On Jared Taylor

Before I start the arid task of arranging today’s post on the Kriminalgeschichte series, I’d like to say something about this interview:

Taylor perfectly exemplifies what we call secular Christianity. Although he now holds a secular worldview, as a child his parents moved to Japan to convert the heathen. As I have experienced religious introjects coming from my parents (and written a lot about it in Spanish), I know there’s always a residual tail that cannot be erased.

Regarding Kevin MacDonald’s admitting a Jew as a contributor, in the latest podcast I told Walsh that more than an Aryan problem I see it as a Christian problem, in the sense of what we are calling ‘secular Christianity’. Like MacDonald, Taylor also seems to subscribe universal love, which includes Jews and non-whites: something absent in pre-Christian Europe.

What bothered me about the interview is that Taylor said that those at his right blame all Jews, completely ignoring William Pierce’s point that even if only ten percent of the kike forest is poisonous for us, the problem is the whole forest. Hasn’t Taylor read Pierce’s article? (Visualise it with the other Semitic tribe that’s infecting the West, Muslims, and you’ll get Pierce’s point.)

Taylor went further to say that he does not like much the term ‘white nationalism’ because it evokes the violence needed to create an ethnostate, and that he’s against any kind of violence coming from us! He added he’s prepared to admit some non-whites in the Aryan ethnostate precisely because he doesn’t want ethnic cleansing!

I didn’t listen the whole interview. But I am sure very few visitors of my site will comprehend the need of continuing the instalments of Deschner’s book for an in-depth analysis of what went wrong with the white psyche. Just think about it: big leaders of our movement hold views that would have been unthinkable for pre-Christian Europeans.

Linder reads ‘Hunter’

Alex Linder reads Pierce’s Hunter in five sessions. If you have not read the novel you might consider listening to it. The dialogues between the novel’s two main characters are incredibly perceptive as to the whys of white decline. Linder of course reads it in English (this pic is from the German translation of the book).

Published in: on November 10, 2017 at 12:00 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags:

Spencer’s shortcomings

Chris, Evan McLaren, Daniel Friberg and Richard Spencer recently gathered in a podcast to talk.

Spencer takes no sides on the Second World War around minute 10. Indignantly, he says that he has never denied the Jewish holocaust. Of course, he does not mention the true Holocaust perpetrated on Germans. (I repeat what I asked on October 19th: Anyone rich enough to send Spencer a copy of Tom Goodrich’s Hellstorm?) He said that in spite of the fact that the Polish government, influenced by Jews, has threatened to ban Spencer from entering Europe for another three years.

What I find bothersome is that Black Pigeon Speaks, who is not even Alt-Right but Alt Lite, gets that the demonising of Germany is at the very root of the West’s darkest hour. Spencer still doesn’t get it.

Later, before minute 20, Spencer continues to believe in his pan-European ideology with no feuds between white nations and continues to imply that all European nations are just equal. ‘The last thing I’d support is German supremacy’ said Spencer. Remember the recent post ‘Against Spencer el al’: ‘Why should anyone care about preserving Polish or Croatian identity if their impact on world history is negligible? How does that advance the interests of Aryan man?’

After minute 50 Spencer said, ‘It is not about…connecting our movement with German National Socialism. It’s really about the opposite of that: it’s about making it new’. The new thing Spencer has in mind is a grotesque pigmy if we compare it with German National Socialism. Seven minutes later he said that NS imagery is ‘never going to appeal…’ completely ignoring what Rockwell said before he was born (more recently iterated by Iron March).

Similarly, Andrew Anglin complained yesterday about optics and even embedded a rant by William Pierce in his article.

I rarely criticise Pierce but in this case I must side Arthur Kemp’s critique when we talked in England: Pierce’s big mistake was not forming a political party. How comfortable for Pierce and Anglin! This is the same Anglin who never goes to the rallies.

Edwin’s arrows


 

On Guillaume Faye

Guillaume Faye outlines a compelling vision to the immigration problem in the last chapter of his book Archeo-Futurism. This is presented in the form of a utopian dream, and should be seen in part as a reaction against the doom and gloom despair of the French New Right. I might also add that fiction has the added utility of allowing a French writer to advocate more extreme solutions and avoid hate speech laws.

The basic narrative is straightforward enough, if short on details. Sometime in the mid-twenty first century, due to a series of environmental disasters and resource shortages, Europe is plunged into a series of internecine wars. America is gripped in an endless series of race riots and is unable to help. Into this chaos, Russia sends an army of liberators to restore order.

What follows afterwards is reminiscent of the more visceral moments of William Pierce’s Turner Diaries. Native Europeans regain a sense of their identity. A Nietzschean hypermorality is realized. The vast majority of non-whites are summarily liquidated over the course of a few months. The handful of non-white survivors are forcibly shipped en masse to the remote island of Madagascar.

A new European Imperium is created out of the ashes of the Old Europe. Picture an empire with explicit inequality enshrined in law, an agrarian paradise with a small bureaucratic elite lording over a continent of hobbits. Faye is obviously borrowing heavily from the American writer Francis Parker Yockey.

Curiously, Faye is dismissive of America, seeing it as a separate entity—culturally, spiritually, historically—from Europe. Indeed, America is seen as an occupying power, imposing its grotesque lifestyle and values on Europeans. It could even be said that a new European Renaissance requires the death of everything American, including America itself. I sense a certain amount of schadenfreude in Faye when he describes an American continent in a state of mass starvation with race riots in every major city.

But who can blame Faye in wanting to write off America as a lost cause? The white nationalists have a far more nebulous ephemeral definition of identity than their European ancestors (i.e., if a man gets a stamp certifying his whiteness then he is my brother is how your average WN reasons). Then there is the feminism, the patriotards, the rock music, the culture, the greed, the degeneracy, the conservatives… the problems never seem to end.

Faye is dead wrong, however, on the Jewish question. He regards the Jews as a part of the European social fabric and is a rabid supporter of Israel. Just like Jared Taylor, Faye believes that European Jewry will come around to his way of thinking. Indeed, Jews are a well integrated minority in Faye’s Imperium. This is simply unacceptable.

Just as problematic is Faye’s biological concept of a European. It’s clear in his writings that he makes no distinction between North and South, Mediterranean or Nordic, Germanic or Slav. Faye would have you believe that very limited racial mixing has taken place in Spain, Portugal, and Italy. Just close your eyes and pretend that all the Europeans living from Lisbon to Vladisvostok are pure White. Of course many white nationalists share this delusion. In Europe, the sand nigger from Malta, Norman Lowell and the Finn, Kai Murros, peddle similar nonsense.

What to make of Faye? I am rather ambivalent here. Not a good writer or a bad writer. His ideas need to be taken with a ton of salt.
 

On Tom Sunic

There is a distinct dualism in Sunic. An abyss between the radical and respectable that is not easily reconcilable.

There is Sunic as the erudite scholar, translator and academic. His two books Against Democracy and Equality and Homo Americanus are the most eloquent critiques of America from a European New Right perspective I have read. There is a sense of nobility, aristocracy, refinement, taste, beauty and greatness. I must admit that it was Sunic who first introduced me to the potency of National Socialist scholarship; and the importance of incorporating pre-Christian pre-Socratic pagan writings in European consciousness. Fundamentally, I see nothing wrong with him as a writer.

Then there is Sunic as the political imbecile. The man who promotes the path of “non-violence”, of kosher country club reactionary conservatism, of democratic demagoguery, of “taking back” the US, of endless qualifications, of the lowest common denominator, of outright craven cowardice: the American Freedom Party.
 

On Arthur Kemp

Kemp is the most outspoken public figure I noticed who advocates the desperate Orania-style solution (isolated Aryan outposts) in his book Nova Europa: European Survival Strategies.

Kemp’s solution is only viable if you agree with Alain de Benoist and much of the French New Right (Faye excluded) that it’s far too late to achieve any success through revolutionary party politics; that some sort of political accommodation with the hordes of non-whites now invading Europe like a swarm of locusts will have to be made.

I read the above mentioned book after being very impressed by March of the Titans. I came away bitterly disappointed. He’s actually one of the few men out there who has an accurate view of history yet he won’t fight.
 

On WN feminists

They accept every single triumph of the left on the woman question as a fait accompli. Covington is a prime example of this.
 

On Johnson et al

Johnson, Spencer, Sunic and other white nationalists retain traces of conservatism, a belief that a perfect argument exists that can convince Whites to suddenly “wake up”; that the correct presentation of the “facts”, on whatever issue, will make a difference to the wider culture at large; that only ignorance has prevented otherwise decent and level headed Whites from taking action thus far. Hence, the endless multiplication of essays, speeches and conferences. The post-modern radical suffers from a singular blindness: that action and words are the same thing.

The problem with Johnson and others of similar ilk is that they think winning can be done without a drop of blood being spilled. No one needs to dirty his hands by engaging in street politics. No one needs to get hurt. No one needs to die. All that is needed is a quiet infiltration of the existing institutions with men sympathetic to our views, and a bloodless counter-revolution will happen.

White survival can only be properly understood as a war, without any rules of conduct. We are not dealing with an opponent that understands the concept of fair play. There will be no smooth transition of power. Should it not be obvious by now that all pro-white groups active in America are harmless?
 

On Francis Parker Yockey

Yockey, like Julius Evola, held to a spiritual conception of race which he believed to be more important than the biological. Already in the 30s he observed white Americans behaving like blacks and Jews. He did not object to clever non-whites immigrating to America as long as they assimilated into white society.

Imperium is a clever eloquent mish-mash of Lamark, Spengler, Schmitt, Haushofer, National Socialism, and even trace elements of Catholic Scholasticism. Yockey wanted to “prove” that a “Germanic” European aristocratic element existed within America. He is not your garden variety white nationalist patriotard (hence his popularity), but the book is a failure.

But I agree with you: universalist religions like Christianity have no use for a purely biological conception of race. White Nationalists are deluded in this and Linder is correct that one must choose a side.
 

On Revilo Oliver

I take two important lessons from Oliver that most white nationalists would do well to heed:

1) A contempt for everything supernatural and conspiratorial. There is no “god” out there looking after the interests of Whites and ready to rescue them at the last moment. There is nothing written on the stars or in the book of life that says Whites must survive. Whites are as beholden to the laws of the universe as all the other animals. And the universe does not know “mercy” when confronted with degeneracy. (Some white nationalists envision a “Mad Max” scenario in which a system collapse presages a mass racial “awakening”. But this assumption is without hard evidence and a mass extinction is just as likely. That is, no political movement can guarantee victory.)

2) A disgust for the ordinary White American, the “ordinary Joe”. Whites are to be saved for sake of the handful who are wise, beautiful, noble, and strong. The white working class has no value apart from the few who are culture creators; they are to be treated as raw material by those who lead. To put it bluntly: most whites are not intellectually or physically impressive.

In my view, white nationalists should see Oliver as a source of inspiration. Will this happen? I highly doubt it.
 

On women

Reading this article reminds me of a passage written by William G. Simpson in his book, Towards the Rising Sun:

There is hardly one man in a thousand who will not put aside his ideals, his highest vision, everything which for him is God, in order to get the girl he loves or to be able to stay with the girl he has married. Moreover, there are all the ways which the wiles of woman have with a man. Nietzsche said, “Women always intrigue privately against the higher souls of their husbands,” and as a generalization his statement is true. And such must most women be.

For, again speaking generally, the instinct in man is to create, and the instinct in woman is to procreate. She is more physical than man, lives closer to the earth, and, naturally and justly since to her is committed the continuation of the race, once she is with child she is almost certain to be overwhelmed with a veritable tidal wave of sheer biological concern for security. And a reasonable degree of security both she and the child ought to have. And if you as would-be creator feel that you cannot do your work and provide that security, then you had better simply refrain from marrying.

Sadly, the numerous absurdities written by women and their male sycophants in the white nationalist movement to rationalize (encourage) weakness does not inspire much confidence.

A man’s focus is to create. A woman’s focus is to procreate. Nietzsche said, “Practically all problems a woman encounters can be solved by one solution: pregnancy.”

Of course we can imagine outliers or exceptions. Savitri Devi is known to have written: “I cannot love any man that chooses me over his ideals.” But Linder is correct in writing somewhere that such women are one in a hundred thousand…
 

On overmen

Nietzschean morality requires that superior men surrender all hope of personal gain for the sake of the cause: fame, money, wealth, respectability, hope for an afterlife, even a normal family life if need be. If they can die for the cause, living in penury if need be is mild by comparison. The German Idealists already pointed out that sincere authentic “virtue” requires a man to have no possibility for personal gain. Otherwise, what is the whole point of this struggle if whites merely end up as spiritual semites (inner Jews)?

Very few American Whites grasp this. Pierce and David Lane being the notable exceptions.

Hermann

As some of you already know, I am moving the posts from the Addenda to this site respecting the original date when they first appeared in the Addenda.

Today it was the turn of William Pierce’s chapter on Hermann (a.k.a. Arminius by the ancient Romans).

Hermann is one of the central heroes of the Aryan race. When I met Arthur Kemp, the historian of the white race, in a nice English town far from the mongrelising cities, he told me that Hermann’s life is ideal for an epic film.

Alas, whites have become so alienated from their history that presently we see film reviews of Blade Runner 2049 in Counter Currents (one of the writers of Blade Runner 2049’s screenplay, Michael Green, is a New York kike). The deracinated racists of today are apparently consuming the same junk culture that the average normie consumes. None of the main white nationalist sites has a substantial contact with their long history of heroes, all mentioned in Pierce’s Who We Are.

Nationalists are still living in the Christian era, even the secular ones. We need a new pagan Era. Tomorrow I’ll resume my excerpts of Karlheinz Deschner’s massive history on criminal Christianity. The New Aryan, he who has rejected the Levantine religion, should treasure Pierce’s book as one of the five must-reads if he’s going to recover his ancient lands.

Three-eyed raven, 8

Indented paragraph is taken from Who We Are by William Pierce:

The hard lesson taught by the different results of the European colonization of North America, Latin America, Australia, New Zealand, India, and southern Africa is that the only type of colonization with lasting significance is racial colonization; and that racial colonization can succeed only when Whites are willing and able to clear the land of non-White inhabitants and keep it clear.

Note: The above quotation of Pierce’s book is contextualized in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (available: here).

Published in: on September 28, 2017 at 12:04 pm  Comments (2)  

The Scorpion and the Frog

by William Pierce

I was a guest on the Bob Grant Show in New York last week. Bob Grant’s talk radio show is enormously popular with his White male audience, despite his rough treatment of some of his guests and many of his callers. A typical comment to a caller who displeases him is, “Get off the line, you jerk!” He once told a Black welfare mother, “If I ever get hold of you, I’ll give you a tubal ligation with my bare hands!”

As I said, comments of this sort make Bob Grant enormously popular with his White male listeners, but the Jews and their bedwetting liberal fellow travelers find him much less entertaining, and he has been thrown off several stations as a consequence of Jewish threats against his sponsors. Despite this Jewish hostility directed at him and despite his frequent ridicule of Blacks, he always has been favorable in his remarks about Jews—perhaps because he knows who owns most of the radio stations, or perhaps because he just doesn’t understand what Jews are all about and admires their success and the power they wield over his own profession.

His attitude may be changing for the better now, however. Despite my reputation as being no friend of the Jews, Bob Grant was quite cordial toward me. The hour I was his guest was the afternoon rush hour for New York commuters, and there were many calls from listeners. I am pleased to report that at least three-quarters of the callers were favorable to my positions on race and on Jews. The few Jewish callers, of course, were intensely hostile, and their hostility made a noticeable contrast with the friendliness of the non-Jewish callers. One Jew who called in wanted to know why I blame the Jews for the bias of the news and entertainment media. It’s not the Jews who should be blamed, he said, but the shareholders of the media companies: the Jewish media bosses just do what the shareholders tell them to do.

Well, I responded by pointing out that the top Jewish media bosses also are in many cases the dominant shareholders in the media companies, and I gave Sumner Redstone as an example. Redstone is the majority shareholder in his Viacom Corporation, which in turn owns MTV, Paramount Pictures, and CBS. I described MTV as being the most destructive of all media influences on young, White Americans. I said that MTV deliberately and consistently encourages miscegenation. I said that this racially destructive policy is Sumner Redstone’s policy, not that of any anonymous shareholders, that it is a Jewish policy, and that it is the same policy as that of every other Jewish media boss. I was prepared to go on and talk about Michael Eisner and the Disney Company and ABC, and about Miramax and the Weinstein brothers, and about a lot of others, but Bob Grant disconnected that particular Jewish caller.

Then Bob Grant said to me: “I don’t understand. You said that Sumner Redstone and the other Jewish media bosses are deliberately trying to destroy our society. Why would they want to do that? They are rich and powerful and influential. This society has been good to them. Why would they want to destroy it? That doesn’t make sense to me.”

That was the question he asked me, and it was a very reasonable question. It was the question that almost any intelligent, honest person might ask in those circumstances. It was the natural question to ask: Why do the Jews want to destroy a society that has been so good to them—especially the richest and most powerful Jews? One can imagine some embittered Jewish cab driver or office clerk wanting to strike out at Gentile society because he is resentful over the fact that he can’t seem to strike it rich like the more fortunate members of his tribe, but why would those who are riding high—billionaire Jews such as Sumner Redstone and Michael Eisner—want to wreck the system from which they are profiting?

When Bob Grant asked me that question, I wished he hadn’t. I knew the answer, and it is a simple answer, but it’s not the sort of answer one wants to give to people who are driving home through rush-hour traffic. It is simple, but it also is profound. One needs to hear the answer and then to think about it carefully for a month, turning it over in one’s mind, thinking of specific examples, trying to find counter-examples, holding it up to the light of one’s knowledge of history, before one finally says to oneself, “Yes, that’s it. That obviously is why the Jews do what they do and always have done.” It takes a month of digesting the answer before one finally assimilates it and believes it and understands it. Rush-hour traffic is not the right environment for that sort of thing.

The answer, in its simplest form, to Bob Grant’s question is this: Jews do what they do because they are Jews.

A more didactic answer, and the one I actually gave on the Bob Grant Show last week, is one you probably have heard from me already if you’ve been listening to many of my broadcasts. Here’s what I said to Bob Grant: The Jews, throughout their entire recorded history, have lived as a minority among other people. That’s their typical modus vivendi: not living among themselves in a Jewish society, but living as a small minority—usually a rich and powerful minority—in a non-Jewish society. Israel today is an exception to this pattern, but Israel is an anomaly, something that has existed for only 50 years out of the last 2000 years, and even today it encompasses only a small minority of the world’s Jews. Most of them live in the so-called “Diaspora” as members of a Jewish minority in the midst of a Gentile society.

When the Jews approach a healthy, homogeneous Gentile society with the aim of infiltrating it, they are looked upon as outsiders, as aliens, and regarded with suspicion—and often with hostility if their reputation has preceded them. Facing such suspicion the Jews find it very difficult to gain power or influence so that they can exploit the society.

Their way of dealing with this obstacle is to undermine the solidarity of the Gentile society: to destroy its homogeneity, to attack its morality and its traditions, to encourage alienation among its young people. They do everything they can to make the society more “diverse,” more multicultural, more cosmopolitan, more rootless, more atomized. This is a slow process, often continuing for several generations, but as it proceeds the society’s barriers against the Jews crumble. Ultimately it allows the Jews to control and then plunder the society, to suck it dry before moving on to another Gentile society and beginning a similar process anew.

That’s essentially what I said on the Bob Grant Show last week, although I’m sure that the phrasing I used was a little different. And as I said a moment ago, even though my answer is simple and straightforward, it’s not likely to be fully digested by someone listening to his car radio while trying to get home in rush-hour traffic. It’s a statement of fact, but it needs to be substantiated with a lot of detailed explanation, with many concrete examples, in order to be convincing. What I’ll do now is try to provide some of the explanation and some of the concrete facts.

First, let’s look at what I said about the Jews being a tribe of perpetual outsiders. This is a notion many people who look only at the here and now have difficulty believing. They say to me, “Hey! The Jews aren’t outsiders. They’re as thoroughly integrated into the American melting pot as anyone. They are in every facet of American business and professional and cultural and political life. They own stores of every sort. They buy and sell every type of merchandise. They may not be farmers or welders or machinists or carpenters, but they are doctors and dentists and lawyers and teachers and writers and artists and musicians. They are politicians. There are ten of them in the U.S. Senate, four times as many as one would expect from their percentage of the overall population. There are even two of them on the Supreme Court, which is about nine times what one would expect, since they make up only 2.5 per cent of the general population. So how can you call them outsiders?”

That’s the sort of response I’ve sometimes had from people who are able to see only the present situation. The historical record, however, shows something quite different. It shows the Jews worming their way into one country in Europe after another, gradually monopolizing certain sectors of the economy and then using their monopoly to exploit the Gentile population, and eventually being expelled en masse when their depredations cause sufficient public unrest.

An example is England. The Jews entered England in the wake of the Norman conquest, purchased various privileges and trade monopolies from the ruling monarchs, and made themselves thoroughly unpopular. By the latter part of the 13th century the people of England had become so exasperated with the Jews that in 1290 King Edward the Great expelled all of them from his realm and forbade them ever to return. One might think that they wouldn’t want to go back to a place where they had become so unpopular, but they couldn’t stand the idea of all those Gentiles going unfleeced, and they never stopped scheming to get back in. It wasn’t until Oliver Cromwell and his forces had overthrown the monarchy in the middle of the 17th century, however, that they were permitted to return to England.

They also were run out of virtually every other country in Europe—several times from some of them—but they always were looking for opportunities to sneak back in and return to their old depredations. They especially welcomed the upheavals and dislocations accompanying wars and revolutions because these gave them opportunities to gain footholds in places from which public hostility or the law had excluded them. During the Napoleonic Wars at the beginning of the 19th century Jews followed Napoleon’s armies into many places from which they previously had been barred.

Usually they didn’t have to wait for a war, however: typically they would depend upon the natural tolerance of their hosts to get a toe in the door, and then they would work slowly and patiently to push that tolerance beyond all limits. They always have had an uncanny instinct for sniffing out their hosts’ natural weaknesses and vices and then using them to break down the society’s discipline and order, thereby making it possible for them to enlarge their toehold and gain more influence. Thus, the Jews always have had a proclivity for the liquor business, casinos and other gambling activity, prostitution, the White slave trade, pornography, and the like. It is no coincidence that for many years the Jewish Bronfman family owned the biggest producer and distributor of liquor in North America, the Seagram Company. There are many non-Jews involved in the hotel business around the country, but in Las Vegas, where gambling is so intimately associated with hotels, the business is completely dominated by Jews. In the booming new business of Internet pornography, the biggest operator, the so-called “Bill Gates of e-porn,” is a nice, Jewish boy named Seth Warshavsky, who owns clublove.com and many other of the largest pornography sites.

And so it goes. They find their way to whatever corrupts and weakens their hosts, to whatever is morally destructive, to whatever makes their hosts forget their own traditions and values. They attack order and discipline: those things are no fun, those things are old-fashioned, those things are not cool, they tell the young people. They ridicule the concepts of personal honor and personal responsibility. They distract the people from the important things and fill their minds with foolishness. They encourage every alienating tendency, every tendency that separates people from their roots. They preach “tolerance” as the supreme virtue: their hosts should be tolerant of every sort of filth and weakness and perversity. And all the while they worm their way into the host society more and more deeply.

And indeed, in America today they are in very, very deep. At the beginning of the last century there were signs in the lobbies of New York’s better hotels: “Jews Are Not Welcome.” The better universities had quotas to keep the Jewish presence from becoming too obtrusive. The Jews were pushy, unpleasant outsiders. But they kept on pushing, kept on breaking down the order and structure in the society that was trying in a very feeble and excessively civilized way to keep them out, and today, no less pushy and unpleasant than a century ago, they seem to have achieved the status of insiders everywhere.

And so one might ask, as Bob Grant did, why, having become privileged insiders, are they still bent on destroying our society? Why do even the richest and most powerful Jews—Jews such as Sumner Redstone and Michael Eisner—who have access to anything in our society they want, still work day and night to corrupt and degrade us? Why, having wormed their way in, do all of them push for increasing the flood of non-Whites into the United States from the Third World, thereby weakening their own position? Why do they still encourage our young girls to have sex with Blacks, thereby generating hatred against themselves? Why, having gotten so much of our wealth and power into their hands, don’t they strive to strengthen our society instead of continuing to destroy it?

Well, there are several reasons for that, but let me again give you the simplest answer, which also is the most profound answer: Jews do what they do because they are Jews.

Do you remember the old fable about the scorpion and the frog? The scorpion wants to cross a stream, but he can’t swim. He sees a frog and asks the frog to carry him across on the frog’s back. The frog says, “No, I don’t trust you. I’ve heard about how treacherous scorpions are. I’m afraid that if I let you get on my back you’ll sting me.” The scorpion replies, “Why should I do that? That wouldn’t be in my interest. If I sting you, then we’ll both drown.”

So the frog agrees to let the scorpion get on his back and begins swimming across the stream. Halfway across, the scorpion stings the frog. As the frog is dying and beginning to sink, he asks, “Why did you do that? Now we’ll both die.” The scorpion answers, “I couldn’t help myself. It is in my nature to sting.” And it is in the nature of the Jews to deceive and to destroy. That is what they always have done, from the days of ancient Egypt to the present, and it is what they will continue to do as long as they continue to exist as a coherent, self-conscious group.

Now, there also are longer answers to the question, for those who aren’t ready yet to accept the profound answer. Many ethnic groups came to America from Europe and at first were considered as outsiders but sooner or later became insiders, and the interests of the majority became their interests. In a sense every group that didn’t come here from Great Britain began as outsiders. The German mercenaries from Hessen who fought for King George and stayed here after the American Revolution very quickly became insiders. The Irish, the Poles, and the Italians all went through a similar evolution. Why is it so different with the Jews—aside from the fact that their roots are not European but are Middle Eastern?

For one thing these other groups, the non-Jewish groups, never had deceit and destruction as their primary tactics for becoming insiders. These tactics are not part of their history. Their aim was to become part of the society, not to break it up so that they could exploit it more easily. This difference is manifested in the difference in self-image between non-Jews and Jews. Every healthy ethnic or racial group has a distinct sense of group identity and a distinct self-image. The Scots and the English, for example, have distinct self-images, with their own distinct ancestral languages, their own historical traditions and customs and so on. But despite their history of conflict and hostility toward one another in Europe, either group can blend into the other and adopt the other’s interests without difficulty.

The Jews are different in both degree and kind. For one thing they are much more strongly ethnocentric than any other group. Look in the Yellow Pages under the heading “associations” in any large American city. Compare the number of Jewish associations or clubs or societies or organizations with those of the Irish or the Germans or the Poles. Of course, you also must have some idea of what percentage of the city’s population is Jewish or Irish or whatever in order to get a meaningful comparison. For the best statistics, go to a library that has a copy of the Encyclopedia of Associations. Jews make up just 2.5 per cent of the population of the United States, and yet you will find more Jewish associations listed than for any other ethnic or religious group. They do stick together and support each other more than the members of any other group.

The Jews also are different in kind. What is the essential element in being a Jew? It is being “chosen.” It is believing that one is a member of a tribe or a race or a people that has been chosen by their tribal god to inherit the earth and all that’s in it. It is being superior to all who have not been chosen. If you are able to read the Old Testament with an open mind, the message there is quite clear. If you want more detail, read their Talmud. They don’t like for you to go poking around in their Talmud, but if you are reasonably resourceful you can find a set of volumes of the Talmud and read what they think about themselves in contrast to non-Jews. If that’s too much trouble for you, there are other books available—books written by race-conscious Jews themselves—that spell it out for you. My sponsor, National Vanguard Books, carries several such books.

The book You Gentiles, by the Jewish leader Maurice Samuel, is excellent for a start. Then there are the very revealing books on the doctrines and practice of Judaism by Israeli Professor Israel Shahak. And there are dozens of other books, many of them written by Jews themselves, that can help you in digesting and assimilating what I told Bob Grant last week.

But most fundamentally the Jew, like the scorpion and every other creature, does what it is in his nature to do. He has always lived not by settling down on a piece of turf of his own and planting his own crops and building his own house, but rather by breaking into someone else’s house. And once in he doesn’t try to repair the damage he did by breaking in, but he continues to cause more and more damage as he loots everything of value and then, when there is nothing of value remaining, finding another house to break into—and then another—and another. That is his nature.

And, I should add, there is hardly a more important thing for any of us to do now than understand why the Jews are pushing our society over the brink of ruin, and then to oppose them by every means possible.

__________________________

Free Speech
July 2001
Volume VII, Number 7

Published in: on September 27, 2017 at 11:51 am  Comments (1)  

Three-eyed raven, 7

“The Sanskrit word for caste is varna, which literally means color. The lighter the skin color, the higher the caste.”

 
The Sanskrit literature of the ancient Aryans is filled with references to the distaste the Nordic conquerors felt for the dark, flat-nosed natives. Poets referred to the dasyus as “the noseless ones” and “the blackskins.” One poet wrote, “Destroying the dasyus, Indra (the ancient Aryan god of the sky, cognate with the Hellenic Zeus and Roman Jupiter, head of the Aryan pantheon prior to the rise of Brahmanism) protected the Aryan color.” According to another poet, “Indra protected in battle the Aryan worshipper… he conquered the blackskin.” And still another: “He (Indra) beat the dasyus as is his wont… He conquered the land with his white friends”…

But, nevertheless, the Aryans are gone forever. All their initial determination and all the rigidity of the caste system were insufficient to prevent a mixing of genes over the span of thirty-five centuries… It is also what is happening to Aryan America and Aryan Europe today.

________________

Editor’s Note: The moral of this story is that Aryans must either expel every single non-white from the conquered lands or exterminate them; and to do that one must first reject Christian ethics and start thinking like the Hebrews of the book of Joshua.

The above quotations of William Pierce’s book are contextualized in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (available: here). If life permits, next week I will add another passage from the pen of the American ‘Raven’.

Published in: on September 21, 2017 at 10:43 am  Comments (9)  

Axiological revisionism

‘Whenever referring to modern history the line is drawn: we live in the post-war period. For the most part the lines on the maps, the institutions and more importantly how we define our era as a society—all find their origins in World War II’ said a vlogger in a video I embedded here last Thursday.

I hope I’ll have the textual transcript of the whole audio by the weekend. It is pivotal to understand the current evil paradigm that has been destroying the white race since I was a child.

It is so important actually that I must reiterate what I have said elsewhere: Getting the record straight about what really happened in that war should be #1 priority in racialist circles. And getting the record straight about what really was National Socialism should be equally prioritised.

As far as I know Carolyn Yeager is the only one that theoretically has this approach. But she’s a woman, and as she has made it perfectly clear, she doesn’t want to be associated with my ‘extremism, i.e., murder and mayhem, Viking style’. I cannot blame Carolyn as white nationalist males are as distant from Himmler’s SS as is this woman.

These tweets by Young White Family hit the nail:

‘The WN meme that the Nazis dindu nuffin and dindu mass grave killings is ridiculous and goes against the violent attitude we need to have.’

‘100 Dylan Roofs and the JewSA would crumble. 100,000 peaceful whiners and enemies are still laughing at us.’

‘Nearly every White Nationalist info source is cleverly scripted towards re-pacifying Whites into the Christian, pro “justice system” fold.’

‘So sick of the whining and aggrandizement of Jews like they’re supermen. It’s White traitors and our own weakness that’s the main problem.’

‘There’s enough WNs right now to take down the system if they had balls, not blogs.’

‘White people won’t be saved by YouTube videos. It’s going to take White men who kill enemies and cause more ppl to fear them than the gov’t.’

‘If WNs operated more like ISIS instead of complaining about them, we’d be noteworthy, and not a pathetic bunch of politicking wannabes.’

‘Wahhh, you support genocide, you’re anti-White and bad’ – said the WN fag pussy. Whites won’t survive if they don’t genocide non-Whites.

An axiological soulmate! Conversely, in ‘Against Vantardism’ Hunter Wallace published a pic of Dylan Roof as an example of a ‘vanatrdist’. But the only retarded here are those nationalists who simply cannot grasp the truth in the sentence ‘A hundred Dylan Roofs and the JewSA would crumble. 100,000 peaceful whiners and our enemies are still laughing at us.’

Don’t take me wrong. I am not advocating violence right now because I am certain that the dollar will crash and, when it does, the System will start to crumble. Even William Pierce did not recommend violence to his listeners, though he never condemned it either (see for example what Pierce wrote about Bob Mathews).

Wallace’s stance is refuted in this video, where he was constantly interrupted by the crying of a child. But of course: these guys admit women with small children in their conferences! Compare them not only with the real Nazis but with the white warriors of yore.

Today’s nationalists are still thinking like civilians, not as freedom fighters. But going back to the point I was making at the beginning of this entry, last October a Counter-Currents article advised ‘Not Starting with Revisionism’.

gulagThe exact opposite is the truth. As I have said many times, if Anglo-Saxons don’t atone for the Holocaust they committed on the Germans, their little race will go extinct. A good starting point for anti-Nazi normies who still gravitate around the current narrative about the Second World War is this abridged book.

Two novels

Yesterday I watched a popular video with Ben Shapiro sitting beside a trans-man who claims he’s a woman. Samantha Schacher, host of Pop Trigger, said that we should expand our inclusiveness and compassion to these machos that pose as women.

This morning I had to pick up a bill from a hospital. Since the parking lot is expensive I parked the car a few blocks away from the hospital and the walking gave me the opportunity for a little soliloquy about the video in which, by the way, the muscular tranny threatened skinny Shapiro with violence as the latter said that transgenderism is a mental disorder.

But what made me think was Samantha’s impassioned speech that we should start mainstreaming transgenderism.

This is the conclusion of my peripatetic self-conversation: Women are, biologically, sexual objects. Just look at the fairest specimens of Homo sapiens and it’s all-too clear that Nature wants that we impregnate them all. Their brain is hard-wired not only to have lots of babies, but to nurture and raise them with empathy.

Once we tell women that they are not objects but ‘souls’ in the Christian and Neo-Christian sense of the term, free-will entities that just happen to inhabit a woman’s body, little women will forfeit Mother Nature by not having babies.

The psychological toll of forfeiting motherhood is apocalyptic. Feminism becomes a weapon of mass destruction not only for the fair race, but for the fair sex as well. For the liberated woman, her hard-wired sense of compassion starts to be transferred onto apparently unprotected humans that are not her own babies. That’s how the Negro and the Homo and the Tranny became like the new babies for the childless woman or even those who, like Samantha, only have one child.

I call the process pathological transference of compassion and presently it is affecting almost all western women, including those feminised males and manly females in white nationalism that are scared of the humorous ‘white sharia’ meme.

The cure for the disease is simple. Forget the white sharia meme for the moment. Use a Western meme instead. Just wait until the convergence of catastrophes makes the holy racial wars possible and the founders of a New Rome will abduct and rape the fairest Sabines as described in David Lane’s novel KD Rebel. (By the way, wouldn’t it be nice if I start publishing Lane’s novel in this site?)

And believe it or not: the pretty Sabines will be the lucky ones. Those who are not fair, e.g. fat women well after their teens and early twenties like Heather Heyer will face justice in the Day of the Rope. To quote Pierce’s novel, ‘There are many thousands of hanging female corpses like that in this city tonight, all wearing identical placards around their necks. They are the White women who were married to or living with Blacks, with Jews, or with other non-White males’.

And thus the feminist problem is solved.