is to say driven by hatred and paranoia. Any two white men speaking unrecorded by ZOG = conspiracy.

Likewise, the New Right represents the interests of all whites, but when it comes to social change, we need to adopt a resolutely elitist strategy. We need to recognize that, culturally and politically speaking, some whites matter more than others. History is not made by the masses. It is made out of the masses. It is made by elites molding the masses. Thus we need to direct our message to the educated, urban middle and professional classes and above.

Simple question, Greg. Given that Hitler, per the essay you published by Andrew Hamilton specifically did not try to attract the bourgeois at the start of his campaign to liberate Germany, and given that Golden Dawn in 2012 Greece is finding great success in going out in the streets to help the poor, why should anyone believe your way will work?


Especially given that you have no way at all to influence the bourgeoisie through the colleges and grad schools? Why are cowardly, selfish, materialist upper-middle-class bourgeois with a lot to lose going to flock to your standard (as opposed to poor or lower-class people with comparatively nothing to lose)?

There is no shortage of Old Right-style groups with populist messages targeting working class and rural constituencies. But we need to go beyond them if we are going to win.

In America? Really? Who are these groups?

Who I am speaking for here? When I say “we,” I am speaking for more than just myself, but not for all or even most of our writers or readers. There is no presumption that every author we publish approves of our agenda, in whole or in essence. (Indeed, many of them are dead.) Nor is there any presumption that any author agrees with any other author published here. Publication here does, however, imply that I, as the Editor-in-Chief, think that a given work advances our agenda directly or indirectly: directly, by articulating a viewpoint that I would endorse as true; indirectly, by helping us build an intellectually exciting movement.

That means that this so-called New Right is an artificial construct of essays written by bourgeois individualists, not any genuine political school or tendency. It could just as well be called Greg Johnson’s Fan Club. Or Greg Johnson’s Racialist Reader’s Digest.

And the North American New Right is an intellectual movement, not a fixed doctrine. The goals are fixed. The basic intellectual strategy is fixed. But everything else is in movement: usually toward our goals, but sometimes just whirling around the dance floor for the sheer joy of it (which, in a subtler way, also moves toward our goals).

Yeah, I’m not feeling the brio in the forced tendentiousness of those 5,000-word Batman overintellectualizations.

There is a wide array of different and often incompatible intellectual traditions within the New Right. We have followers of the Traditionalism of Julius Evola and René Guénon as well as other thinkers who emphasize a metaphysics of eternal form. We have followers of non-Traditionalist, flux and history-oriented philosophers like Nietzsche, Spengler, and Heidegger. We have believers in decline and believers in Promethean progressivism. We have Darwinian biologists and scientific materialists squared off against metaphysical dualists. We have atheists, and we have representatives of all schools of religion, Christian and pagan, Eastern and Western.

We need this kind of diversity, because our goal is to foster versions of white nationalism that appeal to all existing white constituencies.

Yeah, all white constituencies except the 95% who aren’t intellectuals.

We can speak to multitudes because we contain multitudes.

Eh, not really. A variety of proud opinions, maybe, but a very thin and specific type.

How does the North American New Right relate to Old Right-style groups in North America and around the globe?

Easy answer: you won’t fight. You won’t politic. You’ll just scribble and scribble and scribble some more.

And how do we relate to various democratic nationalist parties in America and Europe?

Alex Kurtagic has recently argued that democratic party politics can perform the metapolitical functions of education and community organizing, thus there is no fundamental contradiction between metapolitics and party politics.

True, altho truer would be to observe that metapolitics doesn’t exist. The problem Whites face is not philosophical, it’s that they don’t have power and their enemies do. Pretty simple thing. Of course political campaigning involves education and community organizing, but these are merely the byproducts of pursuing office. And that goal means that all educational and organizing efforts must be dominated by the election cycle and the political issues of the day. Your blathering looks obscene next to what Golden Dawn is doing every single day in the field:

• protecting people
• beating up enemies
• setting up new offices
• fighting fires in rural areas
• checking out animal abuse carried on by illegals
• helping the government patrol the border
• printing and passing out newspapers
• posting letters from Greeks
• posting ideological texts as lessons
• smacking commie cunts in the face
• rebutting big lies from “human rights” hypocrites
• holding torchlight memorials

There’s a lot more to it, when you have a real and functional nationalist party, than just running for elections.

That is fine, if one’s real goal is to win office. But outside of proportional representation systems, seeking office is pretty much futile. So if one’s real goal is education and organizing, then political campaigning is merely a distraction. So why not focus all one’s energy into educational and organizing efforts, and determine the agenda ourselves, rather than let electoral politics determine it for us?

You’re not doing that. You’re writing 5,000-word Batman essays that no normal person wants to read.

Why not take all the money spent on purely political activities—voter registration drives, campaign travel, campaign literature—and channel it into education and organizing?

What organizing?

David Duke, for example, has been doing enormously important work with his writings, speeches, and videos. Most of that work would come to a stop if he were to make another futile and expensive run for office.

Which made a bigger impression on the public: his educational materials or his campaigns? The answer is obvious.

Intellectually, we need to draw a sharp, clear line between New Right metapolitics and all forms of nationalist party politics. We share the same broad aims, but we differ as to the best means of achieving them. We need to acknowledge these differences frankly, then divide our camp and pursue our common aims by the various paths that seem best to us.

I do not wish to spend time criticizing and attacking other sincere white advocates, competing for turf and followers or squabbling over dimes. In the end, the only valid argument for or against an approach is to look at its results. I want to win support by doing good work, not denigrating the work of others.

Yet you spend all your effort denigrating both the original right, which actually dared, unlike you, get involved in politics, and damn near won the whole thing… and then you also denigrate the fact finders who preserve their legacy by protecting what they actually did from jewish big liars.

You want people to credit you with real Nazi virtues while not holding you responsible for imaginary Nazi flaws. What a big stinking, steaming hypocrite you are. Who could trust you?

Even though one can draw a sharp intellectual line between New Right metapolitics and nationalist party politics, no wall separates us in the real world. The North American New Right is not a political party or a party-like intellectual sect. We are an informal network that can overlap and penetrate all social institutions, including parties. I maintain contacts with people all over the globe who are involved in various political parties. They know where I stand. Where we disagree, we agree to disagree.

Are you a movement, or not? You say you are, but your words then again show you’re not. Inconsistency has become a serious problem with you, Johnson. Brown Johnson’s Book & Essay Club is what you are. That’s fine. Or it would be fine if you admitted it. But you prefer to play games, with yourself and others.

Speaking personally, however, I wish that a wall could be erected in some cases, for if there are only six degrees of social separation between me and Barack Obama, there are far fewer degrees of separation between me and the next Anders Behring Breivik. And, for me, that is just too close for comfort. I do not want anything to do with gun-toting armies of one. The only gun I want to own is made of porcelain.

Yeaaaah. You are going to take over culture. You and your ideas… and your porcelain gun. Mmhmm. We’ll see that you’re stuck in a lavender-scented rubber room, sir.

You see, I really believe that what I am doing is right and important. Gregs weapon Too right and too important to expose to the risk of grown men dressing up as Knights Templar or Stormtroopers and playing with real guns. I have nothing against guns or gun-owners as such. But the Old Right model attracts unstable, violence-prone people, which just makes our job harder.

Again: no one can make you look bad but you. And you’re more than qualified on that front.

But since I can’t build a movement—even a metapolitical movement—by being a hermit, the best I can do is draw clear intellectual lines of demarcation: again, the North American New Right is founded on the rejection of Fascist and National Socialist party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide.

Yeah, we get it: No fight. Just right.

Breivik is a complex case, because he emerged from the Counter-Jihad movement, a Jewish-dominated false opposition to the Islamic colonization of Europe. But we still share his basic concerns and his goal of Europe for Europeans, even though we reject his actions and much of his analytical framework.

Cynics have accused the New Left of being nothing but a dishonest marketing ploy. Of course, there is no point in trying to convince cynics, who know a priori that the truth is always more sordid than it seems. But the New Left actually delivered on its promises: Marxism without totalitarianism, without terror, without camps.

No, that’s not accurate. Accurate is that anyone who threatens the regime will be thrown in jail. What crime did Mahler and Stolz and Rudolf commit? There’s nothing at all soft, different or new about leftist tactics, they just don’t need to be as repressive as they once were because they’ve consolidated their control.

It is merely your self-interested pretension that the left changed its nature rather than its tactics, and that it renounces violence in favor or persuasion. It does no such thing. It uses violence wherever it needs to. You just won’t acknowledge it. Because it encourages your nostrum that real change can be accomplished by soft means alone. In your case, by writing essays.

Of course we all know that the present regime is a form of soft totalitarianism which is enacting the genocide of the white race in slow motion. But the point is that this regime was not imposed upon our people through a violent revolution. They accepted it because of the transformation of their consciousness. They can be saved the same way.

Garbage. Decades of agitprop, and our people still vote time after time to close the borders and against affirmative action. With their feet they vote to move to White areas, and toward the altar with someone of the same race. Their consciousness has hardly been transformed.

They simply see no option than to go along with most things because there’s no one leading the other way, and they only get one position no matter which authority they listen to. And men who might lead them are sitting on the sidelines kibitzing with essays while advising others to stay out of politics, even though they have a contemporary example right in front of their nose in Greece that getting involved is what actually works.

The next month Linder commented on his VNN Forum:

Johnson dogmatically and a priori rejects violence. He is single-handedly, with his collection of academics and other writes, going to create a sea change in culture that inevitably as a tsunami sweeps away existing mindsets and tiny villages and replaces them with new ones.

Johnson is a page fascist, but not a street fascist, hence not a real fascist. He is a WN, but functionally he’s a conservative. That’s what I’ve maintained. We will get into this, not just in relation to him, but in relation to the original NS and today’s Golden Dawn.

Why we don’t want christians

Pieter_Bruegel“My faith definitely is a more important aspect of my identity than my ethnic or familial identity.”

—Matt Parrott, cited by Linder

See also this section in my collection of articles:

Part III Christian axiology

The Christian problem – I

Hitler on Christianity 107
Is Christianity redeemable? 113
Schweitzer’s niglets 115

The Christian problem – II

Wuthering Heights 119
The historical demise of Christianity 121
The Judeo-Christian axiom 140

The Christian problem – III

Succedaneous religion 144
Letter from Manu 150
Zeus must replace Yahweh 152

The Christian problem – IV

The Roman legacy 159
Julian on Christianity 163
Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums 167

Alex on Kevin

The great questions of the time will not be resolved by speeches and majority decisions—that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849—but by iron and blood.

Otto Von Bismarck

No one has yet commented on my previous Linder post. Anyway, these are other comments of the same thread:

Alex Linder said:

Kevin MacDonald confuses politics with propriety. Always on his lips are appropriate, productive, responsible and the rest of the middle-class buzzwords. He is a conservative without realizing it. Conservatism is not where serious change comes from, as NS and Golden Dawn show. In fact, organized conservatism is the sworn enemy of fundamental change. GD lumps conservatives with communists as The System it fights. American WN were wise to do the same, as I have written repeatedly and explained in my strategy essay.

Originally Posted by Roger:

One minute, MacDonald says [in Jim Giles’ radio interview] that Linder’s pro-extermination stance is “crazy” and “wrong”. The next, he implies that if Linder’s tactic does succeed (though he thinks it won’t), he will have no objections to it. “If it works, it works”. So, he would support it even though he thinks it is “crazy” and “wrong”.

This is the same person who stated in an interview with Tom Sunic that he would support a deal with the Jews if it would help get rid of the Muslims from Europe, when the two of them were discussing Geert Wilders.

I like his books [MacDonald’s], but he has no political principles.

He just can’t publicly say he has no problem with jews being genocided. Anyone who knows the truth about the jews would have no problem pressing a button and making them disappear.

My two cents for this blog:

Too bad that in the next sentence Alex added: “The hololcaust is in fact a big lie.”

See what I say in the last pages of a book that will appear under the seal of my favorite publishing house. In my humble opinion, the next step toward a final solution is simply acknowledging David Irving as our best historian on the Reich, in addition to the axiological revolution that the movement needs for shacking off from ourselves Neo-Christian scruples. Only thus we will be able for a real historical fly (which won’t happen until the dollar crashes of course).

Linder responds

linderSurfing the internet in search of insightful thoughts by Vance Stubbs on the VNN forum (and I did find this one: “You can’t have a revolution until people are willing to put anger ahead of their comfort”) I causally hit this 2012 reply of Alex Linder to Greg Johnson:

Originally posted by Johnson:

Alex: Men are merely motivated by greed and fear, on your account.
Linder responded:

Did I say those were their only motivations? I said, or implied, fear is their main motivation. Fear of sticking out, in part, which is what happens when you embrace the right politics prematurely. People are PC out of fear more than out of positive belief it is a moral or good thing. Your politics fails to account for this most basic psychological fact, and so you and MacDonald and others are endlessly reaching out for these imaginary respectable middle-class people who just need to hear our arguments to be convinced.

You know what, bourgeois people aren’t stupid. But they are self-interested and, if not cowardly, then philistines—people only interested in causes that will net them personally some advantage, whether money or status. If you and MacDonald could deflate your egos, you might realize that people like Hitler already figured all this out. But like the bourgeois selfish you’re trying to reach, you only want to do what you enjoy—not what actually needs to be done. Your kind is basically irrelevant, and that’s why you never discuss Golden Dawn. That party’s experience directly contradicts every last assertion you make about the way your notional New Right will effect change.

Johnson quote: Morality is for kiddies, you say.

Morality is the name men give to their preferences. Or their self interest. Even if they believe it strongly enough to act against interest—very rare in this world—it still doesn’t change the fact their good and bad are merely labels for their own preferences. Morality is not absolute, no matter who asserts otherwise. If you’d spent more of your youth reading someone wise men like Twain, Bierce and Mencken instead of a fool like Swedenborg, you’d know that kind of thing.

Johnson quote: There is a pattern here: vulgarity, cynicism, nihilism—not to mention malignant narcissism and casual dishonesty and calamitously bad judgment of character. Nothing good can come from you.

I’m the cynical one? If I were cynical I would write tastefully and appropriately, that I might attract those unlike me. If I were cynical, I’d praise the South to the skies, and talk up their Book of books. If I were nihilist, I would stick to no principles. Or perhaps, following your example, I would proclaim one set of principles during the week, and the opposite on Sunday. [Interpolated note: Johnson preaches Nietzsche on his webzine and Jesus at his Swedenborgian church — see “Dies irae” in my new book] Then I would cynically say to myself, well, a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do. That’s just how it is. Or I would publicly announce I’m a new fascist, building on the same proud legacy of old fascists that I’m also, by the way, simultaneously, and publicly, rejecting!… And then I would go to others’ sites and blame them for cynicism and nihilism? While not allowing them to criticize me at my own. [Johnson is good at that!]

Well, little semen-sucker, maybe your self-interested sybaritic syncretism is sans sense and, well, just plain silly.


Source: here.

The face of Classical Europe (II)

Were the Romans blond and blue-eyed?


Translated from Evropa Soberana


Recently I was called names on VNN forum as a result of my criticism of anti-Nordicism in my previous post. Isn’t it ironic that the signature-legend of VNN’s admin states that the Jews must be exterminated while, at the same time, some of the forum’s senior members want to grant amnesty to the mudbloods in Europe?

Hopefully this abridged translation from the Spanish blogsite Evropa Soberana, which could be read together with the first installment about the phenotype of Greeks in Classical Europe, will throw more light on why anti-Nordicists are deluding themselves.


Were the Romans blond and blue-eyed?

The Latin malus [“bad”] (beside which I place mélas, Greek for “black”) might designate the common man as dark, especially black-haired (hic niger est), as the pre-Aryan settler of the Italian soil, notably distinguished from the new blond conqueror race by his color.

—Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals

The Roman case is virtually identical to the Greek case. This YouTube clip contains the first minutes from the series Rome, where fighting between Gauls and Romans is recreated. The series had tremendous blunders, great nonsense, and several lies and BS in abundance. But the atmosphere was curious, as was the march of historical events, the legions in action, the splendor of the imperial palaces, the goings-on in the alleys of Rome, etc. One of the protagonists of the series was a centurion, the one with the whistle.

He was blond.

But how can you be so fascists so Nordicists, so Nazis so anti-Teresa-de-Calcutta, as Eurocentric and racists as these media? If you had a minimum of culture (like me) you should know that the Romans were of Mediterranean phenotype (like me)—and so on.

Things like these I have heard more times than you can imagine. And similar poppycock we continue to hear even by people who, by their admiration of Rome, obviously have read something written by these sober and tough soldiers who were the Romans, right?

In this article the testimonies from the handwriting of the real Romans are presented. Forget the movies and the illiterate pundits and let the sources explain us how Romans saw themselves.

The first Roman emperors as an example of patrician racial types

We will examine the phenotype of the first Roman emperors, who were representative of the race of patricians, the Roman nobilitas, i.e., the ruling aristocracy. What interests me is not so much to demonstrate the presence of Nordic blood in the upper Roman class (which is easy), but mainly to show that the Nordic blood in Rome was also inextricably linked to the notion of divinity and of noble descent. Some passages are originally in Greek. This is because Greek had great prestige as a cultured, poetic and philosophical language, and there were many Romans educated in that language.

• Augustus, the first Roman emperor, was “blond” (subflavum) according to Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum: Divus Augustus), and had “blue eyes” (glauci) according to Pliny (Naturalis Historia, XI, CXLIII):


He had clear, bright eyes, in which he liked to have it thought that there was a kind of divine power, and it greatly pleased him, whenever he looked keenly at anyone, if he let his face fall as if before the radiance of the sun (Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum: Divus Augustus, LXXIX).

• Tiberius had “gray-blue” (caesii) eyes according to Pliny (Naturalis Historia, XI, CXLII).

• Caligula had a “blonde beard” (aurea barba) according to Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum: Caligula, LII).

• Claudio had “gray-white hair” (canitieque) according to Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum: Divus Claudius, XXX), and “gray eyes” (γλαυκόφθαλμος) according to Ioannes Malelas (Chronographia, X, CCXLVI).

• Nero was “blond or redhead” (subflavo); had “gray-blue eyes” (caesis) according to Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum: Nero, LI), and descended from a family named after their light pigmentation.

Of the Domitian family two branches have acquired distinction, the Calvini and the Ahenobarbi. The latter have as the founder of their race and the origin of their surname Lucius Domitius, to whom, as he was returning from the country, there once appeared twin youths of more than mortal majesty, so it is said, and bade him carry to the senate and people the news of a victory, which was as yet unknown. And as a token of their divinity it is said that they stroked his cheeks and turned his black beard to a ruddy hue, like that of bronze. This sign was perpetuated in his descendants, a great part of whom had red beards. (Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum: Nero, I.)

• Galba had gray-white (μιξοπόλιος) hair according to Malelas (Chronographia, X, CCLVIII) and blue eyes (caeruleis) according to Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum: Galba, XXI).

• Vitellius was “redhead” (πυρράκης) and had “gray” or “blue” eyes (γλαυκός) according to Malelas (Chronographia, X, CCLIX).

• Vespasian had “gray-white hair” (πολιός) and “wine-colored eyes” (οινοπαης τους οφθαλμούς), although it is unclear whether this refers to red wine (brown) or white wine (green) according to Malelas (Chronographia, X, CCLIX).

• Titus, according to Wilhelm Sieglin (1855-1935) in Die blonden Haare der indogermanischen Völker des Altertums, 109, was “blonde”.

• Domitian was “blond” (ξανθός) and had “gray or blue eyes” (γλαυκός) according Malelas (Chronographia, X, CCLXII).

• Nerva was “gray-haired” according to John V. Day (Indo-European Origins).

• Trajan had “golden hair” (caesaries) according to Sieglin (Die blonden Haare der indogermanischen Völker des Altertums, 109). But let us not forget that Trajan was not Roman but a Spanish with Celtic blood, and therefore we should not take this into account when trying to define the phenotype of the Roman patrician aristocracy.

• Adriano, from a noble Roman family established in Hispania, was “dark-haired” (κυανοχαιτα) according Sieglin (Die blonden Haare der indogermanischen Völker des Altertums, 112), and of “gray or blue eyes” (γλαυκόφθαλμος) according to Malelas (Chronographia XI, CCLXXVII).

Interestingly, despite being described as “dark-haired,” on his statue there are traces of gold paint on his hair and beard. Formerly, the statues were painted according to the colors of the original “model”. His facial features correspond to the Nordic type.

• Antoninus Pius had “gray-white hair” (πολιός) and eyes “the color of wine” (οινοπαης τους οφθαλμούς) according Malelas (Chronographia, XI, CCLXXX).

• Lucius Verus had “blond hair” (flaventium) according Sieglin (Die blonden Haare der indogermanischen Völker des Altertums, 110).

• Commodus had “blond hair” (ουλόξανθος) and “blue or gray eyes” (υπόγλαυκος) according Malelas (Chronographia, XII, CCLXXXIII).

Therefore, we find that:

• Of the 18 emperors from Augustus to Commodus, 9 had blond or red hair, 5 had gray or white hair, of 3 we have no way of knowing the hair color, and only one (Adriano) was described as dark-haired.

• Of the 18 emperors from Augustus to Commodus, 9 had blue or gray eyes, 2 had eyes of “the color of wine” (whatever that means, let us take it as brown), and of 7 we have no record as to the color of their eyes.

Many emperors came to power in their advanced years, with already gray or white hair. However, many were even so described with light eyes. If we had records of their appearance when they were young, it is likely that a significant proportion of them had light hair. Of the 9 Emperors with light hair, we know that at least 5 had clear eyes, and of the other 4 we know nothing about the color of their eyes. Of Tiberius, for example, we know nothing about his hair, maybe because he was bald when he came to power. And the same applies to Otto, who shaved his head and wore a wig. Nor do we know anything about the physical aspect of the “philosopher emperor” Marcus Aurelius, father of Commodus and a first-class sovereign. Many other emperors (as Julius Caesar), without being blond, were tall and had a very fair complexion, ruddy, or rosy.

From Commodus on I renounce to provide more emperor descriptions because:

1 – those individuals who began ascending to power were not of Roman origin, and therefore their phenotype cannot tell us anything about the genetic legacy of the nobilitas of Italian and patrician origin.

2 – miscegenation was already quite advanced; lineages of patrician origin having lost their meaning. At that time it was common that women of Roman high society should shave the manes of Germanic slaves to fix their blond-hair wigs.

The gods, the Italici, the patricians and the origins of Rome

Let us go back around 1200 BCE and transport ourselves to Italy. At that time, Central Europe was a buzzing propagating zone for the Indo-European stock. From what is now Germany, of a semi-barbarous proto-civilization of the iron age, flowed migrant groups in all directions. These waves were of the Celts, the Hellenes, the Illyrians and the Italici (also called italos or italiotas).

At that time, the Italici, probably with some confederate Illyrian groups as in the case of the Dorians, broke into Italy.

They were a people who, in contrast to the native inhabitants of Italy, were patriarchal rather than matriarchal; ruddy rather than swarthy; that cremated their dead instead of burying them; that brought with them a whole pantheon of gods and heroic warriors, spoke an Indo-European language, yielded a war cult and whose symbology was a lot more oriented to heavenly than earthly symbols.

Italici were the settlers of sites such as the Villanovan Culture. Subsequent “civilian” conflicts that feminist history has termed as “matriarchy vs. patriarchy,” and what is left in mythology regarding the heroic struggle of the Indo-Europeans against the native, telluric bodies (like snakes) actually refer to a spiritual confrontation triggered by the arrival of a small, aggressive and martial people that did not mix with the native population and struggled to dominate the area.

Under a rigid religious ritualism, on April 21, 753 BCE the heads of some Italic clans founded the city of Rome. For two centuries, Rome lived under the despotism and tyranny of the Etruscan kings, heads of a degenerate civilization that practiced sacrificial rituals, orgies, matriarchy, homosexuality, luxurious opulence, pedophilia, decadent entertainments, etc. The Etruscans came from Asia Minor, styling themselves as rasena (“chosen,” as the Jews) yet their legacy, which only represented the decline of something greater than themselves, meant that they were a doomed people.

The situation of the Roman tribute to Etruria lasted until, in 509 BCE, the Romans rose against the Etruscans and expelled the Etruscan king, Tarquinius Superbus, from the lands. Legends want to portray that this Italic insurrection—a “holy rebellion” against the pre-Indo-European; of patriarchy against matriarchy—was motivated by the rape of Lucretia, a beautiful and virtuous woman of Roman family at the hands of Sextus Tarquinius, son of the Etruscan king and raunchy as all his people, as opposed to the Puritan morality of the Latins.

Lucretia committed suicide by honor and, this being the straw that broke the camel of the Roman patience, the patriarchs began a rebellion against the Etruscans that led to the overthrowing of the Etruscan kings, the founding of the Roman Republic and the systematic eradication of almost all Etruscan memory. (Comparable only to the “genocide” and the complete destruction of Carthage, the mortal enemy of Rome, considered as the reincarnation of Etruscan and oriental spirit, whose fields were cast in salt so that nothing would grow there.)


Recreation of Rome during the Republic. Pay attention to the shape of the boats, so reminiscent of the Scandinavian drakkar.

With the expulsion of the Etruscan power two praetors (later consuls) who held the vacuum of power were named. It was therefore founded the Roman Republic, marked by social struggles between patricians (nobles) and plebeians.

At that time, the original Populus Romanus was divided into 30 curiae (tribes or clans), whose origin was lost among the Italic peoples before the invasion. The curiae were headed by patres (parents) of the gens (family), that is, the founding fathers of the clan and of each family that composed it. Each gens or family was considered descendant of a genius or semi-divine patriarch, who was worshiped on the household as protector idol of the house and their descendants.

If we assimilate the fact that to the Romans a gens or family was a whole social, state, military and religious institution, we may understand the importance of the geniuses and patres as leaders of this small imperial cell, that corresponded to social, political and military leadership as well as leading positions in the characteristic Roman religious worship, where Jupiter is confused with the State, the patriarch, the Senate, the Legion and the family. No wonder, then, that they were regarded as semi-divine and of very high wisdom.

The patres were those who gave their name to the breed of the patricians, namely those belonging to the system of families and clans: the aristocracy, the first nobilitas, which differed from the plebs or plebeians—the people outside the Italic clans. At first, the male patricians were the only Roman citizens, the members of the Legion, the only ones who could be senators and enjoyed all the rights and duties traditionally associated with Roman citizenship.

Later, after the “universalization” and “cosmopolitanization” of Rome during the Empire, the patricians came to form an aristocracy over the other peoples of Italy, encompassed by the plebs. The patricians as social class, and among them the patres as heads of households, are probably the most exalted expression of patriarchy and patriotism itself of the Indo-European, in opposition to the narcotic matriarchy of the pre-Indo-European peoples of Europe, already decadents and altogether “civilized”.

We now turn to the patricians and Roman gods from the point of view of the phenotype, after seeing the first Roman emperors, mostly patrician.

• Lucius Cornelius Sulla (138-78 BCE), Roman consul and dictator, of patrician descent, had blond hair, blue eyes and a ruddy complexion:

…for his golden head of hair gave him a singular appearance, and as for bravery, he was not ashamed to testify in his own behalf, after such great and noble deeds as he had performed. So much, then, regarding his attitude towards the divine powers. (Plutarch, De Vita: Sulla.)

What was the rest of his figure appears in his statues, but that fierce and unpleasant look of his blue eyes was still more terrible to stare at because the color of his face, being noted at intervals so ruddy and red mixed with his whiteness, and it is even said that he took his name from that, coming to be a nickname for the designated color. Thus, a teller of Athens taunted him with these lines: “If you knead a blackberry with flour, you have the portrait of Sulla.”

Marcus Porcius Cato the “Censor”, better known as Cato the Elder (234-149 BCE), the pronouncer of the famous saying Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam (“Furthermore, I think Carthage must be destroyed”) in every speech, had reddish hair according to Plutarch:

As for his outward appearance, he had reddish hair, and keen grey eyes, as the author of the well-known epigram ill-naturedly gives us to understand: “Red-haired, snapper and biter, his grey eyes flashing defiance, Porcius, come to the shades, back will be thrust by their Queen.” (Plutarch, Cato the Elder.)

• Poppaea Sabina (30-65 CE), the wife of Nero, famous for her beauty all over Rome, was very white and redhead.

We note that the Romans, like the Greeks, saw light pigmentation as a sign of the “divine” or “supernatural”. Some may interpret this that light pigmentation was rare among the Romans. But considering naming conventions, it is clear that the light features were quite common among the patricians. According to Karl Earlson:

Once they had reached a certain stage in their lives, the patricians earned their additional name (cognomina), which was often based on their physical appearance. The name Albus indicated light skin; Ravilla, gray eyes; Caesar, blue eyes; Flavius, blonde hair; Rufus, red hair; Longus, tall; Macer, a slender constitution. All these names were common among the patricians.

Thus, the Latin author Quintilian, in Institutio Oratoria (I, IV, XXV), notes that a man named Rufus or Longo has that name for his body characteristics: he is high or redhead. Plutarch (Coriolanus XI) states that two men, one redhead and one swarthy, could be distinguished because the first would be called Rufus and the second Niger. Aelius Spartianus, in Historia Augusta (II, IV), suggests that the Caesars earned their name from the fact that the founder of his gens had blue eyes (oculis caesiis). The lexicographer Sextus Pompeius Festus, in De verborum significatu (CCCLXXVI ff) states that the name Ravilia derives from “gray eyes” (ravis oculis), and the name Caesulla from blue eyes (oculis caesiis). Julius Paris, in De nominibus Epitome, VII, provides examples of names of women that, he says, have their origin in the pigmentation of those who held them: Rutila (red hair), Caesellia (blue eyes), Rodacilla (pink complexion), Murrula and Burra (red hair or ruddy complexion).

I have provided all these quotations to show that these names were not purely arbitrary but were, in fact, based on physical characteristics; and that these features were not uncommon among certain strata of Roman society.

Even where the patricians had almost disappeared, the Romans had memories of the old patres as the semi-divine beings who arrived to Italy, founded Rome, “Romanized” the peninsula and bequeathed the patriarchate to those lands, together with a strong mentality and a durable and effective political system that lasted for centuries. The ancient ancestors of the patricians were still considered in Rome as a common heritage to be proud of.

Karl Earlson summarizes how he follows Sieglin’s findings as to the pigmentation of the patricians and their identity as a breed:

Wilhelm Sieglin [in Die blonden Haare der indogermanischen Völker des Altertums, 1935] compiled the list of the Roman patricians whose names indicate light hair. He provided the following list: 7 Flavi, 20 Flaviani, 10 Fulvi, 121 Fulvii, 27 Rubrii, 26 Rufi, 24 Rufii, 36 Rufini, 45 Rutilii and 13 Ahenobarbi. This completely disrupts Sergi’s claim that: “The Romans also had their Flavi, indicating that people with fair complexion were rare and required a special name, but does not indicate that the Germanic type was considered aristocratic or dominant” (Sergi: 1901, 20). In fact, such people were not scarce.

Sieglin also determined that among the families Iulii, Licinii, Lucretii, Sergii and Virginii, the name Flavius was very common; Rufi was often seen among the families Antonii, Caecilii, Coelii, Cornelii, Geminii, Iunii, Licinii families (often also the Flavii), Minucii, Octavii, Pinarii, Pompei, Rutilii, Sempronii, Trebonii, Valgii and Vibii; Rufini was common among the gens Antonia, Cornelia, Iunia, Licinian, Trebonia and Vibia. Sieglin notes that this list could certainly be increased in the light of further research.

Besides all this, Sieglin also compiled a list of 63 blond or red-haired Romans. Many of these individuals were patricians. He also found references to 27 blond divinities (including Jupiter, Venus, Mercury, Diana, etc.) and 10 blondes in heroic personalities.

Man makes the gods in their own image. These blond gods speak of the racial nature of the early Romans. (In the Aeneid, Virgil refers to Mercury, Lavinia, Turnus and Camilla as “golden-haired.”) His list of blonds includes Aeneas, the mythical ancestor of the Latins (also blond was his son Julo or Ascanius), Romulus and Remus, the twin founders of Rome; Augustus, the first Roman emperor, and even Roma: which symbolized the city of Rome.

While most of Sieglin’s historical figures of light hair were patricians, most the 17 swarthy Romans in his references were commoners or freedmen.

On the disappearance of the patricians and the mestization of the original Romans

What happened to the patricians? They faded with time. In the numerous conspiracies and intrigues of the Empire, it was common that after the formation of two opposing parties and the victory of one over the other, the winner assassinated the head of the enemy party, his family and all the families related to him. (The strong destroy each other and the weak continue to live, as George Bernard Shaw maintained.) These calamities greatly decimated the patrician class. If we add the ongoing miscegenation in the majority of plebeian population, the immigration of slaves from Syria and the provinces of Asia Minor, Egypt and Africa, as well as the bleeding of the patrician stock over the battlefield, we may realize why the patricians did not last too long during the Empire, given the dysgenic situation. John V. Day wrote:

In a journal about the West and its future, it is fitting to end this article by briefly recounting the fate of the Roman upper class. Among Indo-European peoples, the Romans offer an especially useful example because they left masses of records, enabling later historians to determine what became of them. The evidence found in ancient texts implies that this class descended largely from Indo-Europeans who had a decidedly northern European physical type, although that isn’t something one reads in modern books about Roman history [emphasis added]. In Rome, though, the upper class was always a tiny minority. Instead of protecting its interests, it allowed itself to wither away. Consider a bleak statistic. We know of about fifty patrician clans in the fifth century B.C., but by the time of Caesar, in the later first century B.C., only fourteen of these had survived. The decay continued in imperial times. We know of the families of nearly four hundred Roman senators in A.D. sixty five, but, just one generation later, all trace of half of these families had vanished.

If we in the West want to avoid a similar fate, we must learn from Indo-European history. (*)

In the time of Julius Caesar we know 45 patricians, of which only one is represented by posterity when Hadrian rises to power. The Aemilsi, Fabii, Claudii. Manlii, Valerii and everyone else, except the Comelii have disappeared. Augustus and Claudius ascended 25 families to the Patriciate, and by the reign of Nerva all but 6 have disappeared. Of the families of nearly 400 senators registered under Nero in 65 CE, trace has been lost about half of them in times of Nerva. And the records are so complete that it can be assumed that these statistics represent quite accurately the disappearance of the male lineage of the families concerned. (Cf. Tenney Frank, “Race Mixture in the Roman Empire,” American Historical Review, Vol. XI, 1916).


Were the Romans, then, blond?

ancient_romanIt all depends on what you mean by “Romans”. The original Romans did not descend from the original inhabitants of the Italian soil, but of the Italici (italios or italiotas or as you please to call them) and probably also of Illyrian groups, namely, Indo-European invaders who entered Italy from the North, what is now southern Germany. These early invaders—from whom the Latins descended (considered the most influential and who eventually gave their language to the Empire), the Sabines (considered by Plutarch “a colony of the Lacedaemonians,” i.e., Spartans), the Umbrians, Samnites and all patrician clans that founded Rome and the Republic—were indeed mostly Nordic, and also formed the basis of the political and military elite of the Empire.

However, in the later Rome these groups formed an aristocratic minority ruling over a mob of pre-Indo-European origin and, later, even Semites and black slaves. This ended up in interbreeding between all these groups. Over time, the numbers of the dominant Nordic caste withered, and with them their strong patriarchal, sober and authoritative influence in favor of the dissolution of the Empire: expressed in its cosmopolitanism, multiculturalism and proliferation of slaves.

The rest of the history of the post-Roman imperial splendor and their great men, we already know. It is set in a decadent agony, punctuated by binges, parties, orgies, wine snobbery, false sophistication, acrobats, gays, stupid fads, obesity, blond wigs made from hair stolen from Germanics, mongrels, pacifists, emboldened slaves, “liberated” women, Christian zealots and a corrupt bourgeois which reneged of their homeland.

The ghost of ancient Etruria, killed by the ancient Latin Patriarchs, had reborn. Before these decaying monsters, which had nothing to do with the demigod patricians or their rude peasants and patriotic soldiers, the Germanic “barbarian” was really an authentic, pure, hard, strong, noble, idealistic, simple and brave hero, in whose blood awaited the hidden forces of the Indo-European humanity, ready to give birth and germinate in the next millennia of European power.

In short, it has not been argued that all Romans were of Nordic type. It has been argued that the Nordic blood prevailed among the Italic invaders, the ancestors of the posterior dominant Roman aristocracy, the authentic Roman citizens, who imposed their ethos throughout the Empire and spread their spirit, marking the “Roman style” with a distinctly Nordic stamp.

“Are the Germanics a healthy and natural people that will overcome the decadence of the Romans?” —Tacitus, Germania.


See also a previous article about the subject of:

Saying the truth about race throws even white nationalists into fits.”

(*) John V. Day, Ph.D., is the author of Indo-European Origins: The Anthropological Evidence (The Institute for the Study of Man, 2001).

VNN commenter on GD crackdown

GD symbol
The kikes that placed Greece in the economic chaos it is in, should be the ones wearing handcuffs and placed behind bars, not Golden Dawn members. To the international izzies it is a crime to look after and protect your own race, ethnicity and country first and look out for your own interests first.

To these kike vermin it is a crime to want your own kind to be safe from the illegal mud immigrants coming into White nations that commit violent crimes and take everything from the native White population. That is, of course, unless that nation is Israel—then it is okay to do whatever it takes to protect the “native” people. I hope GD fights these jew criminals and continues to be the effective force for the Greek people that it has been for years.


Source: here

For the context of this entry, see here.

Golden Dawn crackdown


Greek government makes it impossible
for GD to win elections

This is such an important, unfolding event that I’ll violate my policy of not posting news in this blog. In fact, I’ll leave this post “sticky” as long as necessary. The below exchanges come from a current discussion at VNN (last page, here):

GD leader

(Michaloliakos shows his face with no shame; police escorts hide their faces like bank robbers.)

The Chief of the Golden Dawn Nikolaos G. Michaloliakos has been arrested, along with at least three or four MPs while about thirty executives led the General Police Directorate of Attica after warrants were issued for “criminal organization.”

Alex Linder said…

Government spokesman Simos Kedikoglou told The Associated Press, hinting that Saturday’s arrests were the culmination of a long strategy to deal with Golden Dawn as a criminal, not a political force. In other words, simply declare Golden Dawn’s political views illegal, since they are too popular. Essentially, it’s a criminal act not to be a leftist. “The prime minister and the government were determined to deal with Golden Dawn solely through the justice system… We have succeeded in stripping them of their political cover and deal with them as what they really are, a criminal organization,” Kedikoglou said. This is democracy: either go along with the System or be branded a criminal.

VNN commenter said…

That’s the rub, isn’t it? Any successful creation of a party that challenges the establishment will be declared illegal. They are branded as criminals against the state for merely having political views and ideologies that fly in the face of the establishment, and have succeeded in gathering support in the populace. Any threat to the continuance of the establishment’s power will be dealt with, not through elections, but by literally declaring any successful opposition to be criminal in nature.

Successful is the key. GD endured the media onslaught and character assassination. The people did not believe the lies the press and government were feeding them—because GD was actually feeding them! When GD was viewed as a minor annoyance, TPTB were happy to handle them in the traditional means, i.e. media attacks, bad press, and harassment (such as any grass roots political party or organization). But because GD weathered these attacks, and continued to gain the support of the people, now we see how the established power deals with them as an actual threat: Arbitrarily making new laws and statutes, ignoring established laws and procedure as they see fit, and bringing the full weight of a corrupt system to dismantle the will of the people.

Linder on Johnson: a retort

Excerpted from VNN Forum. Alex Linder is responding to Greg Johnson’s “The gay marriage controversy.” Indented paragraphs come from Johnson’s June 28, 2013 essay:

Both the promoters and opponents of homosexual marriage share a common false premise: that the legalization of homosexual marriage overthrows “heteronormativity,” i.e., the idea that heterosexuality is normal and other forms of sexuality are not. But the idea that changing marriage laws can change heteronormativity is simply false.

Actually, no one says that. Leftists see queer marriage as one important campaign in a giant ongoing war.

What do I mean when I say that homosexual behavior is abnormal? I don’t mean that it is unnatural, since its exists in nature. It is even found in many species besides man.

Most of the so-called examples of homosexual behavior disappear on closer examination.

I don’t mean that it is a sin, i.e., something that displeases God. The idea of sin pretty much paralyzes the ability to think rationally about morals.

For me, the issue of abnormality all boils down to homosexuality being a non-reproductive, recreational form of sex. And if everyone had non-reproductive, recreational sex all the time, the human race would perish. Heterosexual behavior is normal, because only heterosexual sex can perpetuate our species, provided conception is not blocked by birth control.

So the real issue is not even homosexual versus heterosexual, but reproductive versus non-reproductive sex. That’s all there is to it.

Um, no. Homosexual behavior is inherently morbid, heterosexual behavior is not. Queer behavior is on a par along with drug / alcohol abuse and other anti-social behavior. Whether a taste is inborn or developed, it’s socially destructive and should be looked down on, and certainly never given any kind of legal status. What Johnson doesn’t observe that’s most significant today is that (1) homos today, unlike in all prior history, can find one other easily; (2) queers have a global support network thanks to political backing and media / communications technology.

This results in queers being able to form what the left calls communities—basically, pockets of morbidity. In these death cultures new and quite dangerous diseases are created and existing diseases are exacerbated. Thanks to jewish political clout, these diseases are untied, in the public mind, from the homosexual behavior that spawned and spread them, and actually, such chutzpah!, blamed on the surrounding squares. It’s not Gaetan Dugas, an extremely promiscuous queer, who’s responsible for spreading Queer-Related Immune Deficiency (Q-RID), it’s Ronald Reagan, the ninety-year-old president, who’s responsible for spreading AIDS (“Acquired” [LOL] Immune Deficiency Syndrome). How was it acquired? Well, doc, I sucked 500 dicks in 400 days.

Heterosexuals engaged in normal activity don’t know whether their sex will result in offspring, so the division between productive and non-reproductive sex is not so simply made. We do know that every act of anal sex between homosexuals is inherently morbid—diseased. Big, big difference.

Homosexual behaviors and tastes are older than the human race, but the idea of homosexuality as an identity is a rather recent phenomenon. People with exclusively homosexual tastes are a tiny minority in any society, no matter how permissive and decadent. Thus it stands to reason that no society has ever ceased to exist because the tiny homosexual minority doesn’t reproduce. Societies decline demographically when the heterosexual majority doesn’t reproduce, primarily due to birth control.

Birth control is not the reason societies decline. Birth control is merely something people use to avoid pregnancy, not the cause of the desire to avoid pregnancy.

Thus if non-reproductive sex is a problem because it does not perpetuate the human race, the bulk of the blame falls on selfish, hedonistic straight people.

I mean, this is like arguing with a fundamentalist instead of a human because it’s easier. That’s one step above a strawman, I suppose, but there’s little else to commend it. Yes. You’re correct. The human race never is, has been, or will be in danger of dying off because of fag activity. No serious man ever so contended. 1% of the population can’t have that effect—unless it be through spreading lethal disease, which is not entirely out of the question, considering Q-RID and the various drug-resistant strains homo behavior has created or exacerbated.

The basic problem with Johnson’s article is there’s no acknowledgement of the Frankfurt School. We know that jews aim to destroy the white race. We know that their top experts see the best way to do this is by using the official vectors (government, schools, media) to promote a General Loosening. The creation and the glorification of the homosexual identity are part of this. But only a part. Deviant sex, drug use, self-worship (self-esteem)—whatever it is, the jewish goal is to get the goy focused with himself, his stupid, worthless feelings and opinions, thereby taking his eyes off the world and its unbending factual reality.

If you do what the jews advise, soon enough you will have so many personal problems you’re unfit to participate in politics. Which is the intent. The promotion of homosexuality is simply part of this. In Aryan society, queer behavior is the proclivity of a tiny, weird minority. A minority that is generally laughed about privately but left alone. Even those engaged in it hide the fact, since it never occurs to them, any more than to the normals, that their tastes are healthy or deserving of some kind of public acknowledgement, let alone respect or legal stature.

In a jew-controlled society, the queers are encouraged to think of their deviance as healthy, normal and natural. Even more than that—as a positive good. Something to take pride in. Something to celebrate. Something to hold parades for. A term is coined to disparage anyone who shakes his head at the world turned upside down. He’s now a “homophobe.” If he dares laugh or make objection to the new scheme of things, he finds himself publicly ridiculed, without a job, and very likely cut off from his scared friends and family.

The political use of homosexual behavior is what matters. Queer marriage is simply another milestone in the promotion and normalization of deviance in order to facilitate destruction. By itself it doesn’t mean all that much, except that a few more resources are shifted away from normal people to diseased / deranged people. But from the resource-shifting point of view, queer “marriage” is trivial, given our open borders and anti-white tax and welfare policies. The main thing is that the concept of marriage and family are further degraded, since the law is on the side of the degradation. This produces confusion in people, as is the intent. Confusion leads people to make bad choices.

Proponents of marriage for homosexuals think that heteronormativity is simply a social construct, a convention that can be changed through legislation, education, and relentless media brainwashing. But heteronormativity is based in nature, not in convention. Sexual reproduction has existed before human beings formed languages and conventions. Indeed, sexual reproduction existed before mankind evolved. The birds and the bees do it too. So heteronormativity is not a social construct and cannot be changed by society. It can only be covered up, lied about, and ignored—at society’s peril.

The queers believe, some of them honestly, that they have changed the public’s mind. They believe they have, through their gritty marches and public activism since Stonewall, converted people to thinking their side is morally right. Just as the negroes did. The truth is that, just as with the so-called civil rights movement, the public was simply browbeaten by a hateful media into accepting a new order accomplished anti-democratically by judicial edict. People’s minds haven’t been changed. They’ve just seen a thousand times there’s a price to be paid for speaking up. Disagree with The Cult on race, you’re aracist. Disagree with The Cult on sexual behavior, you’re a homophobe.

Both these, and other, labels can get you sued, fired, ostracized—even murdered. Who wants that? So the people keep their heads down, and content themselves with expressing any doubt in private, or not at all. Meanwhile, the 1% minority, along with the 2% minority that owns the mass media, preens and chortles over its great victory. The community, they say, supports “gay” rights. The community has changed its mind. It had a moral awakening. It decided to get on the right side of history. But homosexual behavior will never be anything but ludicrous and disgusting to the majority of the population. The public has been successfully intimidated out of expressing open criticism of deviant sexual behavior, but its basic views have not changed.

It is easy to understand why homosexual marriage proponents believe they are overturning heteronormativity. It is harder to understand why the opponents of homosexual marriage make the same claims, since presumably they think that heteronormativity is based on nature or divine will, neither of which can be altered by man, even by the US Supreme Court. Yet the opponents of heterosexual marriage claim that legally defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is the key to preserving the institutions of marriage and family life.

The point isn’t what they can build, it’s what they can destroy. And we have the who and the why. They say it themselves. Yet you refuse to acknowledge this. Your essay could have been written by James A. Dobson (Focus on the Family) or any other conservative fundraising hack.

This makes no sense for two reasons.

First, if heteronormativity is based in nature or divine commandment, not in law, then it cannot be changed by changing laws. (Human laws can, of course, strengthen natural laws by adding additional punishments and incentives to follow nature.)

Leftists are cultists. They are not interested in reality, since reality shows them to be liars and weirdoes. Their solution to nature disagreeing with them is speech codes and laws. This won’t change anything fundamental, but it will keep the air- and mind-waves free of anything that would make them cry. And that is good enough. See Paula Deen.

Second, the institutions of marriage and family life have been pretty much destroyed already. But during the whole period that marriage and family life have been decaying, homosexuals have not been allowed to marry, and marriage has been defined as a union of a man and a woman. In other words, marriage and family life have declined with their heteronormativity entirely intact. Therefore, heterosexuals bear the primary blame for the decline of marriage and the family.

No, heterosexuals have nothing to do with it. The elite setting the agenda bear all the responsibility. They have passed the easy divorce laws. They copied the Soviet family laws in their guidelines for settling child disputes. The agenda is anti-white. Deliberately so. This is not a matter of debate. You can’t have stable families in a nation with a gigantic government touching every area of life and extracting huge taxes to pay for it all. No one has any time or energy left to fuck, let alone fuck productively. Throw in a popular culture that is nothing but 24/7 streaming garbage about hotness, masturbation, homosexuality, getting drunk / wasted / high and mass sports—nothing’s left. You’re either working, sleeping, or thinking about fucking. Well, the legal / media communist jews know exactly what they are doing. Destroying families. Destroying men.

Destroying the very ideas of manliness, womanliness, or families. The very use of family without an article is subversive, and deliberately so, even though many who use it that way—i.e., “the importance of family”—don’t grasp the fact. Barbara Bush, for example, or I could cite other conservatives, do this. A family is anything, who are we to say? It’s certainly not a man, his wife, and his children. They’re all independent agents, who might temporarily combine, if it suits their interests. Well, that’s true for the Strong Women and children. Not for the men. They’re only a group if they’re queers. As family men, they have no rights. They have duties only. To pay their deadbeat dad bills when the court orders. To worship the chictator. And humbly to admit how goofy, doofy and clumsy they are. Just watch any sitcom or commercial if you need an example.

Since homosexuals are a tiny minority, and only a tiny minority of that minority wish to marry in any case, I think that homosexual marriage opponents owe us an explanation as to how, exactly, such a small group of people could mess up marriage any more than straight people already have.

Johnson doesn’t grasp what’s going on. The point of the queer marriage drive is to destroy the family. Destroy enough families, you’ve destroyed society; not to give queers the right to marriage. Something most queers don’t want, since anonymous, promiscuous sex is the heart of their culture, if you want to call it that.

The point is to disempower any legal or social structure that defends anything “patriarchal,” as the feminists and jews call it. These are people at war, or pretending to be at war (jews), with the biological nature of men and women. They denounce the observation that men and women do differ sexually and biologically as “essentialism,” and it is one of their high crimes. Funnily enough, they’re all about this essentialism when it comes to queers. It’s not homosexual behavior, not a choice, it’s an identity. It’s who they are. They are essentialists when it comes to queers, but not when it comes to men and women, or races.

If one really wanted to defend marriage and strengthen the family, one should do the following.

1. End no-fault divorce

2. Criminalize adultery

3. Criminalize alienation of affections

4. End child support for unwed mothers

5. Establish a legal presumption that unwed mothers are unfit mothers, so that giving up illegitimate children for adoption is the norm

6. End adoption by unmarried individuals

7. Institute positive incentives for high-quality individuals to marry and have families

8. Institute tax incentives for people to marry/disincentives to stay single

These policies would significantly strengthen the bonds of marriage and family life. And the burdens and benefits of these measures would fall on the heterosexual population, where they belong.

Mostly good things, but the point is to find out who is behind the pushing of homosexuality and why, and to what end. Homosexuals did not persuade the majority they were right. The people running the media did that. And it wasn’t persuasion of anything beyond “you’d better shut up or we’ll mock and ridicule you and get you fired.”

But none of our pro-family politicians and moral crusaders shows any interest in such measures. And that, to me, is the sign that the whole anti-homosexual marriage campaign is just another phony Right-wing con job: (1) scapegoating homosexuals for the mess that heterosexuals have made of marriage and the family, (2) and channeling the discontent, energy, idealism, and money of a certain segment of the Right (albeit a pretty hopeless segment, from my point of view) into just another dead end, a battle that, even if it were won, would do nothing to halt the demographic decline of our race.

Much like the Jared Taylor he verbally fellates, Johnson’s main concern here is to see that homosexuals aren’t blamed. I repeat—that is main concern. You can figure out why.

With Taylor, of course, it’s jews. As the public face of a White NAACP, funded and directed by jews, Taylor’s job—above all else—is to see that the awakening / burgeoning white identity movement does not blame the jews who put us in the position we’re now in. Instead, we must ever and always blame our own grandparents! You know how they directed the nation’s politics in between slaughtering hogs and growing muskmelons.

Johnson’s engaged in “blame whitey” by another means, which is particularly ironic in light of his “right-wing con job.” The Mormon church in Utah was behind most of the California campaign, as the left gleefully and hatefully exposed, and there is no reason to think they were kidding. Hell, their side won. How often do right-wing con jobs actually win? It was the left-wing court that reversed the popular vote. Which is par for the course. Exactly what we see on race. And illegal aliens. See California’s, again, Prop. 187. It’s a tiny elite setting the agenda. Let’s not blame generic heterosexuals for the imposition of a tiny-elite agenda. It isn’t far. It isn’t accurate.

I used to think that these mainstream Right-wingers were merely stupid and / or deluded. A lot of the rank and file are. But they are generally far better than their leadership. The ones on top are so consistently wrong-headed and ineffectual that it is hard to resist the conclusion that they are agents of the enemy, working to misdirect and dissipate Right-wing dissent lest it give rise to a genuine populism that would threaten the hegemony of our ruling coalition of Jews and raceless, rootless plutocrats. I think that the purpose of their campaigns may be to run out the clock until whites are a minority and there is no hope of change within the present system.

Who is he kidding? Everyone has known this for 100 years. I’ve quoted Joe Sobran a thousand times, and Greg Johnson has read it. “It was all a game; a way of making a living”—Joe Sobran on professional conservatism. They’re raising money from the rural hinds and bourgeois Fox watchers. The real agenda is set by jews. The superficial stuff, there’s a degree of freedom. The serious stuff, the racial stuff—the conservatives are exactly the same as the liberals. Racism is evil, squawk. Racism is the worst thing in the world. Hitler is the worst man ever. The Nazis were the ultimate bad guys. Churchill is the best. man. ever.

The only political issue that matters is whether the white race will continue to exist on this planet in 200 years. White Americans are increasingly aware of, and alarmed by, our demographic decline. But frank appeals to white racial interests are still taboo on the American Right. Instead, the mainstream Right at best offers us race-neutral proxies for racial interests (opposition to “illegal” immigration, libertarian individualism, etc.) and at worst promotes distractions (opposing gay marriage and flag burning, or promoting school prayer) or outright demographic suicide (opposing abortion). Thus I think that White Nationalism will never move forward until the mainstream Right is thoroughly defeated and discredited. I just hope that, by that time, it is not too late to save our race.

Good to see Greggy has finally come around to my position. Before, and remember he was bragging about defeating me in argument over this point, he was all about influencing existing elites. Now he’s all Linder-squawking “we must defeat the conservatives and Republicans.” Maybe he offered Pat Buchanan a blowjob and was rebuffed in a way he felt unmannerly. It’s really hard to say. Although it’s easy—and fun!—to speculate.

Like I said, and you can read it in Strategy forum, attack the conservatives. Quit appeasing them. Quit pretending they’re on our side. Our side is basically everyone who’s not a feminist, sex deviant, non-white—anyone who is normal. Any normal white man or woman.

That is who White nationalism represents, potentially. We fight for white normals with the other groups—the jew-left, and the jew-right. The jew-left relies on its sheer power, rather than its persuasive ability. Its ideas are, after all, directly opposed to the ideas and interests of the average white man. But it can use public schools and mass media and political authority to mislead him as to this fact. The right is more attractive to this average man because its ideas are either right or less obviously wrong. What’s not obvious is what you have to listen to me to learn, or take decades discovering—even where the professional right is right it doesn’t mean it. It won’t fight over anything essential. Starting with race. And pretty much ending there too. Because if you don’t believe that racial difference exist and matter then you’re too dumb to figure in politics beyond serving as someone’s fodder. And if you are smart enough to see that they do, yet you still won’t lead or fight, you’re likewise irrelevant.

So the right has written itself out of the equation, from the Realpolitik perspective. But it still exists as powerful media and political machine. It’s just that its agenda is not what it seems. Rather than protecting and advancing certain principles, even if imperfectly, it has instead changed into a simple money-making scheme. What’s advanced and defended are individual careers, not peoples (races) or positions. Republicans and conservatives are mouthers. They don’t mean. White nationalism is the only school that can mean it. But most people aren’t even aware that it exists. Except in Greece!

Glad to see you joining the fight, Greggy. The next step in your intellectual maturation is to quit pretending the “alternative” or “radical traditionalist” or non-respectable conservatives are any different from the regular ones. I’ll check back in 2018.

I have argued that homosexual marriage is an unimportant issue from the point of view of white demographics. The most important thing to do to increase white fertility and improve white parenting is to strengthen marriage and decrease non-reproductive sex among heterosexuals. I have also argued that the gay marriage issue is being promoted by the phony Right as a distraction from far more important issues. But I am not going to deal with the merits of demerits of homosexual marriage as a policy, because I need to devote more reading and thought to the matter. I do, however, want to end this piece by at least raising the possibility of a society that combines “heteronormativity” with tolerance.

The right didn’t pick that fight, the left did. The professional right accurately saw it as a way to raise money. It’s the leftist media setting the agenda, after all. I love how you continue to think you can just pick and choose your fights rather than fighting on all fronts at all times. And if you disagree, remember it’s your ilk who doesn’t want to force the enemy into a head and call that head jews. Which, after all, fits. Is accurate. There is no term, certainly, more accurate than jews, and only Englishmen who will be thrown in prison if they say otherwise say otherwise.

The only real way to maintain high standards is to recognize that people will fall short of them in some ways. That means a certain amount of latitude and tolerance. A society that cannot tolerate deviation from its norms will inevitably lower its standards to make it easier for more people to comply. And the end of that process is complete nihilism, for if integrity to one’s values is the highest value, in the end, it will be one’s only value. For the easiest way to insure perfect integrity and to make hypocrisy impossible is to value nothing but being oneself at the present moment, i.e., to collapse any difference between the real and the ideal, to affirm that whatever happens to be real at any given moment is the ideal. In short, the only way to always practice what one preaches is to preach nothing but one practices. And that boils down to doing whatever one feels like from moment to moment, a kind of groundless self-affirmation which is pretty much the moral and cultural dead end toward which liberalism is leading.

This wouldn’t be a problem in a society without a gigantic government involved in every detail of personal life. Who do you think is promoting queerness? Government and media. It’s not coming from the grassroots. It’s a top-down phenomenon. People support homosexuality and talk like it’s a good thing out of conformity or fear. Not because they actually like and support.

Most of them honestly don’t even know what faggotry truly is, since, after all, they aren’t fags. Where are they going to learn the truth about faggotry? From sex education? From fag depictions on prime-time tv? From the newspapers? From politicians? The whole thing is a giant charade, proof only of the power of the tiny minority setting the national agenda. Put the nation on a stable racial basis, reduce the role of central government to collective racial defense, watch the homosexual issue (issue is jewspeak for problem) disappear.

Why can’t we have a society in which parents of homosexual children say, “We’re sorry that you are not going to give us grandchildren. It is a misfortune. But we still love you as our flesh and blood, and we know you will still be a good son to us, a good brother to your siblings, and a good uncle to your nieces and nephews”? Why can’t we have a society in which homosexuals accept that they fall short of the norm, rather than tearing down norms merely to feel good about themselves? Why can’t we have a society in which homosexuals are grateful to the heterosexuals who gave them life and glad that others are carrying on their families and their race as a whole? I believe that there are already quite a few people who think this way. But their voices are not being heard.

It’s more subtle than that: whatever good homosexuals can do, and there is much, can be done best if they are objects of average-man hatred and ridicule. Homosexuals flourish, in their various talents, when their actors are locked in the closet. Keep it on the down low, as the niggers say. That’s how you do it. Have your bars. Have your places. But not publicly acknowledged. Accept some cop busts. Accept executions where you show any interest in those under eighteen. If you want to go public, then you ought to be charged for the diseases you create and spread with your behavior. And once those are acknowledged, it’s a very tiny step to the case that anyone with these proclivities is so dangerous that he ought simply to be executed as a botch that potentially threatens public health.